At mixer no expo kurve

[Helle]

Hy
I miss at mixer the expo kurve, same as at DR/Expo
you have lots of kurves , but not the expo,
I miss it realy!

expo level input same as at Diff

and don´t say:
not needed,
take a free kurve,
th9x cant it, less memory

forget th9x with 64k is time over

now we stay at Taranis and
we need a realy free programming System with no memory restrictions

Helle

[jhsa]

forget th9x with 64k is time over

now we stay at Taranis and
we need a realy free programming System with no memory restrictions

Helle

So, in other words the developers should forget about the thousands of people that use the 9x, right? Nice suggestion Very very selfish Who the hell do you think you are to suggest something like that??

Moderators, if you think I misunderstood his post, please fell free to delete my post but I think what was said is not acceptable and it is disrespectful to the 9x community..

João

[Flaps 30]

I am trying to understand what the OP is looking for regarding the curves he is talking about. There is a lot of free curves that you can tweak and put wherever you like.

As for forgetting the TH9x with its 64k or whatever.. Yes it is becoming restrictive when you compare it to what is going on. Some of us have pushed the boundaries a bit by fitting the M128 (and the M2561 in one or two cases) which has given us a bit longer before we become frustrated enough to go out an buy a Taranis. It goes without saying that development work will slow down by a significant amount on the basic TH9x (it has matured) so that more time can be spent on the Taranis.

Back to the curves.

[jhsa]

not everybody will buy a taranis..

[Flaps 30]

So enjoy what you have and accept that you won't get all the whistles and bells that the Taranis has. Updating to a m128 or in the future (hopefully) to the 2561 does help, but it isn't something your average ham fisted Balsa shaver modeller can do without some risk.

The OP said that he is missing something that we had that has been taken out.. What is that?

[jhsa]

I know we won't have all the bells and whistles of the taranis and I'm not expecting that.. that is not a reason to suggest that the development and/or support for the 9x should be forgotten.. that is what did upset me..
Even if I would buy a Anis, which I won't cos I will wait for the Horus, I wouldn't suggest that the development for the 9x stops.. that would be a very selfish comment..

João

EDIT: Yeah, maybe you're right, maybe it is not worth it to replace the chip with the m2561 anymore because what would be the point of doing it and take a chance of damaging the board only to find out that there would not be more development and support for it?

[ReSt]

With version 2503 I do have expo curves on the sticks screen.

Reinhard

[Helle]

Hy jhsa,

two things,
first I allways hear what we ar not need
we need not this and need not that, the result is that we can not programm in a clear direct line, we
have to programm in a tortuous way for normal simplest things.

And all say so it is, and its good

Examples:
At DR/Expo I can only use the 4 Gimbals, with expos but only from 0% to100% for precalculations.
AT mixers I can use all Inputs and from -100% to +100% but not the integrated Expo funktions as in DR/Expo with the easy input
I can not set a comment at Mixer lines
and so on.

Yes we are comming from a System with only 64k and with this less memory, its great, but restricted.
and by the way we have different System at all, Th9 9XR th9x128, 9XR128, Gruvin, Er9sky

Now with Taranis and the posibilities with large memory, and 32bit it schould be possible to ask and to think about to open restrictions
we have or had.

Th9x or 9XR are nice, I myself have 3 of it, but its a restricted basic System, not more.

Second:
During the last years here we are only "Spezialist", Programmers, developers, elektronik background and so on.
Now time has changed and we got a professional system
for normal people, not longer only Porgrammers,they will ask why is it and why not simpler

But I only here, we dont need it.
wake up, open your mind boys

Helle

[Helle]

Hy,
during the last weeks we are a smal group of Heli, Glider, Copter Pilots, all wating for Taranis,
we are testing and programing with Companion9x lots of tings mixers curves flightmodes together
and exakt this questions are coming up

sometimes simple as above with -100 to 100, expo her, but not there, not all anlog inputs throu DR/Expos and so on.

or a kind of standard prgramm blocks. self generatetd and for open use
standard input and ouputs, independent from Servosetting, with good dokumentations and so on.

And they all ask me, because of my german Taranis manual,
and I only can say yes, you are right this could be better implemented,
I cant change it, and they will not do it.

And so the Questinon are landing here

But its all not necessary, we are he best!!

could it be that we have blinkers on

Helle

[jhsa]

Only because YOU will have a Taranis, it doesn't mean that all the others will have it or even like it..
of course it's up to the developers to decide whether they will continue to support the 9x or not, but it is their call not ours. the 9x is restricted, yes it is, but we cam this far when everybody was saying one and a half year ago that the radio reached it's limits.. and we didn't even have audio yet..
as i said, I don't expect all the bells and whistles (quoting flaps30) that the taranus has, but I do think that the 9x has some more to give.
I do have 2 atmegas 2561 ready to go on my radios, but i gotta say that now I'm a bit afraid of changing the chips as there is no assurance that the project will continue..

As I say, it's up to the developers.. I don't think that suggesting that they abandon the 9x is very nice towards the rest of the community. It is a VERY SELFISH move..
But I guess it is just the way the world is...

João

[Flaps 30]

wake up, open your mind boys

Glad that you didn't include me in that lot.

Yes I agree with a lot of what you are saying.. Too complex, and the logic of how to do some things is ... Well.. Just not logical or intuitive in any way.. Opentx still has bugs (to my mind) in it that are worked around by programming things up in a complicated manner. The synchronisation between Opentx and Companion along with the labelling of switches has yet to be pulled into line. So far I have put it down to the massive workload and changes that have come about due to Taranis. I don't see that getting any better for the near future as bugs are found by the 'normal' modellers.

One good thing may come out of this longer term. As more nerd free minds come into play, along with (hopefully) some bright programmers, we might find a more user friendly system come out of it all. Obviously it will all happen at the top first and it may (when and if) all trickle down to lowly users of the basic m64 TX... Not sure if it will happen this way though if the introduction of the 9XR is anything to go by, but the saving grace is the fact that the Taranis is IMO part of this community from the top down.

[Romolo]

Helle,
I understand people likes bells and whistles, but in Taranis mixers have a name: do not expect you will ever be able to write a poem for comment.
Print your model and comment your print, now you are also able to save as html and also as odt
Printouts from companion9x have no equal in any other radio software that people had available up to now.
I do not see a need to evaluate an exponential on a stick more than once and I really cannot see why you need expo in something else but stick expo/dr.
If i want to smooth the stick response I work on the stick not on the mixer.
But even if you want to work on the mixer considering we have 17points curves with variable X and that you can exclude when you need expo from stick inside a mixer, I think you are almost free to do whatever you like.
I really have serious models programmed on my radio (sky9x and tanaris too) and I never found the limits you are referring too.
Maybe people is used to program a closed radio and finds opentx different.
Different doesn't mean wrong: it only means you need a different approach.

If you really like bring some specific meaningful example that cannot be solved with expos in DR/EXPO. This will be a more constructive approach.

Best Regards,
Romolo

[Rob Thomson]

Hy jhsa,

two things,
first I allways hear what we ar not need
we need not this and need not that, the result is that we can not programm in a clear direct line, we
have to programm in a tortuous way for normal simplest things.

And all say so it is, and its good

Examples:
At DR/Expo I can only use the 4 Gimbals, with expos but only from 0% to100% for precalculations.
AT mixers I can use all Inputs and from -100% to +100% but not the integrated Expo funktions as in DR/Expo with the easy input
I can not set a comment at Mixer lines
and so on.

Yes we are comming from a System with only 64k and with this less memory, its great, but restricted.
and by the way we have different System at all, Th9 9XR th9x128, 9XR128, Gruvin, Er9sky

Now with Taranis and the posibilities with large memory, and 32bit it schould be possible to ask and to think about to open restrictions
we have or had.

Th9x or 9XR are nice, I myself have 3 of it, but its a restricted basic System, not more.

Second:
During the last years here we are only "Spezialist", Programmers, developers, elektronik background and so on.
Now time has changed and we got a professional system
for normal people, not longer only Porgrammers,they will ask why is it and why not simpler

But I only here, we dont need it.
wake up, open your mind boys

Helle

Right.

I think that you provably are coming across slightly the wrong way through English not being the first language.

Comments like "open your mind boys" "wake up"....

Well... These could easily be answered with a "#### #&%* if you don't like it don't use it!".

Try and remember something here. None of the developers here are paid.

They have put in hundreds of hours getting the system to where it is now.

I am sure they will put in the same again.

The best way of getting a new feature is to post a clear description of what you think would be useful.

Possibly expand it to how it could be solved.

Or even better - code it and submit a patch.

Posts that simply criticise the work that has been done are not constructive.

But as I said originally... Maybe it is just a language/translation issue.

Rob



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[bertrand35]

#### #&%*

[kaos]

this is my two cents.
er9x/open9x has been a 'hacker'/'modder' software. it was developed by a group of wonderful enthusiastic. and it works wonderfully and very powerful. However, it is quite different from majority of the 'commercial' Tx. ONce you get to know it, it is wonderful, by that time you become a hacker/modder or NERD too. It does take some time to get used to it. Because the software is developed 'at wish', whoever comes out with a good suggestion the wonderful developer start writing the code. But from the get go, there is no over all scheme or plan for the whole thing. For some one coming totally from commercial product, it would make them feel 'fragmented' and 'confusing'. Because it is the nature of a 'hacker/modder' tx/program.
but, now the Taranis is coming out as 'commercial' product. the user interface/friendliness becomes a major issue. People buy things not only because it works/powerful but actually most importantly is user friendliness/interface. This is not an issue for hacker/modder, but it is a real issue for commercial product. For Taranis to be successful and competing with major player, the user interface/friendliness will be crucial. Other wise, it will still end up with a 'hacker's Tx' and the buyer will be from the same group of people that are already hackers, just getting some better hardware. The majoirty users, after all, are not hackers/modders. They just want to pick it up and use it. This is the battle Frysky needs to confront.
I know someone who owned a software company for apps on cell phone, he told me 90% of their engineer's time is writing/improving user interface, not the actual program. because the user interface is where to decide a commercial product is going to make it or break it. If it is intuitive to most users, it is going to be successful. Apple 'was' so successful is not because it made some super product that has power no one can make. It is because its user friendliness and ergonomics that won the consumers. I even heard people in the business saying 'if you need a manual to use your product, you need to rewrite the user interface'. We are talking products for general population not for engineers/hackers/modders. People with minimum knowledge in a product should be able to pick it up and use it without much problem. Again, I am talking about product for general users.

[Rob Thomson]

And that dear sir... Is why IMHO opentx was chosen for this job. It has a large team who do focus on user interface.

I personally find it very consistent. It has a few niggles... But nothing major.

Over time... More and more changes and improvements will occur.

Maybe if people donated more often, it would enable the developers to take part time jobs - and use the free time to code more on the firmware?



Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Helle]

Sorry Rob

no, English is not my first language
something wrong expressed

I agrre Kaos , thats what I see at a normal club


and whats #### #&%* ??

Helle

[kaos]

Maybe if people donated more often, it would enable the developers to take part time jobs - and use the free time to code more on the firmware?

I thought Bertrend made an announcement asking people not to donate any more.

Seriously, I think Frysky should pay the developers handsomely for all the work the developers have done for Taranis. They could not hire better people to do a better job.


Rob: The grand scheme I am talking about really is not about the main program. It is about the part of user interface. When people has been working on the program are really so used to it. Everything is natural to them. The user interface really can only be evaluated by a group of people never used the program and use it to tell. I still remember the 1st time I used er9x, every thing is so 'foreign' to me. There is almost no 'common ground' compared to a commercial Tx. But now, I don't have problem working with either er9x/ersky9x/opentx because I am used to it already. However, this initial 'break in' is where a commercial product is going make or break. Average people won't spend the time or have the patience to 'learn' how to use it. After a short period time they don't feel comfortable with it, they will dump it, albeit it is a great program and powerful. I have introduced er9x/variant to several people, but after they tried, they just gave up. It is not because it does not work, it is because they just can't get used to the user interface.

[Kilrah]

Examples:
At DR/Expo I can only use the 4 Gimbals, with expos

But for what common control do you need expo for a pot?

For the record, a 1600€ top-of-line Graupner mc32 only allows expo on the rudder, aileron and elevator sticks, not even throttle!

With openTx IF you really need it you can always do it via a curve in the mixer, so you're not stuck and can do it - it's of course less convenient, BUT it's not something you're likely to need in the first place.

but, now the Taranis is coming out as 'commercial' product. the user interface/friendliness becomes a major issue. People buy things not only because it works/powerful but actually most importantly is user friendliness/interface. This is not an issue for hacker/modder, but it is a real issue for commercial product. For Taranis to be successful and competing with major player, the user interface/friendliness will be crucial.

Remember one thing:
FrSky did NOT give a single cent to the developers. This means that for them, openTx as it was on the 9x was already sufficient for what they wanted their product to be.
The openTx team spent months improving things knowing that this radio could be a game changer, and because they wanted to try to do something as good as they could with the resources they had so that everybody could benefit from it. I believe the improvements both on the hardware through our suggestions and the software already bring it an order of magnitude above what it could have been.
But again, it is FrSky's radio. If they chose openTx, it's because it fits what they wanted. If they had felt the interface was not good enough, or didn't place them in a position to "compete with major players" (if they look for that at all!) then they would either have made a firmware themselves, or they would have hired the developers to do things the way they wanted and paid them for it.

It is about the part of user interface. When people has been working on the program are really so used to it.

Again - I started working on openTx because the day I tried it I found the interface was better than anything else I had tried (which includes all major radio brands). Not the opposite.
I can't count anymore the number of people who I've read post "it looked strange at first, but after a day I've understood it and it makes perfect sense!"
Again nothing will please anybody. I've thrown my Futaba radio away when I found openTx. Now there are certainly some people who will be lost on the Taranis and will throw it away for a Futaba. Everybody has a different way of working, and thinking everybody can be converted to *whatever* is utopic.

I thought Bertrend made an announcement asking people not to donate any more.

http://openrcforums.com/forum/viewtopic ... 590#p46590

[MikeB]

I don't intend to abandon the 9X. With er9x, I have over 4K of flash space, even on the FrSky version, to use for additions after various savings made over the last few months. I have some plans, but it will take some time. I have been asked if a version of er9x/ersky9x will be available for the Taranis. I may get time to do something about this, but there are a lot of changes needed handle Taranis specific things.

With all these softwares there are often several different ways of achieving the same result. For example, suppose you have a single mix on a channel, but you need the servo to go the opposite way.
1. Use INV in limits.
2. Use a curve to change the movement.
3. Use a negative weight in the mix.

Some requests for 'new' features are simply because such a feature is available on another Tx. The required result may actually be achieved using openTx/er9x, you just need to understand how.
One example from a recent post included a request for an option to reduce the total movement available when using a trim. This is possible by configuring mixes correctly, so is such an option needed, or is it required to make it easier for users to use?

Mike.

[ReSt]

I have a simple example of a little bit more user friendlyness for new users.
The templates, many of us say they are not required, they are that simple, that you easily can program the given mixes by yourself. That is correct and no problem to me at all.
The actual state is, some of the mixes replace the existing setup and some are added to the existing setup. And they do not remove switches from a previous setup. And it is not immediately visible which template does what.
1. I made a little modification in so far that in front of the single template there is a "+ " sign or a "R " character to show if a mix is an add on or a replace mix.
2. Loading a new model loads the default 4 channel arrangement, and
3. the templates offer a 3 channel (there are 3 channel receivers available)
4. a 5 channel (2 channels for ailerons with 50% differential) and
5. a 7 channel (with additional 2 flaps with slow on the 3Position switch).
And you can
6. add the simple or
7. the sticky throttle cut and
8. add switches (2 position and 3position) to your already configured model.
9. The servotest does not run on channel 16 but on ch1 where you will see and use it immediately. Not necessary to add another mix to get the result on a physical channel.

Even though I do not need it (because I'm able to setup these mixes by myself) I belieeve, that this would be a good starting point for someone who is not used to this type of programming and could give him an idea how to do some mixes where we don't think about a single second.

Reinhard

edit:
forgot to mention that the Delta and V-Tail and the heli mixes are also there. (Where the Heli mixes are there only if the Heli functions are compiled)

[kaos]

It is about the part of user interface. When people has been working on the program are really so used to it.

Again - I started working on openTx because the day I tried it I found the interface was better than anything else I had tried (which includes all major radio brands). Not the opposite.

I agree, that is why I have a switch in the brain now, one setting is labelled as 'nerdish', when I use er9x/variant I just turn the knob and it works perfectly.

I thought Bertrend made an announcement asking people not to donate any more.

http://openrcforums.com/forum/viewtopic ... 590#p46590[/quote]

missed that one for sure. By the way, how does that work? I mean where the donation goes? to whom and how it is used? never understood that part. who are on the 'donated' list?

[bertrand35]

And here as well, I won't abandon the 9x. Perhaps it will slow down a little bit, because I have not enough time to do everything but it won't stop!

[G550Ted]

Mike and Bertrend's commitment to their continued future support for the 9x platform is much appreciated. There are many 9x radios currently in use and, due to their low cost and good availability, those numbers should continue to grow.

Recognizing the voluntary support by all of the developers and their increasing workload due to the addition of FrSky products, I believe that it is important for us users to exercise some responsibility by not adding to the demands of their time by refraining from persistent frivolous posts about features or design of the firmware that are not practical.

Anyone seeking radical changes to er9x or openTx firmware should take advantage of their open source nature and develop their own fork and associated support forums, RCG threads, etc., and not clutter the existing ones such as this.

Ted

[Rob Thomson]

Anyone seeking radical changes to er9x or openTx firmware should take advantage of their open source nature and develop their own fork and associated support forums, RCG threads, etc., and not clutter the existing ones such as this.

If anyone wants one to develop a fork, I would create a separate 'sub forum' for them.

[Romolo]

Anyone seeking radical changes to er9x or openTx firmware should take advantage of their open source nature and develop their own fork and associated support forums, RCG threads, etc., and not clutter the existing ones such as this.

Ted

Maybe placed this way is too strong,
I really thing we are all open to suggestion additions and improvement whenever the request are motivated by practical examples.
That's what I asked for...
When I asked Bertrand for diffs in ailerons I demonstrated that having diff inside ailerons would save two mixers with a better display and that considering several flight phases the saving was even bigger (at that moment !Curve was still not existing)
Bertrand added them and after some time also Mike did too.

That's why I was asking for an example, forking is not always a good idea, even if is intrinsic in the nature of open source project, as forking wastes resources. (it means also a new eepe/companion9x and so on...)

just my 2 cents..

[bertrand35]

Right, a fork means a lot of work

Another possibility is a branch inside an existing project!

[Flaps 30]

The key to the future of the firmware and its acceptability to the non nerds as mentioned earlier by others and myself is really down to the ease of use, and an understandable (up to date) user manual, which does seem to be a bit of a weak link at present, along with a very confusing user interface on the TX. Now I do know that improving the user interface on the transmitter that has a M64 fitted is next to impossible due to the lack of space. My old (and now sold) DX6i was great, as the TX had an intuitive menu system, and a manual that was readable and easy to navigate through. The DX6i has an M128 fitted, and given only six channels and a few switches, I suppose that the chip had the space in it for the software writers to make it friendly.

While writing the above I was thinking that given the lack of space on the chip regarding memory, that the way around it would be to develop Eepe and Companion so that they become the friendly face of the system and offer more in the way of templates and ways to add in a semi automatic way, items that we want to use.. At the moment it can take me half an hour or so with Companion to build a new model, which is a long time in my book. Even then there will be things that are not working as they should, which usually results in messing around until it does what I want, so somewhere the logic that it follow and my logic doesn't agree. As for GVARS.. Don't get me started on that!

[Rob Thomson]

Gvars... They are wonderful

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[jhsa]

You mean getting the firmware very similar to Futaba, JR, etc, in terms of user interface?
I would buy a Futaba then.. better hardware at least
I do think that everything is difficult until you learn to work with it.. Look at Linux for example. For me it is still difficult for the people that know how to work with it, it is very easy I suppose
If you don't learn how to setup a model, and how and why it flies, you can have the best user interface, you will not be able to program the model in the radio until you learn and know what you're doing..
GVARS were a good addition to the firmware.. I've been using them in a few different ways.. One of them makes it possible in a not so elegant way (but it works), to listen one track after the other, increasing, decreasing and reseting the file numbers.. cool..
Also I use them to change the amount of rate on one of my very aerobatic models. Not really necessary on kytes that just hang in the wind