FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Hi guys,
I modified my FS-TH9x Transmitter a little bit. Because I don't want to use the antiquated PPM/PCM signal I bought me two nRF24L01+ PA + LNA transceivers for $18 each. To adapt the nRF24L01+ PA + LNA to the FS-TH9x I used the "free" Ports for Software-SPI (PB7, PG2, PC0,PC6,PC7) and for the interrupt the PPM_IN (PE7). I used an UDMA100 cable to get the SPI signals in my tramsmit module place without modifying the FS-TH9x casing (I used the hole which was provided for the antenna cable in V1).
With this module I don't have any limitations for transmit and receiver data. So I don't need a Telemetry module or something like this. The Range is about 1km at 250 kbaud, and about 500m at 2 Mbaud. I think this should be enough.
On the stripboard is only a 3.3V regulator for VCC, because all input pins of the nRF24L01 are 5V tolerant nothing has to be done additionally.
Everything works whell for now. For now my work is to programm the firmware by my own. I used only the LCD-Lib from er9x, but the rest is build on my own.
I modified my FS-TH9x Transmitter a little bit. Because I don't want to use the antiquated PPM/PCM signal I bought me two nRF24L01+ PA + LNA transceivers for $18 each. To adapt the nRF24L01+ PA + LNA to the FS-TH9x I used the "free" Ports for Software-SPI (PB7, PG2, PC0,PC6,PC7) and for the interrupt the PPM_IN (PE7). I used an UDMA100 cable to get the SPI signals in my tramsmit module place without modifying the FS-TH9x casing (I used the hole which was provided for the antenna cable in V1).
With this module I don't have any limitations for transmit and receiver data. So I don't need a Telemetry module or something like this. The Range is about 1km at 250 kbaud, and about 500m at 2 Mbaud. I think this should be enough.
On the stripboard is only a 3.3V regulator for VCC, because all input pins of the nRF24L01 are 5V tolerant nothing has to be done additionally.
Everything works whell for now. For now my work is to programm the firmware by my own. I used only the LCD-Lib from er9x, but the rest is build on my own.
Last edited by MasterFX on Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Rob Thomson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4543
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
- Country: United Kingdom
- Location: Albury, Guildford
- Contact:
FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Are you able to provide pictures and schematics?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Normally I attached some pictures on the first post, mybe they were to big. I updated the first post again.
I will do some schematics today I think. The schematic isn't really complicated
I will do some schematics today I think. The schematic isn't really complicated
Last edited by MasterFX on Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Rob Thomson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4543
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
- Country: United Kingdom
- Location: Albury, Guildford
- Contact:
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Assume you have custom firmware to support this?
Would be good to open a google code project?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would be good to open a google code project?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Yes I did a custom firmware. Well I would say I just started to develop. Nothing presentable for now. But the communication works. Of cause you need the nRF24L01 for the receiver (Quadrocoper, Heli...) as well.
I do the firmware from scatch because the programming style of the er9x, radioclone etc. is awful sometimes.
Maybe I'will start a google code project next month. But first I want that the basics running fine.
I do the firmware from scatch because the programming style of the er9x, radioclone etc. is awful sometimes.
Maybe I'will start a google code project next month. But first I want that the basics running fine.
- Rob Thomson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4543
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
- Country: United Kingdom
- Location: Albury, Guildford
- Contact:
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Shout when ready... We can create a custom firmware section for you.
As a thought... I am pretty certain you could get help from mike/Bertrand/erazz to make a compiled in option to the existing firmwares to support this?
Rob
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a thought... I am pretty certain you could get help from mike/Bertrand/erazz to make a compiled in option to the existing firmwares to support this?
Rob
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Here is the connection between the Atmega and nRF24L01 module.
PS: It it really obstructive that every post has to be approved by a Mod, because you can't edit the post immediately, if you forgot an image or so.
PS: It it really obstructive that every post has to be approved by a Mod, because you can't edit the post immediately, if you forgot an image or so.
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
It's only the first 5 posts
Could maybe be changed to 2? It's enough to recognise a spammer...
Could maybe be changed to 2? It's enough to recognise a spammer...
- MikeB
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 18010
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
- Country: -
- Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
In what way don't you like the programming style? There are things I don't like, but the code is:MasterFX wrote:I do the firmware from scatch because the programming style of the er9x, radioclone etc. is awful sometimes.
a) inherited but functions correctly.
b) Sometimes coded to save program space as it is tight.
Is it the layout of the code or the actual structure of the code you consider bad?
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: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
I thought he meant "how to program the models" rahter than the actual software coding...
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Well I will not say that everything is bad. But I can't understand why to punish a µC with C++ including classes etc? I didn't think this is more efficient concerning to the resources.MikeB wrote:In what way don't you like the programming style? There are things I don't like, but the code is:MasterFX wrote:I do the firmware from scatch because the programming style of the er9x, radioclone etc. is awful sometimes.
a) inherited but functions correctly.
b) Sometimes coded to save program space as it is tight.
Is it the layout of the code or the actual structure of the code you consider bad?
Mike.
I whould not say that my coding is better in general, but you often see that code can get really confusing if many persons are working on a project and more and more functions are implemented frantically in the existing code. Of cause, all seems to work fine.
As far as I studied the er9x code and similar, I think it is easier to build my own firmware from scratch which fullfil my requirements for my application.
Of cause it will be configureable with curves, calibration etc. but not all that stuff which is maybe used from some other people. So I get less complexity, more clarity and more available resources.
Furthermore, I like to do things from scratch.
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
On behalf of all the other people I wish you good luck with your project..
The difference is, er9x, open9x, etc, are made for the people..
Apparently you are doing yours for yourself
The difference is, er9x, open9x, etc, are made for the people..
Apparently you are doing yours for yourself
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9
Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9
Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Thanks jhsa.
You are right, I do it for myself. But I wouldn't keep back my idea.
We will see how good my idea works soon. I think not to use PPM is straight forward, like PCM. The nRF24L01 does all the CRC, retransmit etc. automatically which is very nice for security. The frequency hopping will be implemented by myself when everything is working fine.
You are right, I do it for myself. But I wouldn't keep back my idea.
We will see how good my idea works soon. I think not to use PPM is straight forward, like PCM. The nRF24L01 does all the CRC, retransmit etc. automatically which is very nice for security. The frequency hopping will be implemented by myself when everything is working fine.
- MikeB
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 18010
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
- Country: -
- Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
While the files are .cpp, most of the code is actually just C, there is no code overhead doing this.MasterFX wrote:But I can't understand why to punish a µC with C++ including classes etc? I didn't think this is more efficient concerning to the resources.
What few classes there are in er9x do produce less code than without being a class, otherwise I would have re-coded them to save code space.
I agree that at first sight, the source code looks complex, but then so is the functionality we have.
There is much useful stuff in it. You could try just taking the 'standard' version of the code (no telemetry/FrSky), and modify that. Still, good luck with whatever you do.
I would have thought that if you are doing your own software, and with the number of wires you are soldering to the processor, you would have chosen to re-route the signals from the hardware SPI port and used that!
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: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Well, declaring variables within a for-loop isn't C. This is done in most cases. I wouldn't say it's bad.MikeB wrote: While the files are .cpp, most of the code is actually just C, there is no code overhead doing this.
I thought about it, but I have to cut some traces an I'm not backward compatible anymore with other firmware. My idea is to modify the basic hardware as less as possible.MikeB wrote: I would have thought that if you are doing your own software, and with the number of wires you are soldering to the processor, you would have chosen to re-route the signals from the hardware SPI port and used that!
With my software-SPI solution I got about 2 Mbit/s, which is fast enough. And the routine is quite simple:
Code: Select all
uint8_t SPI_RW(uint8_t value)
{
uint8_t bit_ctr;
for(bit_ctr=0;bit_ctr<8;bit_ctr++) // output 8-bit
{
if(value & 0x80)
MOSI=1;
else
MOSI=0;
value = (value << 1); // shift next bit into MSB..
SCK = 1; // Set SCK high..
value |= MISO; // capture current MISO bit
SCK = 0; // ..then set SCK low again
}
return(value); // return read UINT8
}
- MikeB
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 18010
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
- Country: -
- Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
While writing:
for( uint8_t i ; . . .
may not be quite normal C, declaring variables within almost ANY pair of braces {} has been valid ever since the days of Kernighan & Ritchie.
Out of curiousity, where you have:
value = (value << 1);
is there any reason you didn't write:
value <<= 1 ;
I personally find it more readable, and depending on the compiler often generates shorter code..
Mike.
for( uint8_t i ; . . .
may not be quite normal C, declaring variables within almost ANY pair of braces {} has been valid ever since the days of Kernighan & Ritchie.
Out of curiousity, where you have:
value = (value << 1);
is there any reason you didn't write:
value <<= 1 ;
I personally find it more readable, and depending on the compiler often generates shorter code..
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: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
This is just because I copied the code from an app-noteMikeB wrote: Out of curiousity, where you have:
value = (value << 1);
is there any reason you didn't write:
value <<= 1 ;
I personally find it more readable, and depending on the compiler often generates shorter code..
I don't know any compiler which produces different assembler code from this construct depending on writing style. This is a really basic and common construct which all compilers should recognize as the same.
It is more a matter of taste how to write it.
But if you take a look in the last lines of "er9x.cpp"
Code: Select all
int16_t calc1000toRESX(int16_t x) // improve calc time by Pat MacKenzie
{
int16_t y = x>>5;
x+=y;
y=y>>2;
x-=y;
return x+(y>>2);
// return x + x/32 - x/128 + x/512;
}
Well it is because of the signed int which are used here. Lets say x is "-7". Then the "optimized" function as it is will return "-8". If you turn the function back to the division operator
Code: Select all
int16_t calc1000toRESX(int16_t x) // improve calc time by Pat MacKenzie
{
int16_t y = x/32;
x+=y;
y=y/4;
x-=y;
return x+(y/4);
// or you can also write "return x + x/32 - x/128 + x/512;"
}
The "shift" in this case does't handle with negative value correctly because the negative values are rounded in the "wrong" direction. By using the division operator the compiler does the handling with negative values correctly but it results in more instructions of cause. So the functions AND their behavior aren't the same as MacKenzie did expected. Of cause in this case it isn't that critical because the fault on the result is very small if you use bigger values. If you use unsigned int then the compiler produces exact the same assembler from "return x + x/32 - x/128 + x/512;" but it is more readable. Compilers aren't that silly as many people think.
I also could ask why in the lcd.h and some headers all function are declared as "extern". You don't have to do this because function do have external linkage by default.
There are many things where everybody has its own way to write, but in most cases the compilers are smart enough to recognize and optimize it to the same assembler.
But I think all this discussion is on the wrong place here
Last edited by MasterFX on Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 2764
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:11 pm
- Country: -
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Could be less agressive with Mike and Pat who did a wonderful work (even if you are right)! Or it's my poor english which makes me hurted in their place?
Bertrand.
Bertrand.
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
There is so much optimisation required to fit all the functionality that, well... if that function never gets called with negative values, then there's no need to ensure it works with them. And checking the value is positive at entry time would be a waste of memory too. Maybe a comment saying "positive values only" would be appropriate, but from the code side of it - we probably wouldn't have er9x/open9x today if priority was put towards "textbook coding" instead of towards writing code that is less clean but as efficient as possible.
- MikeB
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 18010
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
- Country: -
- Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
I've met some very silly compil;ers in my time, and even good ones do odd things sometimes.
Yes, the function int16_t calc1000toRESX(int16_t x) might be more accurate with division, instead of shifts, but this needs to be taken in the context of why it exists.
The output PPM puls widths are in units of 0.5uS and range from 1500 - 512 uS to 1500 + 512 uS. In the units of 0.5 uS these are from 3000 +/- 1024. Within the code, there are some values that are +/- 1000 theat need to be scaled to +/- 1024. This is where this function is used. Yes, it might give a result 1 different from absoluty expected, but I would be very surprised if your servos can tell the difference of 0.5 uS in the pulse width!.
Hopefully, if you are using some of the code we have made available, and you 'publish' it as open source (as we do), you will follow the GNU license and keep the names of all the contributors in the source files.
Mike.
Yes, the function int16_t calc1000toRESX(int16_t x) might be more accurate with division, instead of shifts, but this needs to be taken in the context of why it exists.
The output PPM puls widths are in units of 0.5uS and range from 1500 - 512 uS to 1500 + 512 uS. In the units of 0.5 uS these are from 3000 +/- 1024. Within the code, there are some values that are +/- 1000 theat need to be scaled to +/- 1024. This is where this function is used. Yes, it might give a result 1 different from absoluty expected, but I would be very surprised if your servos can tell the difference of 0.5 uS in the pulse width!.
Hopefully, if you are using some of the code we have made available, and you 'publish' it as open source (as we do), you will follow the GNU license and keep the names of all the contributors in the source files.
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: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Bertrand, you are damn right.. It would be nice if people show some respect for the other members of this forum, specially for those that spend a lot of their time working for free on the firmwares so other people like myself can play with it and enjoy some quality flying time..bertrand35 wrote:Could be less agressive with Mike and Pat who did a wonderful work (even if you are right)! Or it's my poor english which makes me hurted in their place?
Bertrand.
What's the point of being agressive anyway??..
I think there's nothing to prove here.. This here is a nice friendly community and so it should continue to be like that..
João
My er9x/Ersky9x/eepskye Video Tutorials
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9
Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5uJhoD7sAKidZmkhMpYpp_qcuIqJXhb9
Donate to Er9x/Ersky9x:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHX43JR3J7XGW
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Hey guys,
I never wanted to be disrespectful. Of cause it is a great work which was done. But "jhsa" asked me some things and I just say what I've seen. Whats wrong about this?
And I also said:
I don't wanted to start a discussion about other firmwares in this thread. I mean nobody saw anything of my firmware for now, so why start a senseless discussion?
That was not the way I wanded to discuss about my "hardware mod". That I do have to do a firmware mod with this kind of hardware mod is inevitable. And how I'm going to do that is my thing.
If only a couple of code lines starting that kind of discussion I don't see any appeal to publish my code under GPL (and thats compliant with GPL since I only use it "internal").
And I you think about it... why should I publish my hardware mod without publishing a corresponding firmware? Of cause I want/wanted to to that. And I already said that too: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1188&p=16925#p16724
I never wanted to be disrespectful. Of cause it is a great work which was done. But "jhsa" asked me some things and I just say what I've seen. Whats wrong about this?
And I also said:
I mean I only posted a couple of code of some app-note and the then I get hints how to make it better wether "value == (value << 1)" or "value <<= 1".MasterFX wrote:... Of cause in this case it isn't that critical because the fault on the result is very small if you use bigger valuese
I don't wanted to start a discussion about other firmwares in this thread. I mean nobody saw anything of my firmware for now, so why start a senseless discussion?
That was not the way I wanded to discuss about my "hardware mod". That I do have to do a firmware mod with this kind of hardware mod is inevitable. And how I'm going to do that is my thing.
If only a couple of code lines starting that kind of discussion I don't see any appeal to publish my code under GPL (and thats compliant with GPL since I only use it "internal").
And I you think about it... why should I publish my hardware mod without publishing a corresponding firmware? Of cause I want/wanted to to that. And I already said that too: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1188&p=16925#p16724
- Rob Thomson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4543
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
- Country: United Kingdom
- Location: Albury, Guildford
- Contact:
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Oh joy... One of the tough things is written text being taken out of context
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Maybe there was some/a lot of misunderstanding. I will now continue to work on my project. CU
PS: I think the Mod can delete the thread, or the OT-Stuff. I'll maybe come back if I have enough to show.
PS: I think the Mod can delete the thread, or the OT-Stuff. I'll maybe come back if I have enough to show.
- Rob Thomson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4543
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:34 am
- Country: United Kingdom
- Location: Albury, Guildford
- Contact:
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
I think it would be a shame to not come back.
I personally think it is great to have 'new blood' and 'new ideas'.
Yes. Agreed maybe the initial posts sounding like an attack, but I don't think that was intended
We should all try to realise that questioning how or why things are done is a good thing!
And..
Yes... We are protective of our firmware. Great! But it is not for everyone. We all like different things . Let's accept that, and move on.
I hope that we do see more of this potential alternative firmware. Who knows... It may be very good!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I personally think it is great to have 'new blood' and 'new ideas'.
Yes. Agreed maybe the initial posts sounding like an attack, but I don't think that was intended
We should all try to realise that questioning how or why things are done is a good thing!
And..
Yes... We are protective of our firmware. Great! But it is not for everyone. We all like different things . Let's accept that, and move on.
I hope that we do see more of this potential alternative firmware. Who knows... It may be very good!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slope Soaring, FPV, and pretty much anything 'high tech'
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
...........if you think it should be in the wiki.. ask me for wiki access, then go add it!
- MikeB
- 9x Developer
- Posts: 18010
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:24 pm
- Country: -
- Location: Poole, Dorset, UK
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
I certainly didn't take anything posted as an "attack", or as 'disrespectful'. I'm just taking an interest, and being curious. I normally follow a particular coding style, but have had to fit in with the code as it is.
It's often quiote useful to have someone else look at the code, sometimes we can be too close to it and miss things.
There is a lot of code in er9x/open9x that may be useful. If you ever want to use you setup as a 'teacher' with a buddy bos 'student' you may want the PPM in code, and if you want to use your TX with a SIM you will still likely need the PPM out.
Feel free to come back and ask questions about the code, and do post about your progress.
Mike.
It's often quiote useful to have someone else look at the code, sometimes we can be too close to it and miss things.
There is a lot of code in er9x/open9x that may be useful. If you ever want to use you setup as a 'teacher' with a buddy bos 'student' you may want the PPM in code, and if you want to use your TX with a SIM you will still likely need the PPM out.
Feel free to come back and ask questions about the code, and do post about your progress.
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: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
guys, has anyone actually gotten a NRF24l01 setup to work?
I'm very interested int his as there are a allot of RC models now using this protocol and I'd really like to keep my 9x unit rather than buy a devo and start all over again.
I'm no electronic guy okay so please bare with moe on this, why cant we simply add the NRF chip set into a module fitted into the rear of the 9X like the orange module or the stock flysky module ? something to do with the PPM vs how the NRF sends it signal deal ? this guys seems to have solved the pinout match, so is it just down to firmware setup ? Any plans to write code to suit the nRF24 chip sets ?
Clearly it's doable on the devo or should I just accept fate and buy a devo Tx......... don't really want to but........
Thanks
kiwi-craig
I'm very interested int his as there are a allot of RC models now using this protocol and I'd really like to keep my 9x unit rather than buy a devo and start all over again.
I'm no electronic guy okay so please bare with moe on this, why cant we simply add the NRF chip set into a module fitted into the rear of the 9X like the orange module or the stock flysky module ? something to do with the PPM vs how the NRF sends it signal deal ? this guys seems to have solved the pinout match, so is it just down to firmware setup ? Any plans to write code to suit the nRF24 chip sets ?
Clearly it's doable on the devo or should I just accept fate and buy a devo Tx......... don't really want to but........
Thanks
kiwi-craig
Re: FS-TH9x + nRF24L01+ PA + LNA
Hi guys
When use these module,
What will changed in the program code?
I have worked with these, and it not transmit power, i receive current over these are abould 14 mA not 100mA.
What is my wrong?
Thank you!
When use these module,
What will changed in the program code?
I have worked with these, and it not transmit power, i receive current over these are abould 14 mA not 100mA.
What is my wrong?
Thank you!