openX9D

[jhsa]

Oh I can.. as long as there is a gui.. can't remember all the commands. despite that I love it.. I'm able to record my music now with zero latency.. Impossible on windows with my machine.. but can't compare many years of windows with a couple months with linix..

Many girls are smarter than many men.. But don't tell them please..

[kaos]

X is a very non specific term - and easily confused with non rc/gpl products. like X windows!

refer to Kilrah's pic. that is something every one will be impressed and never forget when you have an 'OX'.
What can I say, only computer nerds are always confused with X-window, OS-X, linuX......

Many girls are smarter than many men.. But don't tell them please..

She is not a 'girl'.

[Clivew]

Plaps,
It's unfair to ridicule the Fortuguese
Although I guess they're used to it!

[jhsa]

So if a mere woman can use it. I'm sure you can.

No, I took that as a compliment. You guys must learn to read it correctly..
She meant I should be able to do it due to the fact that I'm smarter..

anyway, Kaos you're also asking for it.. This is all your fault..

[Flaps 30]

ABBC3_OFFTOPIC

This thread is going way off topic.

[G550Ted]

Groan! I'm having to dig out my book of brains to recall my password every time I try to log on with all of the name changing going on, and now something else? How about a clue and a time frame.

Ted

[kaos]

Jhsa: you did not read it carefully. She said she is a 'WOMAN' but you called her a 'girl'. Now she has to show you a pic to prove it.

woman or girl, back to the topic, OX still sounds better to the ear. When I read OpenTx, it reads as 'Open Treatment or 'Open Transmission''. Either one sounds funny.

[rdeanchurch]

Open source.
Transmitter
Operating system

TOS covers them both. Easy to type, easy to say and SHORT.

Then opentxmanager....not good.

Transmitter Operation Manager for TOS is obviously TOM.

Ok, the developers will decide, back to our flying and trying to understand how to use GVARS.

[skyboyken]

Hi guys,

First post in this discussion. I am a glider guy and currently use a Futaba 12FG because when I did my research 5 years ago it had the best glider mixing on the market with the exception of the Graupner MC24, and there was very little between those radios.

I am looking at replacing the 12FG soon as it is getting old and I don't want to put my expensive gliders at risk.

I would happily look at the X9D because I know how good the Frsky 2.4GHz stuff is.

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, with elevator compensation for a v-tail, per flight mode? In addition to that set camber per flight mode, will I be able to set snap-flap similarly, Crow braking too, and also have variable camber on a slider in some flight modes not others? How about an offset mix that allows adjustment per servo per flight mode on 1 screen to compensate for servo inconsistencies?

If that seems a lot, I have that and more on each of my competition gliders now, for 8 flight modes. I cannot imagine trying to do that with a mixer per servo as Open9X has currently. The sheer number of mixes would be overwhelming, and trying to adjust them to fine-tune the glider would be way too error-prone and time-consuming.

What do you think?

Ken

[Rob Thomson]

It can do everything.. And more.

But you do it in a different way

That does not mean you get a fancy predefined (and limitted) wizard as per the futaba system.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Kilrah]

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

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? )

It will definitely not get any closer to the Futaba approach, as that's exactly against the flexibility openTx tries to achieve.
Everything you want can however be done, simply differently. While there are no predetermined functions, there are 32 channels on which you can create your own, then reuse them on the servo channels with flight-phase specific and in-flight adjustments.

[hpihl]

Having done large number of 4 wing servo gliders on both systems (FX-30, 12FG and 12Z on Futaba side and er9x, ersky9x and various open9x/openTX versions with stock, gruvin and sky9x boards) I say that both systems are capable to do pretty much everything needed but setting up is currently by far faster and easier on the Futaba system. And without introduction of the open9x, with promise of better quality hardware from Frsky, I would have leaved th9x based firmwares long time ago.

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 :

Firstly the idea of the virtuallized functions is pretty much the same and beyond the using of phantom channels on the th9x variants and that is the way how the userfriendlines of the th9x is can be improved by grouping the relevant mixes as functions and virtualization makes solutions portable easily to the other systems.

Secondly you can do hardware based input/output mixing on the high end Futabas just like in the th9x variants, usually there is no reason to do that but as example, if you want an additional mixer stage/stages between the hardware and function, you can easily do that. In other words, virtualized functions and input/output based mixing can happily reside on the same system and that actually makes system more flexible.

[Kilrah]

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

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.
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?
For Futaba that doesnt exist in RC, so there are no options for it, and while there are tons of nice predefined mixers they are all useless to me. Result, I'm stuck with only 8 programmable mixers and having to try hacking around misusing several predefined mixes for functions they weren't meant to. You eventually get there, but it's a horrible mess to do even the simplest "non-standard" thing, and forget about adjusting a value 6 months later when you have no idea what hacks you did anymore.

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.

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.

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".

And I'm not even mentioning the price difference, you need to mention "high end Futaba" to compare to a <$100 radio
I just spent more than the likely price of a Taranis just to buy a spare battery for the T14 and get its sticks calibrated, because of course you can't even do that yourself, anything needs proprietary tools.

[Rob Thomson]

+1


I fly full house mouldies. Typical setup time is no more than an hour.

Then... Once I have a general setup I like, I save it. Then just grab what I want for the next model.

I do agree... That the approach can seem more complex, but NOTHING replaces the flexibility you get.

No chance of me going to a preset / defined system again.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[jhsa]

Not even mentioning the possibilities we have with the frsky telemetry.. we can use the telemetry values in the mixes.. we can trigger functions depending on speed, altitude, voltage, ect..
And of course I wouldn't go back to a system without voice capability..

João

[hpihl]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And having teached both systems to other people, I can say that usually people learn Futaba system much faster than th9x based.

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".

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...).

And I'm not even mentioning the price difference, you need to mention "high end Futaba" to compare to a <$100 radio

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.

[Rob Thomson]

Couldn't suggest that you refrain from comments that could be considsred as insulting.

Worth noting. Kilrah is a core 9x developer, an electronic genius and probably over all 200 percent brighter than most people on this forum. He also provides more help to end users than anyone else on the forum.

In short. Avoid contentious comments that could provoke undue reactions.

Now... On a lighter note.

If you prefer your futaba radio, then by all means stick with it. End of the day... It is a free market.

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.

If this way does not fit with your needs.. Then fair enough. No problem. Not everyone gets on with every system.





Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Rob Thomson]

I have miss interpreted your posts. I apologise now.

I have had a lousy day.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[G550Ted]

Rob,

All this stuff is child's play when compared to family. Please don't concern yourself with us for however long. My condolences on your loss.

Ted

[jhsa]

If the high end Futaba does all that, it should, considering the amount of money it costs
But I see a cr*py $100 radio, and that's with extras that can do at least the same (when the hardware works properly) as a what? $3000? $4000 radio?
What I learn from all this is that if you know your equipment you can program it in no time, whatever is Futaba, JR, opentx, etc...
For that we have to study it and learn how to work with it. Systems are different and we have to adapt ourselves to them.. we can't expect to learn to program the "modern" radio in 10 minutes like we did with the old radios...
I'm very happy with the custom firmwares. I'm using features that I'm quite sure no other radio has.. For other people all this might be irrelevant..
Some people want power and some other want easy of use. Sometimes these two are not compatible.
But as I said before, if you don't learn how to use it, it's difficult. If you do, it's easy..

[hpihl]

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.

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.

And I don't see any point why the th9x firmwares should not emulate the best parts of the another radios if such features make the system better. I do think that for example function based programming and virtualization can be implemented without losing any of the previous functionality and such features would make system better.

I have miss interpreted your posts. I apologise now.

Accepted, no problem.

[Kilrah]

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?

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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?

And having teached both systems to other people, I can say that usually people learn Futaba system much faster than th9x based.

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.

I can only say, based on my own experience, that both systems are plenty flexible for the gliders

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...
Just tell me how to program the Ail-Ele mixing depending on P1 that is found in here. I'm sure you won't have a good time finding it, if you can do it at all - and that's not only valid for Futaba, but also the other major radio manufacturers. On lower end radios even the simple stuff on CH5 is causing trouble to most. Not even mentioning the switches depending on telemetry values as there's no way to do that.

F550.zip

(907 Bytes) Downloaded 158 times

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.

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.
The firmwares are also heavily limited by the very small available processing power and memory in the 9x, no room to make anything fancy that would only benefit some particular users because it would just remove some from the others.

[skyboyken]

Gentlemen,

I am sorry to have generated controversy. That was not my intention.

I had hoped to stimulate discussion on how the things I find valuable about the 12FG could be added to Open9X without detracting from its flexibility.

For example, when I ask for a single screen to set 4 servos in camber for example, could that not be implemented in several ways? Could it not be possible to create a 'virtual function' that in turn links 4 camber mixers, or even creates them and then links them, if desired?

In that way, a user could choose to have some things made with unlimited flexibility on a model, and for other things have a structured solution on the same model? I am trying to describe a situation which limits no-one and enhances ease of use and, importantly for competition use, speed of change/tuning.

As I said in my original post, I really am looking for what comes next and I would like to be able to include this radio.

Best regards

Ken

[Kilrah]

The idea of a setup wizard or something like function pages on the radio has been around for some time (for the ARM-based boards only of course), and it's really something that would be worth implementing one day... but it's very time-consuming to make something decent. Then if you make one for camber mix, then why not also make one for controller X of brand Y with its specificities... the system would have to support "modules" that can be easily added to support various different things, if possible written in some script language easy enough so that the users of the devices could make them themselves and send to be included.

But unless more people join the project I don't see it happening in the near future...

[hpihl]

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.

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.

2. I have not used the free mixers of the 14MZ but at least according to manual there is 10 free mixers per condition, just like in the 12FG.

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.

No idea what you have been doing with the 14MZ but, please, try to get the obvious facts correct atleast.

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?

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.

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.

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.

2. I don't rate people based on the radio system they are using, I see wide variety of knowledge among users of any radio system.

Just tell me how to program the Ail-Ele mixing depending on P1 that is found in here.

Pointless argument; proves nothing against nor for any topic I've been discused here.

[jhsa]

The way I see it is that people must learn how to work with their systems, whatever they do or not, it's up to them.. If people are not willing to study their equipment, they should not be using it
I'm not going to Futaba and say " Oh you should do this or you should do that" because they would just tell me to bugger off and RTFM.

I couldn't program that Futaba radio simply because I NEVER LEARNT HOW TO WORK WITH IT..
And I can program er9x and open9x with one leg behind my back because I did learn how to use it..
So, is that Futaba radio easier to program and more intuitive than the custom FW's?? TO ME, no it isn't.. very far from it for the reason I mentioned above..
everything is easy after you learn to work with it.
So, openTX and er9x are like they are.., People have to read the manuals and learn how to work with them..

Go to JR and tell them that they should do the menus like Futaba does, and wait for their answer

Things are like they are, even if there is always room for improvement and good ideas are always welcome..

[hpihl]

So, openTX and er9x are like they are.., People have to read the manuals and learn how to work with them..

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]

Things are like they are, even if there is always room for improvement and good ideas are always welcome..

That's what I said here..

I hate to quote myself

João

[Rob Thomson]

I think the real issue here is that the conceptual idea of how the mixing within these firmwares does not lend itself to a simplified/dumbed down approach.

The mix methodology is extremely flexible. To put in a set of predefined mixes that do a specific glider function.. well that would require servos to be mapped to specific channels, and hard rules to be followed.

The result.. less flexibility.

Maybe what would be good is rather than us debating the merits of each system and getting all defensive etc. (same issue comes when you get any different brand radio members together) is to come up with a suggestion, plus a proposed solution as to how something can be done, within the framework that exists already.

[jhsa]

Exactly, here:

http://code.google.com/p/opentx/issues/list

Open a new issue, choose enhancement at the bottom and write your idea.. That's what we do when there's a little light bulb hovering above our heads