Re: [RCSE] RE: GUI programming for TX's - More
Neil, I think you may be misunderstanding the starting premise of this exercise. The idea was not to create a feedback or computer controlled situation where the computer controls the tx. The idea was to take the numerical and small screen interface of the Tx's programming screen and enhance that to make it easier to understand. That is a huge advantage. I use an example from aviation between 2 Garmin GPS units. The 430 and 530. The functionality of the units is identical, the difference is screen size. Now, yes the map is bigger, but the main reason people swap to the larger 530 is to have more information displayed on one screen. I can also give an example from a MPX 4000 that I would love to see. I use the 4000 because I am familiar with it, but any higher end tx would probably benefit as well. Anyway, on the 4000 you have 2 distinct sets of parameters. The servos and the controls. The servos are set up to be limits. You set the maximum limit that the servo can physically move. The controls then are linked/mixed into each servo to control it (up to the limits). This can be VERY confusing as the setups are on totally different screens. Also, since everything is really a mixer, it is also difficult to see all the relationships between the controls and servos. It would be great to have a graphical display of the control and what servo(s) it controls. Also displaying the max/min values. This gets REALLY confusing when you set up special functions such as the reverse differential or switch functions. Seeing it is much easier than trying to imagine it and flip through the menus. I don't think this is for field progrmaming though! I would use it at home for basic setup and then go from there. Field tuning would be done with the normal functions. Now...if it could expand on some of the programming...that would be nice. I keep hearing of ways to unlock certain functionality that different tx's has (like heli CCPM on older radios) and the like. I suspect that they are much more adaptable than we are allowed to play with. That would be nice Jason Werner - Original Message - From: Neil Gillies [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:45 AM Subject: [RCSE] RE: GUI programming for TX's - More Hi All This is really a question to Arne, and to simplify what he is attempting to attain. Q: Please explain EXACTLY how the following information is returned to the Tx to enable the PC/Mac program to make any SENSIBLE (for sensible, read usable) mechanical adjustments/mixing arrangements to the flying surfaces (or throttle/cyclic pitch etc even :-) 1 The linkage position on the servo arm 2 The linkage position on the surface horn 3 The linkage position on any intervening bellcranks (if any) 4 The amount of physical throw at the trailing edge of the surface 5 The direction the surface moves for a given signal 6 The above assumes that all the throws are linear - what happens when there is a mechanical offset on the centreline of the horn/output arms giving a non-linear bias - how would this be achieved? In my stupidity, I just can't see what use ANY interaction on the computer would offer without all of the above information being available - or at least the final relationship between servo and surface for each channel. Not having any positional feedback from a surface (from say some form of encoder attached to the surface) negates any possibility of making it automatic - not to mention that there would still be the problem of getting the positional feedback to the transmitter - perhaps a telemetry downlink? This is all completely achievable using fairly simple technology of course. Please don't take this post the wrong way, I AM genuinely interested - I too hate the dreaded Tx interfaces ! I am a systems engineer who still finds it difficult to program my JVC VHS !! There is of course a possibility that I have completely missed the point of the exercise and that all you want to do is have the PC/Mac as an extension to the Tx (ie control the Tx in real time via the serial interface). This is of course easily possible I assume - just emulate another 3030 in buddy box mode. Not sure that you wouldn't forget how to program the tx at the field 'though when you needed to give the crow a little tweak :-)) I think I might just repeat that it would be better to grab a copy of Mike Shellim's excellent online 3030 manual and spend the time reading :-))) Best regards Neil ___ Neil D. Gillies Tel: +44 (0)1383-823489 iGull TechnologiesFax: +44 (0)8707-059481 11 River View Mobile: +44 (0)771-4330793 Dalgety Bay, Fife [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scotland KY11 9YE http://www.igull.co.uk http://www.sea-gull.demon.co.uk RCSE-List
Re: [RCSE] RE: GUI programming for TX's - More
Hi Neil, The idea was to take the numerical and small screen interface of the Tx's programming screen and enhance that to make it easier to understand. That is a huge advantage. I use an example from aviation between 2 Garmin GPS units. The 430 and 530. The functionality of the units is identical, the difference is screen size. Now, yes the map is bigger, but the main reason people swap to the larger 530 is to have more information displayed on one screen. OK, I get your drift - however (isn't there always a however :-)) It would appear that a bigger easier to use interface to say a 3030 or 4000 would be an improvement to the end user - unfortunately, I have to disagree completely. Neil unfortunatly I would have to disgree with your disagree. :)) The bigger interface on the JR 8103 is much better (and easier to use) than the one on the JR 388. Also the two line interface on the Graupner/JR MC 18/20 is abbismal compared with the interface on the Graupner/JR MC 24 On both these above examples the larger screen allows you to see where to go to get to the next function so that you do not have to scroll throuh numerous screens (or remember function numbers as in the case of the MC 18/20) Imagine if all the functions and their values were on the screen at the one time then we would not have to search for that function that we know is there, but is always hard to find, especially when new to that TX . Take the example of the Palm devicesno no not your fingers..the Palm Pilot thinggys, if you had to scroll through to get to all the functions I don't believe they would have taken off. Take your average modeller, an F3F/F3J/F3B model and a 3030/4000. If you remove the aircraft from the loop in any way, then the modeller can't see any connection between what they are adjusting and the end result - there's no feedback. I don't believe anyone was seriously suggesting removing the model. I'm sorry to keep harping back to what I said, but unless there is some visual feedback to the adjustments, then no amount of graphical user interface is going to make up for this. Totally agree. The GUI can certainly make it look simpler by giving more information, Yep I believe that's what people were saying would be better but without any visual control feedback, it is just a big bunch of numbers. - perhaps even more confusing to the end user. Agree There's really no satisfying substitute to watching both the ailerons and flaps move in the same direction after 3 hours of programming =;-) How about a larger interface and perhaps doing it in 5-10 mins. Perhaps what is required is a simulator that has no connection to the transmitter whatsoever - a training aid in effect. A set of dummy aircraft models could be used to show cause and effect. Perhaps a series of plugins to suit different makes of Tx even. An electronic version of the Tx users manual. Or maybe just reading (and understanding !) the printed manual would save all this effort g Ahhh understand the manual.there's a novel thought, what language was yours written in :))) I have yet to read one that explains exactly how to set up the 3 poition sw. for launch thermal and landing , for instance. Yes I have read Mike's one and printed it. The problem is that when one knows a lot about the programming of a certain TX and then writes a manual they seem to assume that their audience knows more that they in fact do. Its like teaching someone who has had no former exposure to a computer, how to use one It can be very hard for the teacher to dumb down (for want of a better expresion) to the level of the learner. But this is what is needed with manuals in my opinion, The manual that comes with the 3030 is the best I have seen but still assumes perhaps more knowledge than one has. The basics are easy, it's the full function stuff that is not usually easy to aquire. I think though that your statement regarding reading and UNDERSTANDING the manual and the way the programming for a TX works is certainly the key.. Sorry for long post, my .A$ 0.01c worth Dennis Field tuning would be done with the normal functions. Agree RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
