Jump to content

chris.kirkman

Members+
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About chris.kirkman

  • Rank
    RC-Cam Visitor

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Leicester UK
  1. Gerry, Thanks once more for replying. I've been giving it some more thought myself and along the same lines as yourself. I think it's probably better to try and do something about the vibration at source rather than just combat it's effects. Will be checking the prop balance but also want to try anti-vibration engine mounts. I've got the engine on a solid mount and fixed directly to the firewall. There are some engine mounts which are supposed to give a significant reduction to vibration so I'm looking around for one at the moment. I'll let you know though it may be some time. Chris
  2. Gerry, Like you I've just completed a CamMan project but have not had the same level of success in terms of picture quality. Just wondered if you had any special mounting method to combat vibration. Please see my new posting. Chris
  3. Having eventually successfully completed modifying an Aiptek camera (after numerous PIC programming problems) I am now after some advice on how to mount it to the plane. I tried simply wrapping it in foam and strapping it under the plane but results left much to be desired due to vibration. Next attempt with it much slacker was no better. There are severe "waves" across all the images. This is clearly down to vibration but I'm not sure how I can mount the camera so that vibration is minimised or is it that I'm expecting too much in wanting decent pictures taking them when the engine is running around half throttle. I've tried attaching an example picture but not sure if I've done it properly. Any help appreciated. Chris Kirkman
  4. Quote from suppliers of PIC programmer: It is not an issue with our software! The lines we have asked you to delete are illegal intel hex format lines. They have been added as a non-standard comment by whatever software the original user used - it certainly wasn't any Microchip development software, most probably some free internet software that produces non-standard .hex files. These error lines in effect corrupt the hex file, giving data at an address higher than than physically present in the 12C508 - hence the error mesage in the 508. These addresses do work in the 509, hence no error. This means you would get extra (unneeeded) bytes of data in the 509. I have loaded the binary file, set configuration bits then saved it as hex. Also loaded your original hex file, modified it as suggested by the providers of the programming software, set the configuration bits and resaved it. The 2 files were then identical. By the way, besides the programming settings you mentioned I also have an option for Calibration and a Hex value associted with it. Should this be used?
  5. Thanks once again. I did as you suggested and I quote their response: The hex files are not in legal Microchip (Intel Hex) format. They have an extra :PIC12C508 at the bottom which is not Intel hex standard. Delete this line and they should then work ok. After doing this I still got the same result so contacted them once more and the reply this time was: Also delete the line starting :0804... This is not needed either. Any comments?
  6. Thanks for the reply. I've checked this but it is loading as hex not binary. Strange thing is when I select 12C509A it loads the file OK but chip I have is a 12C508. Do you know if I could program the 508 chip using the settings for 509? Thanks
  7. I'm trying to build the CamMan Aiptek having bought a camera which I want to fit to a Wot4. I'm having a problem programming the PIC chip getting an error message "Buffer overflow - the program loaded was too long for the currently selected PIC device. Select a larger memory device". The programmer is a Chip Factory from www.rev-ed.co.uk and using their Picaxe Serial PIC programming software. PIC type selected is PIC 12C508A and the file size is 1,774 bytes so I can not understand why this should be too long for the PIC chip. Can anybody offer any advice. Thanks in advance for any replies. Chris Kirkman
×
×
  • Create New...