122 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

The ER9X does not have that ability (yet). Does open9X allow you to choose the GPS coordinate format too?

No, can't choose coordinate format AFAIK. It's DD°MM.SSSS

Bertrand is very open though (hope so, he called it open9x :P ), so that could be a worthy request if needed. The configurable telemetry layout is the result of some discussions we had 2 weeks ago :)

Edited by Kilrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hi, the main reason we (Bertrand and I) do not customize GPS display is that coordinates are diplayed as received from sensor hub.

Changing display format normally require some calculations. and we are already doing a lot in order to calculate distance.

But as Kilrah as already told we are open to suggestion.

Regards,

Romolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm currently using the ER9X firmware so I would not request a GPS coordinate format change on your version. But I think you will find that the format used in the GPS's NMEA sentences is not the most popular for end users. Changing the displayed format requires simple integer math. So if you should receive requests for this then it should not cause too much grief to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Implementing at least a format like xx°N/S mm' ss".dd was already planned.

There is something else ?

Thanks for any advice.

Edited by Romolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, can't choose coordinate format AFAIK. It's DD°MM.SSSS

Bertrand is very open though (hope so, he called it open9x :P ), so that could be a worthy request if needed. The configurable telemetry layout is the result of some discussions we had 2 weeks ago :)

Now it's possible to choose between NMEA and H°MM' SS.ccc''

Already committed both in open9x and in companion9x.

Regards

Romolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Very nice. BTW, the decimal degree (hddd.ddddo) format is popular; it is used on geo-tagged photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Now it's possible to choose between NMEA and H°MM' SS.ccc''

Already committed both in open9x and in companion9x.

I installed open9X today so I could try it out. The companion9X PC application was a life saver since it allowed me to retain my EEProm settings.

The firmware I found was V2.00-FW dated a few days ago. So it does not have your new NMEA feature.

Do you expect to implement FrSky hub V1-V6 cell voltage data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you expect to implement FrSky hub V1-V6 cell voltage data?

It's already implemeted, just hidden unless the lipo sensor is connected:

post-30-0-62508100-1332964335.jpg

Edited by Kilrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's already implemeted, just hidden unless the lipo sensor is connected:

Thanks for setting me straight. The ER9X software shows the V1-V6 fields by default, so I was confused when they did not appear when I booted up open9X.

I noticed that the FrSky's hub telemetry data is ignored unless I specifically enabled the hub in the open9X menu (TELEMETRY->USRData->Proto->Hub). Is there a reason for using a menu option versus automatically detecting the hub via its telemetry data? The auto detect method (as used by ER9X) eliminates the menu option (and prevents a bit of confusion with guys like me).

I have most of the open9X menu settings figured out by experimenting with them. I found the user manual that was written in French, but sadly that is not a tongue I can read or speak. So I will continue to poke fingers at the menu settings to see what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

r448 is up with the NMEA choice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I mapped the GPS's Fix Status and Satellite count into the FrtSky's Temperature2 and Fuel Level registers. So now GPS signal status/quality can be seen on the R/C transmitter's telemetry display screen.

OK, I did my first flight with GPS today, and I'm really looking forward to that - it was a pain to wait for the GPS signal to stabilise without any clue about whether it was actually getting better or not...

However we'll soon need a 2nd customisable telemetry screen in open9x with all of these :)

I noticed that the FrSky's hub telemetry data is ignored unless I specifically enabled the hub in the open9X menu (TELEMETRY->USRData->Proto->Hub). Is there a reason for using a menu option versus automatically detecting the hub via its telemetry data? The auto detect method (as used by ER9X) eliminates the menu option (and prevents a bit of confusion with guys like me).

Believe it or not, I just lost 10 minutes waiting for a fix on the lat/lon screen that was enabled and displaying "something" before going to check and to see that I actually hadn't set Protocol to Hub on that particular model yet...

Edited by Kilrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

r448 is up with the NMEA choice

I'll try it out this weekend.

OK, I did my first flight with GPS today, and I'm really looking forward to that - it was a pain to wait for the GPS signal to stabilise without any clue about whether it was actually getting better or not.

I finished the GPS-HUB artwork late last night so it looks like I will be ordering the PCB's today. I wanted to design the current sensor board too (using INA139 current sense IC) but I'm too tight on time. So this sensor will have to wait for now. If FrSky introduces their I-sensor soon then I won't even bother doing my own.

Believe it or not, I just lost 10 minutes waiting for a fix on the lat/lon screen that was enabled and displaying "something" before going to check and to see that I actually hadn't set Protocol to Hub on that particular model yet...

The ER9X doesn't require a menu selection to enable the hub so no doubt the technology exists to do the same on open9X. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'll try it out this weekend.

I finished the GPS-HUB artwork late last night so it looks like I will be ordering the PCB's today. I wanted to design the current sensor board too (using INA139 current sense IC) but I'm too tight on time. So this sensor will have to wait for now. If FrSky introduces their I-sensor soon then I won't even bother doing my own.

The ER9X doesn't require a menu selection to enable the hub so no doubt the technology exists to do the same on open9X. :)

The idea is to free CPU resources when telemetry hub is installed but you don't want to use it.

Disabling USR protocol skips parsing the packet.

BTW if you use companion9x to customize your radio you will see that you are not allowed to select fields transmitted by Sensor HUB unless you select it in the protocol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

BTW if you use companion9x to customize your radio you will see that you are not allowed to select fields transmitted by Sensor HUB unless you select it in the protocol.

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you expect to implement FrSky hub V1-V6 cell voltage data?

It's implemented up to 12 cells, if you have more than six it will alternate the view of the two sensors...

Thanks for the clarification.

Anyway you have highlighted an issue that will be solved in the next release, if sensor hub is not enabled then GPS coordinated should not be on that screen .(the one we call after flight screen).

Furthermore which other MIN/MAX values you would like to see in that screen ?

We are thinking about Min/Max Altitude,Max GPS Speed, Max distance and Max Acceleration (even if the Accel sensor form FrSky is not the best) but as we are working on that screen any suggestion is welcome.

Edited by Romolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The idea is to free CPU resources when telemetry hub is installed but you don't want to use it.

Does that really happen?!

I doubt many people would go and install the sensor hub in their plane and then disable the display... Just remove or unplug it, save some power and remove an interference source...

Furthermore which other MIN/MAX values you would like to see in that screen ?

Hmm I personally don't really care about min/max. The ones I'm interested in are already in the list of configurable parameters. What I'd be for is to add all other min/max values to the list of available parameters, then allow for a 2nd configurable telemetry screen. So those who'd like to put min/max on it can, and the others can put other live parameters :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Speaking about telemetry but RSSI this time, has someone determined what they would call "safe" levels yet?

I find the default alarm level of 50 in open9x to be way high. Seems that RSSI with unknown unit is highly non-linear too, I'll often occasionally hit the 50 level at 500m, then pretty much always under it at ~800m, but then doubling that distance will only bring me further down to about 45.

The lowest I've ever seen on the display is 39, so I guess it wouldn't go much below that before the link drops.

I've now reduced the alarm to frsky's defaults, which should still have quite some safety margin... buth haven't flown yet with it, hopefully it will be beeping at me a (good) bit less...

EDIT: Question, on open9x the alarms for RSSI show one for TX and one for RX. However, the frsky specs seem to rather hint at 2 different alarm levels like for the analog values, independently of RX or TX:

rssi.jpg

Who's right?

Edited by Kilrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's difficult to say about RSSI, I'm flying with glider and using D8R-II I still have 70/80 as RSSI when the plane is no more than a small dot in the sky...

For sure it depends on antennas displacement, and other factors, how is mounted the antenna on your TX ?

In my own one I moved the antenna from the module to the top of the radio in place of original one using a short (10cm) SMA-Mini VHF pigtail.

About safety is something highly relative, it's highly difficult to say which is a safe setup what it's safe for me maybe id too much conservative for you or maybe it's true the reversal.

At 50 i feel comfortable.

Edited by Romolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cool! Finally, a hint that the FrSky I-sensor is coming out.

If their current sensor is designed to be connected in this order: HUB -> ISENSOR -> RX

then the DiY GPS-Hub will probably be compatible.

But if the installation expects ISENSOR -> HUB -> RX

then it won't be compatible with the GPS-Hub. If this turns out to be the case then I will have to create my own current sensor for this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From what the PDF shows, the current sensor is meant to be connected to the VOLT plug on the FrSky sensor Hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right you are. I looked more closely and they are showing two different communication methods depending on installation configuration. When a FrSky hub is used the sensor plugs into its volt input, just as you point out. Without a hub the Rx's data port is used instead.

So if the sensor's data output is an analog port then then GPS-Hub can be made to work with it. However, given that their current sensor can be daisy-chained with their battery pack sensor I would expect it to be a digital (serial) interface. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that I will have to hack their sensor or create my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Right you are. I looked more closely and they are showing two different communication methods depending on installation configuration. When a FrSky hub is used the sensor plugs into its volt input, just as you point out. Without a hub the Rx's data port is used instead.

Hadn't even noticed that it could be used without hub :D

Most likely digital indeed. Would be hard to communicate 6 cell voltages otherwise - analog multiplexing isn't really the trend anymore these days :)

On another note, if it's of interest to anyone - had a look at the innards of FrSky communication:

http://9xforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=667

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

On another note, if it's of interest to anyone - had a look at the innards of FrSky communication

I didn't have time to dig too deep into your discussions, but it looks like you are aiming for 16 channels. In that regard, what is the max number of channels I can achieve from open9x using a FrSky telemetry Rx? I haven't had time to see if 9 channels are possible, which is what I would like to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, open9x supports 16 channels, now the problem is to have an RF module that supports them.

As choices you'd have either plain old MHz, AFAIK JR/Graupner and Multiplex had 9 and 12CH PPM receivers, otherwise there's Futaba FASST like I have for up to 12 channels, some 433MHz LRSs like the TSLRS support 12 channels too.

FrSky is limited to 8 channels at this point, it's supposed to be upgraded to 16CH in the future through a firmware update from FrSky. Obviously it will require binding 2 receivers to one TX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now