![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Many girls are smarter than many men.. But don't tell them please..
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
refer to Kilrah's pic. that is something every one will be impressed and never forget when you have an 'OX'.Rob Thomson wrote: X is a very non specific term - and easily confused with non rc/gpl products. like X windows!
jhsa wrote:Many girls are smarter than many men.. But don't tell them please..She is not a 'girl'.
So if a mere woman can use it. I'm sure you can.
No it will not have separate screens per function. It will still be using the same "Multiplex-like" mixing system (those are also regarded as good glider radios, aren't they?skyboyken wrote:My question is about the mixing. Will this firmware have the ability to do the various trailing edge mixes on 1 screen per 'mixing function' like my radio and other good glider radios?
[...]
For example, with a glider that has a 4 servo wing will I be able to set up Camber on 1 screen and set all 4 servos there
That's OK when you have "standard" models with the well known functions, and can use the camber mix, butterfly, Airbrake to Elevator and other predefined mixes. But then when you get out of the "standards" you're SOL.hpihl wrote:And I strongly disagree on Kilrah argument that function based programming of the high end Futaba transmitters is somehow against flexibility of the programming and something opposite to the input/output based mixing of the th9x
So far I have been able to everything needed for my gliders or others have asked me to do for their gliders with both systems (FX-30 and Open9x), that includes things like fully adjustable snap flaps which are definately not standard stuff (rate and expo + separate controls for aileron and flap part or variable differential before the gvars). The FX-30 has 10 free mixers per condition and 8 conditions ie 80 separate mixers/model of which 10 can be used simultaneoysly + predefined mixers can be used for other purposes like controlling the camber different ways. The stock 9x board has 32 mixers which was too little before the gvars for quite standard setup, the custom boards have 64 mixers which has been enough so far. In other words there is very little difference mixing wise except the predefined mixers make programming of the Futaba far easier and faster.Kilrah wrote: That's OK when you have "standard" models with the well known functions, and can use the camber mix, butterfly, Airbrake to Elevator and other predefined mixes. But then when you get out of the "standards" you're SOL.
This has pretty much nothing to do with flexibility of programming nor skyboyken question. Yes, the th9x based systems have support for many kind of hardware.Kilrah wrote: Where's the page to configure Intelligent Orientation Control on a Naza multicopter? Where's the head tracking adjustment page? How do I do if I want to flick a switch and lock the current elevator position, while transferring elevator stick control to a camera tilt servo, with slew operation?
Given that you don't seem to know the mixing capability of the 14Mz, my impression is that you never really learned to use it. I've seen plenty of such high end Futaba owners.Kilrah wrote: I've had a $3000 Futaba T14MZ for 6 years, had no choice because even if it was clunky it still was pretty much the only radio able to do what I wanted back then when most other radios still had fixed channel assignations. But while it could do it it was a real pain to set up.
It took several hours with the 8FG because you obviously did not know what you were doing while with the open9x you did know what you were doing. Besides, mixing capability of the 8FG is far worse than 12FG and above.Kilrah wrote: A couple of months ago I helped someone set up a paraglider on a Futaba 8FG. Idea is simple, stick left->left servo pulls, right one stays. Stick right = opposite. Pull elevator->Both servos pull. Up elevator does nothing, and each stick "side" must give complete servo throw (not just half).
It took several hours to get it to work right, and required using all 5 free mixers. On open9x it takes 5 minutes. I am 100% sure I could set up your complex glider on openTx in less time that it took us to configure that stupid 2-channel paraglider on the Futaba.
I can only say, based on my own experience, that both systems are plenty flexible for the gliders, no particular need for "hacks" on either even if we go out of so called textbook (what ever that means...).Kilrah wrote: That's what I mean about flexibility. My IOC function does things that are not possible at all with the Futaba, due to the lack of multiply-type mixers.
It MAY be less efficient (not even sure...) for "textbook models" and of course it does nothing for you. But it's still possible to program them, and without having to resort to "hacks", just with clean, pure logical programming. And it's so much easier once you step out of the "standard".
Well, you do mention the price difference so I mention that every Flysky/Turnigy 9x radio which has gone through my hands (7or 8) have had minor defects, usually with the switches, sticks and bad soldering joints. In addition I mention that of these radios 2 have had a pot failing after little use and one shorted itself while in use (possibly a bad soldering joint again, have not seen it yet). This is the area I hope will be improved with FrSky radio.Kilrah wrote: And I'm not even mentioning the price difference, you need to mention "high end Futaba" to compare to a <$100 radio
My point is that if you understand the programming structure of the both systems, high end Futabas and th9x based firmwares, you will realize that the systems are not that different; both can do very similar kind of mixing despite the differences.Rob Thomson wrote: Open9x ams er9x are firmwares that work in a different way go other radios. Very different. Then goal of the firmware is not to simply emulate another radios way of working.
Accepted, no problem.Rob Thomson wrote: I have miss interpreted your posts. I apologise now.
It doesn't have anything to do with his question of course, but it has about flexibility. You've been mentioning that 32 mixers on the 9x wasn't enough for your complex gliders - In the type of models I've had to program where none of the T14's predefined mixes helped me I only had the 8 simultaneous custom mixers it allows. And that sometimes was a struggle for sure.hpihl wrote:This has pretty much nothing to do with flexibility of programming nor skyboyken question. Yes, the th9x based systems have support for many kind of hardware.Kilrah wrote: Where's the page to configure Intelligent Orientation Control on a Naza multicopter? Where's the head tracking adjustment page? How do I do if I want to flick a switch and lock the current elevator position, while transferring elevator stick control to a camera tilt servo, with slew operation?
Well, I've spent 6 years getting it to do what I wanted and always managed after a fair amount of time, but I didn't like it because it wasn't clean, and it required working around the "canvas" Futaba set for you. I didn't know how open9x worked when I came here a year ago - but in 2 days I had understood it all and set up all my models as I wanted.hpihl wrote:Given that you don't seem to know the mixing capability of the 14Mz, my impression is that you never really learned to use it. I've seen plenty of such high end Futaba owners.
Well, I came there after 3 days of other people trying and failing to do it, and at least found a solution... Of course it would be easier on a 12FG, but I can't really tell people to get a $1200 radio because their 8FG can't fly a 2-channel model, right?hpihl wrote:It took several hours with the 8FG because you obviously did not know what you were doing while with the open9x you did know what you were doing. Besides, mixing capability of the 8FG is far worse than 12FG and above.
I have never challenged that! Of course just turning the camber mix on is easier than having to understand it and implement it yourself - but in the end from what I've seen that doesn't help people understand their models. That's the key difference, on openTx/Multiplex etc when you know what you want your control surfaces to do that behavior is simple to implement. The Futaba approach however saves the guy who doesn't understand that (the majority unfortunately...), he can turn camber on without understanding fully how it works and what it's supposed to do.hpihl wrote:And having teached both systems to other people, I can say that usually people learn Futaba system much faster than th9x based.
Again, that's a very narrow view - the goal of openTx is not to make a perfect radio for gliders only, it's to make a radio that's as easy to use with boats, tanks, robots, crawlers, multicopters, FPV equipment, as it is for the airplane/glider/helicopter trio major manufacturers don't venture out of. They heavily bias their system towards these 3 targets where everything is simplified for the user, but then once you do something else than that you fall off a cliff... and with the recent evolutions in RC these 3 categories are quickly getting a bit tight...hpihl wrote:I can only say, based on my own experience, that both systems are plenty flexible for the gliders
Not challenging that either and it's exactly why we've been very enthusiastic about porting openTx to the FrSky radio. Of course the firmwares are currently hindered by the cr*p $50 hardware they are running on, no doubt about that. But something decent will still be an order of magnitude cheaper than a high-end Futaba.hpihl wrote:Well, you do mention the price difference so I mention that every Flysky/Turnigy 9x radio which has gone through my hands (7or 8) have had minor defects, usually with the switches, sticks and bad soldering joints. In addition I mention that of these radios 2 have had a pot failing after little use and one shorted itself while in use (possibly a bad soldering joint again, have not seen it yet). This is the area I hope will be improved with FrSky radio.
1. The argument started from your claim that Futaba approach (function based programming) is somehow against the flexilbility. So far I don't see any proof of that posted here. We can of course critize Futaba for the fact that there is too few free mixers for some users or some mixing options are not available. However, the approach itself does not cause that; they could add more mixers with similar options as found from the th9x based firmwares and it would be still the same function based programming.Kilrah wrote: It doesn't have anything to do with his question of course, but it has about flexibility. You've been mentioning that 32 mixers on the 9x wasn't enough for your complex gliders - In the type of models I've had to program where none of the T14's predefined mixes helped me I only had the 8 simultaneous custom mixers it allows. And that sometimes was a struggle for sure.
No idea what you have been doing with the 14MZ but, please, try to get the obvious facts correct atleast.Kilrah wrote: Well, I've spent 6 years getting it to do what I wanted and always managed after a fair amount of time, but I didn't like it because it wasn't clean, and it required working around the "canvas" Futaba set for you.
I don't consider the 8FG particularly flexible, but I see loads of happy users around, including plenty of glider pilots. However, it finaly did the paraglider mix after all.Kilrah wrote: Well, I came there after 3 days of other people trying and failing to do it, and at least found a solution... Of course it would be easier on a 12FG, but I can't really tell people to get a $1200 radio because their 8FG can't fly a 2-channel model, right?
1. Turning the camber mix on does nothing itself, you have to set the rates etc. in other words you have to understand what you are doing regardless the system you are using. However, skyboyken was asking if this can be done easily from the same screen and in this area there is differences between the systems.Kilrah wrote: Of course just turning the camber mix on is easier than having to understand it and implement it yourself - but in the end from what I've seen that doesn't help people understand their models. That's the key difference, on openTx/Multiplex etc when you know what you want your control surfaces to do that behavior is simple to implement. The Futaba approach however saves the guy who doesn't understand that (the majority unfortunately...), he can turn camber on without understanding fully how it works and what it's supposed to do.
Pointless argument; proves nothing against nor for any topic I've been discused here.Kilrah wrote: Just tell me how to program the Ail-Ele mixing depending on P1 that is found in here.
Please take a look back, just in a year the open9x/opentx has improved considerably particularly in the terms of glider functions, so I don't see it as something which is as it is but something which slowly improves based on new ideas. And I see function based programming as a such idea.jhsa wrote: So, openTX and er9x are like they are.., People have to read the manuals and learn how to work with them..
That's what I said here..jhsa wrote:
Things are like they are, even if there is always room for improvement and good ideas are always welcome..