eepesky9x, ersky9x, ported for Taranis?

[kaos]

I am not sure my English is better than yours.
I thought Open9X by itself is good and known by a lot of people already. Open9x already has different versions, ie NOHT..... why not just call it Open9X-Taranis
and in the ad it will say 'Frysky Taranis with Open9X' it will be clear Frysky is the brand, Taranis is the Tx name, Open9X is the FW. in the spec under FW: Open9X-Taranis then for the future Horus would be Open9X-Horus and for people with Taranis using C9X can just choose 'taranis' in the options.
I guess I am used to Tx as abbreviation for Transmitter/Transmission. And if Open9X is in any document, everyone knows it is an open source software (Open9x is well known open source FW) instead of every where you have to ask them to put a label or statement. or some places trying to 'cheat' it as 'their' software. because nobody knows what OpenTx is, yet.

[Rob Thomson]

I still have a problem reading this 'OpenTx' thing. Every time I read it I read it as Frysky OpenTx means this Tx(transmitter) is made by Frysky called OpenTx. Instead of reading the 'OpenTx' as a FW. This just can't get out of my head. on all the above 'ads' / description. If I were a person looking for a Tx, I would think this Tx is made by Frysky and the full name is 'Taranis OpenTx' and abbreviated as Taranis.

I don't have that issue at all?

OpenTX is in no way similar to Taranis, or FrSky (not the correct spelling of frsky)

Rob

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[kaos]

There is a difference of thinking between Nerdish people and common people.

[Kilrah]

I thought Open9X by itself is good and known by a lot of people already. Open9x already has different versions, ie NOHT..... why not just call it Open9X-Taranis

Then you got confused somewhere else... openTx is NOT "open9x for Taranis". open9x simply doesn't exist anymore, it was renamed to openTx, for all the radios it supports.

[ReSt]

So, shouldn't we also have a link to OpenTx here on thome page where the different firmwares are listed ?

Reinhard

[MikeB]

Any chance this thread could get back on topic?
The question is:
How many would like ersky on the Taranis?

Mike.

[Scott Page]

Mike,
I would like to see ERsky ported because it has fewer bells and whistles to confuse people new to this style of model setup. Lack of flight modes and such would be advantageous to those who are intimidated by such a massive box of tools. This might seem like a step backward, but I'd like to see an option in setup that allows the user to have a much easier interface. Maybe it's not for ersky9x to do this -- maybe it's a different skin for eepe -- or several different skins for eepe. Now that memory is not an issue, Heli's or templates don't need to be eliminated by a separate compile -- just a different skin.
I actually bounce back and forth between ersky9x and opentx on my sky9x transmitters. I don't have a favorite - but there are elements of each that I like -- such as the wizard on companion9x is perfect for new users -- or advanced users to get a new model roughed out.

[rdeanchurch]

I have 2 transmitters, but only one with sky board. I normally fly with the ersky and like it. Some things in opentx are fun to play with and I keep it on my spare tx. I think I could transition to open9x and will if I have to for Taranis.. Having ersky ported would be comfortable for me, but basically just a crutch. I think a concentration of effort on a 'skin like concept' and having companion and opentx completely sorted would be best'. It would probably be a better use of a valuable talent....Mike.

The port looks to me like it would require considerable effort and PC package needs to be compatible with it to help the greatest number of possible users. In fact having two packages is a confusions to the un-intiatated.

Would I like it? ..yes. Is it worth it? I think you have to decide that Mike.

If this was a company I worked at, I'ld lobby very hard for one really good package with a compatible PC package.

[G550Ted]

I don't have a sky board so don't use ersky. I do have two 9x radios that I use flashed with er9x and I like it a lot. I also have a third 9x with open9x that I just tinker with trying to become familiar with that FW in preparation to getting a Taranis.

I agree with rdeanchurch that dividing the talent may be counterproductive. I also agree with him that an amalgamation of ersky and opentx might be the best way to proceed. The "skins' concept is also a great idea.

Ted

[ShowMaster]

I use er9x and ersky9x as my primary FW. I salute all those writing and improving the FW's we use. I've held off on using open9x all this time to allow it and C9x to mature. My concerns have been that as good as its become, the programmers may be spread a little thin due to constantly finalizing changes to C9X, open9x, and now the new Frsky tx.
I've stayed with MikeB and the er9x FW's because due to its great features, it's not required to do so much for so many different flying requirements, and may have a easier learning curve for those new to an open source, software defined tx.
For this reason I hope er9x and eepe will be ported over to the Frsky tx so we can take advantage of several great FW options with different support and programming objectives to avoid falling back into the same issues we're trying to break free of with our hard coded systems.
SM




Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk.

[Rob Thomson]

I think that as a general rule ALL then developers have been spread thin the past 6 months. Primarily because of the amount of work needed to port the firmware to a new platform.

It takes am immense amount of effort.

The good news... The port is done. The developers are spending time cleaning up and adding polish to get a stable firmware for the Taranis, plus companion for launch. All in a matter of weeks!

So.... There time should free up again soon

IMHO in the long term, the opentx approach is simpler to maintain and distribute across all channels. But much harder to read with all the platforms being in the same tree!

Mike will no doubt have his job cut out trying to keep multiple firmwares up to date / un sync. But not impossible to do.

Long and short... From a business point of view / best use of resources. I would drop a firmware branch completely. As a hobby /fun point of view... Well the point is to have fun!

Mike. sad to say.. It probably all comes down to you, and whether or not you are up to the job! :mrgreen:

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[jhsa]

I use both firmwares.. And I fly both.. I gotta say that they are both equally excellent.. It's nice to see all the good ideas coming from both firmwares..
For example, the audio handling in OpenTX improved a lot over the next couple of months. Now is very easy to setup voice alarms and it works very well. before I found it a bit tricky. I also like what Bertrand did with the popups menus.

Er9x also came up with new additions. I have to say that the stick scroll is just amazing, speccially if used together with the encoder. we don't need the 4 directional keys anymore apart from entering the menus.

João

[Redbrickman]

Guys, I am embarrassed to admit it but I can't for the life of me find out how to set D/R so that a single switch will set them all (AIL EL and Rud) Low/High?

[Rob Thomson]

OpenTX or er9x?

[Redbrickman]

Open TX

[Kilrah]

Just set the same switch for all of them!