er9x development

er9x is the best known firmware. It has a superb range of features and is well supported by the community. Well worth trying out.
User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: er9x development

Post by Kilrah » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:58 pm

Yep great, thanks! Now if that could "bleed" onto open9x it would be nice too, as it seems to be the one I prefer these days mainly due to the telemetry display... :D


User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:31 pm

Which features of the telemetry display do you prefer. I'm trying to get er9x telemetry display improved, when I get time!.

Mike
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: er9x development

Post by Kilrah » Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:46 pm

Hmm...

Well in the menu the single page with everything together, full text for the options (Range, Offset,..) is more clear IMO.
I prefer the [DOWN LONG] way of accessing telemetry and not having it in the many items to scroll through with [UP] and [DOWN] on the main screen. I also prefer the way open9x does with the "sticks and switches" display, the vertical scroll only gets to the main one, then [LEFT]/[RIGHT] switch between the related secondary screens, er9x has a 3 of them (2 of which might only be useful rarely) in a long 8-item scroll list (by the way in r742 the second timer appears twice?), while open9x has only 4 (gimbal/switch, output bard, output numeric, 2nd timer) so you quickly get to where you need.

Same on the actual telemetry displays, those like GPS and hub are disabled if protocol is not set to "Hub" in the telemetry menu settings, fewer useless screens to scroll through.
The GPS display looks better on open9x, and has useful extra info (Distance, although having a Max distance would be welcome too). However I prefer the min/max RSSI that is visible on ER9X, but not on open9x. open9x keeps the last info displayed on loss of connection, with a small NO DATA somewhere which still allows seeing what happened, while ER9x erases everything to put a big NO DATA all over the screen.
open9x has the analog bars display which some might like, I'm personally not so fond of it.

Both have advantages, but I guess it's just the drawback of having several different firmwares with 90% of the same, but small diffferences which make it pretty much impossible to choose one :D

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:16 pm

The latest er9x sources I put up yesterday have:
DOWN LONG jumps down to the telemetry screen, LEFT and RIGHT move between them. They are, however still where they used to be if you just use UP or DOWN repeatedly.
On loss of data, the LAT and LON remain, but are flashing to indicate they are not updating. Interestingly, it was Bertrand who put the BIG NO DATA up on loss of data!
I've added a bar to show the fuel level, I think it is easier to see for that than some small numbers.
I haven't deliberately made the second timer appear twice, I'll check it out.

Thanks for the info.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
ShowMaster
Posts: 4327
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:44 am
Country: -
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA

Re: er9x development

Post by ShowMaster » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:16 am

Mike,
I think r742 NOHT telemetry screen 9 has an error. The top where the altitude device is selected just has a line of code.
I wasn't sure where to post this so it's in several places.
SM


User avatar
Dimetrio
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:00 am
Country: -
Location: Russia

Re: er9x development

Post by Dimetrio » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:25 am

Hello. First of all, THANK YOU for your great work!)

Couple of words referring to PPM....
16 channels - is brilliant! But all PPM receivers I have ever seen were 8-channel max. So 8 channels added become useless...(?) There was good idea on 2-3 pages of this topic, to transmit 9-16 channels thru trainer port. But this installation requires 2X transmitter modules, 2X receivers and 2X power consumption.
Though, signals transmits without delay...

Maybe better (in PPM "9-and-more-channel" mode) to send 8-..12 channels thru 8 channel in SERIAL? Yes, this is slower in 6 times... (signal refresh rate near 8,3 Hz per channel). What means - slower reaction, sometimes servo twitches while slow proportional stick movement. But for most secondary functions (proportional flaps & other slow mechanization, gears, lights, paratroopers/bombs/rockets actuation...) this speed is enough. Besides, twiches, I think, can be overcome using "repeater" + cycle procedure in onboard decoder.
I will explain a little bit...

In receiver's #8 channel connected decoding module (for example, created on base of ATTiny2313, or evem Tiny13). Like in ordinary PPM system, it "listens" ppm stream and waiting for synchropause. And then...
- 8th CH in 1st PPM package = 8 channel
- 8th CH in 2nd PPM package = 9 channel
- 8th CH in 3rd PPM package = 10 channel
- 8th CH in 4th PPM package = 11 channel
- 8th CH in 5th PPM package = 12 channel
- 8th CH in 6th PPM package = SynchroPause (impulse, longer than any of 5 channles can reach)
- 8th CH in 7th PPM package = 8 channel
- and further all cycle again...

To make this decoding system "vs.failsafe-protected" (situation can occur, after failsafe pause signals from receiver outs continues from "don't know where", but decoder thinks this is the "next" impulse and till "synchro" sends wrong commands on 8-12 chanels), can be done - reading "additional-channel" signals from synk to synk and send it to servos only after confirmation that received all 5.

This is highly demand to me. Because my FPV camera works on 2,4G , I have to use "elder" 40MHz. "9X" provides good chance to get modern (and cheap)) 9-and-more-ch transmitter in 2,4G and 40MHz at same time. But insufficient just couple of channels in PPM...

----
...sorry for my bad english

User avatar
Kilrah
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:56 pm
Country: Switzerland

Re: er9x development

Post by Kilrah » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:11 pm

You might want to have a look at this: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1341590

Maybe just use the receiver-side decoder, and replace the encoder by a software addition to ER9X?

User avatar
Dimetrio
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:00 am
Country: -
Location: Russia

Re: er9x development

Post by Dimetrio » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:02 am

Thnx for the link.
Idea is clear for me. I designed similar HARDWARE mod for myself.
7-channel multiplexing switch + ATTiny13 + 6 variable resistors. Device IRQ synchronizes with PPM on trainer port and "replaces" one of the pots. Onboard decoder the same as I described above.
and replace the encoder by a software addition to ER9X?
Yes! That's what I'm talking about!
Of course, hardware mod is unuversal for all ppm tramsmitters (with 1 proportional channel free). But the goal is to use this in 9X transmitter. It already has most hardware base. All is needed - to make some SOFTWARE changes.
So transmitter will be prepared, and users will have only difficulty last - solder & flash decoding module.

User avatar
gohsthb
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:32 pm
Country: -
Location: Naperville, IL

Re: er9x development

Post by gohsthb » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:19 pm

Quick question. Are there any functional differences between V1 and V2 Er9x. Or are all of the changes in the background functioning. So what I mean is will the user notice anything? (Other than having to reprogram the models due to eeprom changes)
-Gohst

-Note: I haven't tried the new version yet, but I probably will later tonight.

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:32 am

The timers are different in V2, both have full triggering, and there are two triggers for each, both triggers need to be active to start the timer. This allows a throttle safety switch to prevent the timer triggering. You may also use a channel output like TH%.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

bill516
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:31 pm
Country: -
Location: UK Sheffield City of Steel

Re: er9x development

Post by bill516 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:53 pm

I think I'm having another of my senior moments, but how do I know which version of the er9x firmware is V2 as opposed to V1, or has it not been released yet and I'm looking for something thats not there.

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:01 pm

V2 has NOT been released, the source files are on the site as it is developed, so the only way to run V2 is to download the sources, compile it and then load it!

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

bill516
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:31 pm
Country: -
Location: UK Sheffield City of Steel

Re: er9x development

Post by bill516 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:03 pm

See I was having a Senior moment looking for something thats not there.

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:28 pm

Erazz and I are having trouble finding time to progress the V2 idea. It will probably happen, but not in the near future. I have, however, developed the code for the two timers, each with two triggers, its running on my test V2 er9x, and on ersky9x.
There is now a plan to put this into the 'standard' (v1) er9x. The problem is it will change the EEPROM structure, and upset all existing models as far as their timer settings are concerned. I feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages so I'll go ahead and do the change. I'll see if I can put a warning on the screen to highlight the change.

mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
Crucial
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:56 pm
Country: -
Location: SE WI, USA

Re: er9x development

Post by Crucial » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:31 pm

please do, that has the potential to mess up planes. An unexpected change in timers could cause people to hit LVC and lose a plane if they aren't paying attention.

User avatar
Rob Thomson
Site Admin
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Albury, Guildford
Contact:

Re: er9x development

Post by Rob Thomson » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:09 pm

MikeB wrote:Erazz and I are having trouble finding time to progress the V2 idea. It will probably happen, but not in the near future.
I know how you feel! It is difficult fitting in the 'hobby' between work and family life!

Personally.. I would rather see any 'free' time being spent on ersky9x. That is my personal plan. Only hard bit will be finding the time :geek:
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!

bill516
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:31 pm
Country: -
Location: UK Sheffield City of Steel

Re: er9x development

Post by bill516 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:52 am

Dont go busting a gut or getting stressed over this, its only a hobby, what you guys are doing for this Tx is fantastic. I'm more than prepared to wait until you can fit it into your schedules, you
never know by the time you get V2 sorted I might have got my head around the custom switches. Without what you have done for this Tx I dont think I would have ever bothered with the 9x and just stuck with my (boring) spektrum.

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:05 pm

Just released some new sources, build will follow when Erazz has time. I've added a new protocol option PPMSIM. To use it, you need to enable it in a menu. This is because, if you have done the transistor mod for the PPM input, you can't use PPMSIM as it uses that signal line as an output.
If you select PPMSIM, the the PPM data stream to the trainer port comes from what is normally the PPM-IN pin, so will NOT get affected by the Tx module loading.
If PPMSIM is enabled in the menu, then the same PPMSIM signal is used if the radio is operated as a student. This is handy as you get PPM out from the trainer port, EVEN if you have DSM or PXX selected as the protocol.
Also in this revision is an option to use the GPS altitude value in place of the FrSky hub vario. This lets you set a local zero, choose imperial instead of metric, and set a height alarm. At least that's the theory, I don't have a GPS sensor so haven't properly tested it!
Enhanced timer triggers are for a future revision.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
Crucial
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:56 pm
Country: -
Location: SE WI, USA

er9x development

Post by Crucial » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:23 pm

Do you mean the resistor mod? If I understand you correctly you are saying that we don't need to put the resistor in the ppm line with the stock module anymore if we use the ppmsim setting?

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:00 pm

Yes, that as well. There are two possible mods that are done. The PPM resistor mod is done to allow the trainer output to reach full voltage (not loaded by tx module).
The other mod is the transistor on the PPM input to handle low level PPM inputs. The first will no longer be needed unless the transistor mod has been done which will stop the PPMSIM signal getting out.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:44 pm

Some diagrams to show what PPMSIM actually does.
PpmSim.png
Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
Rob Thomson
Site Admin
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Albury, Guildford
Contact:

er9x development

Post by Rob Thomson » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:10 pm

Is this the ppm - alt idea I was talking about ages ago?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!

User avatar
Crucial
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:56 pm
Country: -
Location: SE WI, USA

Re: er9x development

Post by Crucial » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:12 pm

That helps clarify it. So when PPMSIM is enabled the PPM signal is sent out through the trainer jack with or without a module connected/powered. This also means that PPMSIM must be disabled in order to use the Tx as a master.

Also, you are saying that the transistor mod, which is installed on the trainer jack circuit, will cause the PPMSIM output to not work?

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:19 pm

Rob: It does provide that functionality. Partly I wanted to avoid the need for the resistor mod when wanting to run a simulator, but PPMSIM does indeed allow a PPM stream to the trainer port that does NOT go to the module pins whene the Tx module is plugged in. So you choose, 8 PPM channels to the module (PPM), 8 PPM channels to the trainer PPMSIM) or 16 split 8 to each (PPM16).

Crucial: If the menu option PPMSIM is disabled then all is as before. If PPMSIM is enabled, then it may be selected as the protocol used by a model, you do not need to disable it to use PPM, PPM16, DSM or PXX in master mode. If PPMSIM is enabled then it WILL be used automatically when in student mode.
You are correct about the transistor mod since that mod breaks the connection between the PPM-IN pin and the trainer jack.
Simply, if you have done the transistor mod, don't enable PPMSIM. If you have not done the transistor mod, the you might as well enable PPMSIM and have the extra functionality available.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
Crucial
Posts: 581
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:56 pm
Country: -
Location: SE WI, USA

Re: er9x development

Post by Crucial » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:24 pm

Perfect. Thank you for helping me wrap my brain around it all.

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:43 pm

I'm working on upgrading the compiler I use to the latest version (4.7.0). I have changes to the er9x source code done so it compiles on either the old (4.3.3) or the new compiler. I have some more testing to do, but the new compiler generates code that is 1554 bytes smaller, quite a nice saving. Should allow for some useful enhancements.

Hopefully I'll post a couple of hex files here for brave folks to try, just in case things go wrong. Bertrand has reported 1 problem with this compiler, I need to double check it is not causing a problem with the compiled code.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

G550Ted
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:15 pm
Country: -
Location: Savannah, GA, USA

Re: er9x development

Post by G550Ted » Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:31 am

MikeB wrote:Rob: It does provide that functionality. Partly I wanted to avoid the need for the resistor mod when wanting to run a simulator, but PPMSIM does indeed allow a PPM stream to the trainer port that does NOT go to the module pins whene the Tx module is plugged in. So you choose, 8 PPM channels to the module (PPM), 8 PPM channels to the trainer PPMSIM) or 16 split 8 to each (PPM16).

Crucial: If the menu option PPMSIM is disabled then all is as before. If PPMSIM is enabled, then it may be selected as the protocol used by a model, you do not need to disable it to use PPM, PPM16, DSM or PXX in master mode. If PPMSIM is enabled then it WILL be used automatically when in student mode.
You are correct about the transistor mod since that mod breaks the connection between the PPM-IN pin and the trainer jack.
Simply, if you have done the transistor mod, don't enable PPMSIM. If you have not done the transistor mod, the you might as well enable PPMSIM and have the extra functionality available.

Mike.
Dayem Mike, you keep making er9x better and better when it seems there is no further significant improvements possible!

Thanx a million!

Ted

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:19 pm

OK, here are a couple of builds using the 4.7.0. compiler, the code size is noticably smaller, but they appear to work correctly, although I haven't had time to check everything. If anyone would like to try them it would be a useful test. If all seems OK, then we will probably switch to this version of the compiler, then we will have more space for additions. If anyone needs a different version let me know.

Mike.
er9x-frsky-x.hex
(165.15 KiB) Downloaded 81 times
er9x-x.hex
(150.87 KiB) Downloaded 76 times
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
MikeB
9x Developer
Posts: 16547
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
Country: -
Location: Poole, Dorset, UK

Re: er9x development

Post by MikeB » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:43 pm

Got back to do a few bits to er9x. The hex files will wait for Erazz, and may not appear until Monday, however here is a summary of the changes:

1. A fix for the PPM/PPM16.PPMSIM pulse generation. If a 'gap' pulse of other than the default 300uSec was selected, the frame length was incorrect. The code is actually now much simpler having rolled up several changes over time.
2. GPS Altitude now has a max figure displayed.
3. The code was made a bit smaller.
4. A signed/unsigned comparison warning introduced in 3 is fixed.
5. Various const definitions have been added to allow the 4.7.0 compiler to work, 4.3.3 still works with these changes.
6. From V2 and ersky9x work, a second trigger has been added to timer1. If left as ---, then there is no change to timer 1, otherwise you may select a switch (or !switch) that must ALSO be active for the timer to run. Typically, this would be your throttle safety switch so if using TH% or THs, these will not start the timer unless the safety switch is also in the correct state. Timer2 is currently unchanged.

Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!

User avatar
Rob Thomson
Site Admin
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Albury, Guildford
Contact:

Re: er9x development

Post by Rob Thomson » Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:57 pm

Hey Mike,

I have been working on some haptic fixes on open9x that apply to er9x & ersky9x. I will pull them over sometime next week!

Rob
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!


Post Reply

Return to “er9x”