Should rates and expos go in inputs or mixer?

[Stuart444]

I've found it's possible to get rate functions by adding lines to inputs or by adding lines to mixers. (Or both! in which case they seem to multiply together.)

To avoid confusion, let's leave one or the other with only 100% weights and no additional lines. Then, what are the pros and cons of doing this the alternative ways, i.e. the pros and cons of having only 100% weights on the inputs and placing extra lines in the mixers for 75%, 50%, expo settings and so on according to switch positions, as opposed to the opposite way round?

Thanks!

[Helle]

Hy,

the result is the same.
you CAN do it at Inputs or at MIXERS

Normal:
expo and dualrate is a funktioen of a Input
diff is a funtkion of a Mixer

Helle

[Stuart444]

Thanks, Helle, I'm glad to hear there's nothing fundamentally wrong with doing it either way. I was anxious to be sure that I wouldn't settle on one way or the other only to find it led to snags later when I get better at this. I like to be consistent to make it easier to learn and to troubleshoot.

What do you mean by "diff"? Differential movement of control surfaces?

Stuart

[pmullen503]

Because there is usually more than one way to do things, you should do what makes sense to you. A year from now when you go back to change something in a model, will you be able to quickly figure out what parameter to change?

In my case, I put controls, rates and expo (switches and sticks) on [Inputs], differential in the [Mixer], channel direction in [Servos] (keeps the weights all positive.) Any mixes between channels go in [Mixer].

My logic is that anything that involves the TX-pilot interface is on the [Inputs] page. Model specific items are on the [Mixer] and [Servo] pages. This allows me to copy a template with all switches, warnings, screens etc. and alter the [Mixer] and [Servo] pages to match the model. At the field, all I should have to edit are the parameters on the [Inputs] page.

[Kilrah]

Then, what are the pros and cons of doing this the alternative ways, i.e. the pros and cons of having only 100% weights on the inputs and placing extra lines in the mixers for 75%, 50%, expo settings and so on according to switch positions, as opposed to the opposite way round?

An easy one is say you have separate ailerons on 2 channels. Doing rates in the mixer would require you to duplicate all your lines on both output channels. Doing it in the inputs however means everything is in a single place.

[Stuart444]

Yes, that sounds like a good plan. I'm all for reducing the number of lines, too - less work and less chance of a mistake.
Thanks!
Stuart

[jimbo385]

I have my rates and expo on the [Mixer].

It's just what someone's had that I replicated. However, now I'm thinking of having them both on the [Input]. This kinda makes sense to me so I will be changing it over.

This will keep the [Mixer] as clear as possible because mixing will get more complicated as I move towards more functionality in my models.

Cheers.

[timrowledge]

One very important side-effect of having many ways of doing things is that it means many times more lines of documentation to explain. Given how hard it is to write good doc, that isn't a trivial concern. And of course it means more stuff to understand, which stretches us lot of us...

[Stuart444]

I agree, Tim. One observation I can make as a beginner is that once you've got over the initial hill, there's a lot of help around albeit not written as such - you have to look for things and interpret them. That's OK for many once you have a basic understanding and have clawed your way up that hill, which I now have, but before that it was a nightmare of unexplained abbreviations, assumed knowledge, and jargon. For example, what are DHT-U, EEPROM, RSSI, FAS etc? You can find answers to these, but it's not all that easy, and initially it's very foggy. I'm trying to compile lists and basic help sheets for fellow club members who are hovering on the brink of taking the plunge but who are presently put off by the apparent abyss. The Open TX university is quite good, although a potted history of the Taranis system and the V, D and X generations would have been very helpful and prevented me from buying lots of non-SmartPort sensors before I realised I should have only bought SmartPort ones as I've now realised I can just stick with X series and forget the rest. I still haven't found anything on that subject.