Starting to miss eePe

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:52 pm

I've been super happy with my ersky9x board and the ersky9x firmware. Everything is working pretty well so far and I haven't had to solder anything! The only problem for me now, and it's not really a problem, is that before I could use eePe to simulate mixes. I found that very helpful because I find it a bit more difficult to setup a mix for the first time in the Tx alone. I know we have C9x as an alternative to eePe, but at this point no simulation for ersky9x.

So I guess I could, a) switch to Open9x which involves learning all the differences and resetting up my models. (yes, I know some of the settings carry over). B) swap back to the stock board for awhile. C) Suck it up and get better at programming on the tx!

Post by **Kilrah** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:57 pm

I think that with C) you solve both A) and B), don't you?

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:16 pm

You can always simulate on a stock board profile.. Then copy it to an ersky profile?

---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4nitzh
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:31 pm

Meaning profiles in C9x? I haven't tried them yet, thanks for the tip.

Post by **Kilrah** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:38 pm

Well, the point is that mixing behavior etc is identical on evrey board. So you could simulate your setup as if you were on the stock board, then once you're happy convert it or enter it directly on the radio.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:06 pm

Yeah, I understand that. I'm just saying it was nice to have eePe working with my firmware and could simulate and make changes and then just "sync up". That was a big part of the cool factor. I just came across a mix in my TX and thought, "it's too bad I can't just pop open eepe and try it there". I know I can setup a model in eepe and test it, then move the settings over. I know I can just try a few different things in the TX and get it working.
Sorry for bringing it up...

Post by **bertrand35** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:06 pm

Well, there is a D): I promised to Mike to have ersky9x simulation inside companion9x. It even is already working on Linux. Still a couple of hours needed to have it fully compiling on Visual C++ for Windows.
The mixing behaviour is NOT identical! As it uses the logic from the FW itself (it is linked to all firmwares svn repositories), so suppose there is a bug in the FW, it will be simulated as well!
Bertrand.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:09 pm

Very nice work! Thanks for the update!
Cheers

Post by **bertrand35** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:54 am

Done. Mike I have some changes to commit into ersky9x before releasing a new companion9x version. Is it the right timeslot to do it?
Still not supported the backlight into ersky9x simulation for those who use companion9x during the night

Audio and SD-card not supported as well, they will be added later if needed.
Bertrand.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:27 am

bertrand35 wrote:Still not supported the backlight into ersky9x simulation for those who use companion9x during the night

LOL... I'll use a flashlight....

Great work Bertrand

Post by **MikeB** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:32 am

Bertrand: OK go ahead and commit.

Mike.

Post by **bertrand35** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:40 am

Done. Could you check?
http://code.google.com/p/ersky9x/source/detail?r=73
Bertrand.

EDIT: The backlight is here as well

Post by **bertrand35** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:28 pm

I am releasing a new version, now supporting ersky9x. With the splash animation

Bertrand.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:16 am

Great work Bertrand!

Quick question if I may, in ersky9x/er9x the inputs that we use for a switch are HALF and FULL. Half being 0 to 100 or 0 to -100. Full being -100 to 100. In C9x the only one I see is MAX which seems to be like HALF in er9x/ersky9x

Cheers

Post by **bertrand35** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:07 am

Yes, that's because I don't like too much HALF / FULL, nor MAX / FULL. In open9x there is no FULL, you just set the switch as source of the mix. It adds more flexibility and makes things clear. My opinion of course

Now in c9x the approach is the same than o9x, because both are used together. It is able to import / export to ersky9x / gruvin9x / er9x / th9x, but it remains true that the way the logic is and the settings are displayed is not so good for other firmwares. The best would be a new tool (based on eePe and / or companion9x) with the same logic than ersky9x, but that's another big work...

Bertrand.

Post by **jhsa** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:41 am

so, when you set the switch as the source of the mix it does the same as full (-100, 100)??
And then you have half..

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:51 am

I see.
When I read my eeprom from TX (ersky9x) my channel 5 (gear channel) shows ---- as the source. However when I simulate it in c9x it works fine with the gear switch, -100 to +100.
If I change the source to MAX and assign the gear switch, it also works as expected giving 0-100.
If I change the source to GEA all I get is -100 with the gear switch on and off.

What has me a little worried is, if I were to do a new mix like that, then upload it to the tx, what would it do? (I'm going to try it, but I'm more thinking about all the settings in all the models when I first start using C9x rather than samba)

Post by **bertrand35** » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:01 pm

Then I think it's a display only problem, would you send me the EEPROM so I could have a look?
Bertrand.

Post by **bertrand35** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:35 am

Thanks, fixed on SVN. Will be in next release.
Bertrand.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:07 pm

Thanks Bertrand! I really don't want this to come across the wrong way, I do respect all the hard work you've done, but I wanted to ask about using C9x in place of eepe. Things like C9x not having a HALF setting mean models in the TX will never be able to match the settings c9x. You would have to match every possible option and setting in ersky9x, and I know that's a LOT of work, and you have done so much work on open9x...

Really what I'm asking is, do you plan to fully support ersky9x in the future? I wouldn't blame you in the least if you only provided "basic" compatiblity.

The truth is, I'm too lazy to set up my models again, or to learn open9x...

but I'm really starting to think I will try open9x for awhile, it looks very interesting.

Post by **bertrand35** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:05 pm

"HALF" in ersky9x and er9x was "MAX" in the past. In companion9x / open9x it remains "MAX". Did you test with "MAX"?
I do agree, it would be better to have another tool to match exactly ersky9x. Companion9x is able to import and export ersky9x EEPROM, but the internal logic is the one I preferred, the same than open9x. Even if the firmwares are very similar, it remains a lot of differences, Expos / Dual rates / Function Switches / Flight Phases ...
Bertrand.

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:23 pm

Hexperience wrote:
The truth is, I'm too lazy to set up my models again, or to learn open9x... but I'm really starting to think I will try open9x for awhile, it looks very interesting.

I would suggest.... Backup your epprom, and try open9x. You can always restore if you don't get on with it.

Never hurts to try something different

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **MikeB** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:52 pm

I'll try to find some time to see if I can build a version of eepe that is for ersky9x. I'll need to sort the reading and writing of the flash and EEPROM, I tried to find the code in companion9x, but it didn't seem to be in the trunk\src directory. I did a search for it and found references to files that wern't visible, most odd.

If there is anyone who is "into" QTCreator who can help, this would be most useful.

Mike.

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:02 pm

I believe companion uses the remote svn files when compiling. That way the firmware functionality always works.

It may be that that is why the files are missing?

Not that I have actually compiled it - do just a guess

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **MikeB** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:09 pm

No, the search found "SAM-BA" in "trunk\src\arminterface.cpp", but the trunk\src directory does not have an arminterface.cpp file visible!

Mike.

Post by **Rob Thomson** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:13 pm

Oh well

Just a guess!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **bertrand35** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:55 am

No, everything is visible / open source in companion9x, and there is no arminterface.cpp either. What search did you launch?
The code for SAM-BA is not complex at all, major part is inside mainwindow.cpp. Search for "GetSendFlashCommand" for example.

Bertrand.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:52 am

bertrand35 wrote:"HALF" in ersky9x and er9x was "MAX" in the past. In companion9x / open9x it remains "MAX". Did you test with "MAX"?
I do agree, it would be better to have another tool to match exactly ersky9x. Companion9x is able to import and export ersky9x EEPROM, but the internal logic is the one I preferred, the same than open9x. Even if the firmwares are very similar, it remains a lot of differences, Expos / Dual rates / Function Switches / Flight Phases ...
Bertrand.

Yes, I have MAX for all the switch settings in C9x. Which leads me to wonder about FULL? I think in C9x/open9x rather than using FULL and assigning the switch, you just use the switch name as input. i.e. GEAR. Right?

I find it amazing that you have included so much compatibility in c9x as it is. You didn't really have to add any ersky9x compatibility at all, and you did to help us all out. Great work.

Hexperience · Post by **Hexperience** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:58 am

MikeB wrote:I'll try to find some time to see if I can build a version of eepe that is for ersky9x. I'll need to sort the reading and writing of the flash and EEPROM, I tried to find the code in companion9x, but it didn't seem to be in the trunk\src directory. I did a search for it and found references to files that wern't visible, most odd.

If there is anyone who is "into" QTCreator who can help, this would be most useful.

Mike.

I really wish I could help on that... it's been a long time since I did any coding.

I hope, Mike, that you didn't think I was trying to ask you specificly to also work on eepe... I know you're doing so much work on ersky9x as it is. I hope it didn't come across the wrong way.

Cheers

Post by **bertrand35** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:05 pm

Hexperience wrote:
Yes, I have MAX for all the switch settings in C9x. Which leads me to wonder about FULL? I think in C9x/open9x rather than using FULL and assigning the switch, you just use the switch name as input. i.e. GEAR. Right?

I find it amazing that you have included so much compatibility in c9x as it is. You didn't really have to add any ersky9x compatibility at all, and you did to help us all out. Great work.

You welcome! And yes for FULL, you explained it well. All switches will give you -100 / +100 except 3POS which will give you -100 / 0 / +100.

Bertrand.

openrcforums