Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the public?
Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the public?
I appreciate you want to get it right I was just wondering if you think we are weeks or months away?
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
Did I ask this question in the wrong place?
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
No... you just won't get an answer because we don't know. It comes when it comes. Weeks quickly turn into months, so...
-
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:11 pm
- Country: -
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
Weeks. I will say even only one week.
I already converted all my models to 2.1 so I can tell you I won't introduce any other EEPROM change
I fly myself with 2.1 of course.
Now I really need your tests. Please open issues if you find bugs!
I already converted all my models to 2.1 so I can tell you I won't introduce any other EEPROM change
I fly myself with 2.1 of course.
Now I really need your tests. Please open issues if you find bugs!
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
I have converted to 2.1 and it is solid so far. I love the global functions, hardware configuration, and the telemetry changes are excellent.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
I'm on holiday now and can start flying next Saturday. I'm considering to upgrade to 2.1 just before that after returning home.
So, there aren't any show stoppers you are aware of? I can always make a good backup and revert if necessary.
I also wonder if Nigel's LUA-script for DLG launch height needs to be rewritten. I might have a go at it myself. Never did anything in LUA, but that should be yet another reason to try it.
Is LUA-supported?
So, there aren't any show stoppers you are aware of? I can always make a good backup and revert if necessary.
I also wonder if Nigel's LUA-script for DLG launch height needs to be rewritten. I might have a go at it myself. Never did anything in LUA, but that should be yet another reason to try it.
Is LUA-supported?
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
On OpenTX 2.0.x I've been using the popular Amber sound pack.
I haven't yet investigated the differences between the 2.0.x sounds and 2.1.x sounds.
If I throw the Amber sound pack over the 2.1 sounds would that leave me with a sane set afterwards?
Or are there some conflicting sounds?
It will take some days before I have access to my radio, but I just finished installing the latest Companion 2.0.999
I was able to load an eepe I made for my Cumel on 2.0.15
I checked what parameters were left and can see that most is gone. I guess I have to load them by hand.
Selecting the flightmode tab results in a crash of Companion?
I don't know if Companion 2.1.x is supposed to be able to handle 2.0.x eepe's?
I tried saving them and restoring these.
I will then get some warnings, but crashing of Companion 2.0.99 continues when I select the flightmodes.
For me it would be sufficient if the general values, Input, Mixes and servo parameters stay....
It would for sure speed up migrating all the models.
I haven't yet investigated the differences between the 2.0.x sounds and 2.1.x sounds.
If I throw the Amber sound pack over the 2.1 sounds would that leave me with a sane set afterwards?
Or are there some conflicting sounds?
It will take some days before I have access to my radio, but I just finished installing the latest Companion 2.0.999
I was able to load an eepe I made for my Cumel on 2.0.15
I checked what parameters were left and can see that most is gone. I guess I have to load them by hand.
Selecting the flightmode tab results in a crash of Companion?
I don't know if Companion 2.1.x is supposed to be able to handle 2.0.x eepe's?
I tried saving them and restoring these.
I will then get some warnings, but crashing of Companion 2.0.99 continues when I select the flightmodes.
For me it would be sufficient if the general values, Input, Mixes and servo parameters stay....
It would for sure speed up migrating all the models.
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
There are some sound differences in 2.0 to 2.1. I copied the Amber pack onto the 2.1 sounds and made sure not to overwrite any 2.1 sounds in the system folder (except for tada.wav). There's probably a more exact combination, but I didn't feel like listening to each numbered sound to see if it could be overwritten or not.
Chris
Chris
-
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:11 pm
- Country: -
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
All units for telemetry are different, if someone knows how to generate them for the Amber pack it would be nice!
- MikeB
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 18000
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
- Country: -
- Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
I believe Amber is a real person, so the only way to generate them is for her to record them.
Mike.
Mike.
erskyTx/er9x developer
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!
The difficult we do immediately,
The impossible takes a little longer!
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
What about the 2.0.x eepe's?
Is it the goal of the devs to make them upward compatible?
To avoid making mistakes I would prefer to read them into Companion 2.1 even if I lose some of the data (Servo's, Inputs & Mixes would be nice)
Is it the goal of the devs to make them upward compatible?
To avoid making mistakes I would prefer to read them into Companion 2.1 even if I lose some of the data (Servo's, Inputs & Mixes would be nice)
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
I just saw this entry in Github: https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues/2378
I have these crashes too when I load an eepe made with 2.0.17
This implies it's the intention to make it upward compatible.
Or is this not the case?
I would really like to know as I'm currently busy with entering 1 model by hand and it takes a lot of time....
I have these crashes too when I load an eepe made with 2.0.17
This implies it's the intention to make it upward compatible.
Or is this not the case?
I would really like to know as I'm currently busy with entering 1 model by hand and it takes a lot of time....
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
Yes companion is supposed to convert old versions correctly, it's just broken right now. 2.1 is still not released
The radio should convert correctly with the latest nightlies though.
The radio should convert correctly with the latest nightlies though.
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
Hi André, I'm fully aware it's not released
I just would like to know my options. I can upgrade this week, but then I have to enter all the models by hand.
I can also wait another week....
I did bump into 2 other things when trying to re-create my setup.
It's not possible to select the LS and RS as a source in INPUT.
I also noticed the representation of time has changed in the "logical switches".
It's good to have some more testers or not?
I don't have my radio during the week... Just wanted to prepare the upgrade with companion for upcoming weekend, but I think I will give it another week....
I just would like to know my options. I can upgrade this week, but then I have to enter all the models by hand.
I can also wait another week....
I did bump into 2 other things when trying to re-create my setup.
It's not possible to select the LS and RS as a source in INPUT.
I also noticed the representation of time has changed in the "logical switches".
It's good to have some more testers or not?
I don't have my radio during the week... Just wanted to prepare the upgrade with companion for upcoming weekend, but I think I will give it another week....
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
Yes of course, any report is welcome.frater wrote: It's good to have some more testers or not?
As usual our main focus is that everything works on the radio, companion is a bit "secondary" as the majority of users never touch it. I expect it will take another couple of weeks until it's working well.
You might be able to run the upgrade using the firmware simulator.
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
@Kilrah
I noticed you put a milestone on that.
I'm still wondering what these other new options are (CYC1, CYC2 & CYC3)...
Do you know what they are for?
I also created this entry in github https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues/2353
Never had any comment on it.
Maybe it is not even possible (I don't know if these values can be changed while the receiver and transmitter are linked).
I assume it's possible as there's now a ticket to dynamically change these during flight....
I noticed you put a milestone on that.
I'm still wondering what these other new options are (CYC1, CYC2 & CYC3)...
Do you know what they are for?
I also created this entry in github https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues/2353
Never had any comment on it.
Maybe it is not even possible (I don't know if these values can be changed while the receiver and transmitter are linked).
I assume it's possible as there's now a ticket to dynamically change these during flight....
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
CYC1-3 have always been there, they're the outputs of the CCPM mix (HELI page).
Regarding failsafe it would be very demanding in resources to store multiple sets (how many?), I doubt that would be included anytime soon. I really doubt it's really useful too, setting failsafe is always a very approximative thing.
Regarding failsafe it would be very demanding in resources to store multiple sets (how many?), I doubt that would be included anytime soon. I really doubt it's really useful too, setting failsafe is always a very approximative thing.
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
I was thinking of only 2 sets....Kilrah wrote:Regarding failsafe it would be very demanding in resources to store multiple sets (how many?), I doubt that would be included anytime soon. I really doubt it's really useful too, setting failsafe is always a very approximative thing.
Re: Any balpark timeline when 2.1 will be ready for the publ
I flew my 2-axis mini DLG at work today with 2.1
I let the radio do the conversion. I didn't bring my variometer so I don't know if that works fine.
I didn't see any showstoppers.
I've been going through github and I noticed that all open issues of 2.1.0 are moved to 2.1.1
The version I was flying with was 2.1.0
I also noticed that https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues/1599 is now an open issue of 2.1.1
But if you select an FRK file in the folder FIRMWARE it will ask you to update a SPORT-device or the internal module
I don't know if it's working though....
Shouldn't it be in closed?
EDIT: I read it a bit better... I might still need moving to startup-code (trims held apart)
I let the radio do the conversion. I didn't bring my variometer so I don't know if that works fine.
I didn't see any showstoppers.
I've been going through github and I noticed that all open issues of 2.1.0 are moved to 2.1.1
The version I was flying with was 2.1.0
I also noticed that https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues/1599 is now an open issue of 2.1.1
But if you select an FRK file in the folder FIRMWARE it will ask you to update a SPORT-device or the internal module
I don't know if it's working though....
Shouldn't it be in closed?
EDIT: I read it a bit better... I might still need moving to startup-code (trims held apart)