Jump to content


Photo

ER9X Hacks

FlySky/Turnigy - FrSky

  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#81 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:31 AM

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

#82 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:33 PM

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?
- Thomas

#83 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:51 AM

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

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

Attached Thumbnails

  • file.jpg

Edited by Kilrah, 28 March 2012 - 11:52 AM.


#84 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 12:42 PM

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.
- Thomas

#85 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:54 AM

r448 is up with the NMEA choice :)

#86 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 29 March 2012 - 10:47 AM

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, 29 March 2012 - 10:47 AM.


#87 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:45 PM

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. :)
- Thomas

#88 Romolo

Romolo

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:22 AM

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.

#89 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 08:47 PM

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.
- Thomas

#90 Romolo

Romolo

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:53 AM

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, 31 March 2012 - 01:02 AM.


#91 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:11 AM

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 :)

#92 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:18 AM

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:

Posted Image

Who's right?

Edited by Kilrah, 31 March 2012 - 03:32 AM.


#93 Romolo

Romolo

    RC-Cam Visitor

  • Members+
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 31 March 2012 - 05:44 AM

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, 31 March 2012 - 05:44 AM.


#94 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:45 PM

FrSky jsut posted the doc to what will be their upcoming current sensor:
http://www.rcgroups....77&d=1333178679

Maybe have a little plug ready on the hub? :)

#95 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 01 April 2012 - 04:18 PM

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.
- Thomas

#96 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:11 PM

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

#97 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 01 April 2012 - 10:39 PM

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.
- Thomas

#98 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 11 April 2012 - 02:43 AM

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/....php?f=52&t=667

#99 Mr.RC-Cam

Mr.RC-Cam

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,696 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:R/C video and photography.

Posted 11 April 2012 - 08:08 AM

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.
- Thomas

#100 Kilrah

Kilrah

    RC-Cam Mentor

  • Trusted Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Interests:Modelling, electronics, computers

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:07 PM

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.