HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Dec 27, 2012, 04:29 PM
Registered User
United States, ID
Joined Sep 2011
593 Posts
I wish you guys would put your considerable skills to work on building something better rather than reverse engineering inferior designs!

60mW @ 2.4g with the mediocre specs of the radio chip used is never going to be all that great.

I've always wanted to build a TX/RX based on the Si1000. It would be smaller, cheaper, and have much better specs. 100mW @ 915mhz with the receive sensitivity of that chip would smoke any of the standard modules out there, and there's already 1W designs available.

EDIT: I don't mean to insult Turnigy/FlySky, I use the products myself. By "inferior design" I mean the frequency, power level, and use of analog PPM.
jakestew is offline Find More Posts by jakestew
Last edited by jakestew; Dec 27, 2012 at 04:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 27, 2012, 04:58 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakestew View Post
I wish you guys would put your considerable skills to work on building something better rather than reverse engineering inferior designs!
I wish YOU would put your (questionable?) skills to work on building something better rather than complaining about the efforts of others! so instead of just lip service regarding your beloved si1000 project why not actually do something in that direction. make sure to use that piccuircuit.com programmer you liike so much and not the "crummy" one with useless ziff socket dave mccormick introduced here in his misguided attempt to deceive us. lol!

btw ive developed several silabs chips starting with nothing other than datasheet and dead bug. no libraries, reference code, or development boards. not even breakout. same with cc2500, 24L01, lt8900, and a few others. how many have you got running from scratch? or at all?

reviewing your posts i see youre off to a bad start here with little more than complaining and criticizing. good luck with that.

@Thierry,

you are right about the 18F14K22 and other new pics. they have come a long way since 16c54. lol! definitely major advantages over atmel in many areas. i specially like the way we can isolate the opamp/comparator which is almost like having soc. at least i was able to do that on the 629 iirc. and 64mhz! hard to beat that with tiny or mega chips. 16k for $2 aint bad at all. i might just tack a few on my next order with digikey.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2012, 05:57 PM
Registered User
United States, ID
Joined Sep 2011
593 Posts
Gear down there turbo!

I just wanted to complement your efforts in this area and inquire more about the purpose of it. I'd love to help work on a TX project.

I did also suggest this on DIYdrones and it became the "3DR radio", which is now the best telemetry radio out there AFAIK.

There's no need to be so defensive or straw man me. If you think integrating the socket into an ICP programmer is a good idea then just say so. I don't and I pointed that out so people could avoid buying into that design mistake. If you think ~60mW @ 2.4g makes for a plenty good TX then just say so, no need to go on the offensive.
jakestew is offline Find More Posts by jakestew
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 04:59 AM
Registered User
slebetman's Avatar
Malaysia, Selangor, Kajang
Joined Jun 2009
1,453 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakestew View Post
I just wanted to complement your efforts in this area and inquire more about the purpose of it. I'd love to help work on a TX project.

I did also suggest this on DIYdrones and it became the "3DR radio", which is now the best telemetry radio out there AFAIK.
I think you may misunderstand the intention of the work being done here. Reverse engineering the Flysky protocol is good mainly because it is the cheapest full range system around. And despite it being cheap, it is one of the most reliable systems around. With these two factors combined - low cost, high reliability, the Flysky range of RX and TX have become the de-facto standard among budget concious RC fliers.

But, it is manufactured by only a single company with no documentation and no fallback in case said company decides to abandon the protocol. With this work done, at least hobbyist (and by hobbyist I mean electronics hobbyist, not RC hobbyist) like me feel better about our continued investment in Flysky equipment.

But, the real reason this work was started was to realize the dream of using any manufacturer's equipment with your TX. The end result of the original work ended up in the deviation project: http://www.deviationtx.com . A multi-protocol radio system that allows you to choose the RX you need to suit the application you have - just like in the old 72MHz days.

This is a very different objective to LRS systems. As you mentioned, others have already done work on LRS systems. There's the 3DR radio you mentioned and there's also OpenLRS (which is cloned by Hobbyking under the Orange brand now). So if you want LRS those are the projects you should be looking at.

What these guys are doing here is completely different and in my opinion significantly more difficult (it's easy to come up with a protocl that works, figuring out other people's undocumented, sometimes buggy protocol is much, much harder).

The guys reverse engineering in the other direction - building an RX - probably have similar motives. Most hackers I know own a Turnigy 9x or Flysky 9x modded with er9x firmware - it's just the most flexible firmware around and lots of people appreciate being able to do fully custom things in er9x that other radios can't. But the selection of RX is very limited (only 3 - the 3 channel, the 6 channel and the 8 channel). So they want an RX that they can control with their highly modded and/or cheap radio but in a different form factor - ultra micro, PPM only for those flying quads, 4 channels? 5 channels? with integrated ESC? etc.
slebetman is offline Find More Posts by slebetman
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 11:37 AM
Registered User
United States, ID
Joined Sep 2011
593 Posts
Thanks for filling me in. That clears up a lot of confusion on my part. Apologies if my initial post sounded ignorant or asinine, that really wasn't my intent.

I didn't realize that openLRS was now cloned in the orange brand either. I'll have to check that out and see what they're up to.
jakestew is offline Find More Posts by jakestew
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 03:16 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakestew View Post
There's no need to be so defensive or straw man me.

If you think integrating the socket into an ICP programmer is a good idea then just say so. I don't and I pointed that out so people could avoid buying into that design mistake. If you think ~60mW @ 2.4g makes for a plenty good TX then just say so, no need to go on the offensive.
yeah... sorry. i get pretty defensive (or is it offensive? make up your mind! ) when somebody refers to the most flexible and cost affective radio as "inferior design".

ive had my own criticisms of the flysky hardware design as you might see from browsing the core9x thread. but by and large its a pretty good implementation and the protocol holds its own with the best.

rf power mongers are another pet peeve so your 1w reference definitely rubbed me the wrong way. im a huge fan of long range telemetry and (legal) fpv. but i have to endure lots of interference from local users who think doubling power is the way to add a few more meters to their range. in fact id be able to go 10x further with my uav tracking were it not for these jerks. imo 1mw radios are where its at for a lot of indoor and park fun as proven with recent experiments with these a7105 modules. so again, sorry if i seemed to come on strong but it did hit a couple of the wrong buttons.

im getting together code and diagrams for a diy flysky rx thread so if you have anything to contribute there feel free to join in. probably early next week when i get back online. ill spend the weekend doing some more testing and cleaning up routines. see ya.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2012, 11:32 PM
Registered User
United States, ID
Joined Sep 2011
593 Posts
I'm all for better antennas and using only as much power as you need.

But 1W is not a lot of power. 250-500mW should be plenty for regular RC use, but longer range applications need to be up in the 1W+ range. That isn't out of line with other consumer grade non-licensed devices like wifi.
jakestew is offline Find More Posts by jakestew
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 09:06 AM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2012
28 Posts
I did futher analyse of the initialisation process of Rx which gave me (I paste all from the beginning) :

Code:
//
// Initialisation of A7105
//

00 00
06 5475C52A
01 42
02 00
03 14
04 00
07 00
08 00
09 00
0A 00

0B 01
0C 21
0D 05
0E 00
0F 50
10 9E
11 4B
12 00
13 02
14 16
15 2B
16 12

17 00
18 62
19 80
1A 80
1B 00
1C 0A
1D 32
1E C3
1F 0F
20 13
21 C3
22 00

24 00
25 00
26 3B
27 00
28 17
29 47
2A 80
2B 03
2C 01
2D 45
2E 18
2F 00

30 01
31 0F
A
02 01
42 01 
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01

42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 01
42 00
62 07
24 13
25 09
F
0F 05
C

// Delay of : 1.34ms
A
F
0F 2C
C

// Delay of : 1.43ms
A
F
0F 4A
C

// Delay of : 1.43ms
A
etc...
.... During 149.2 ms then time between trames increase to 49.72ms 

Until
//
// I started communication ( Tx is switched on )
//

A		// Try to catch a signal
F
0F 72
C


40 38	// Maybe error while identification
F
0F 86
C
A		// Try to catch a signal
F
0F 40
C

//
// Communication started after good signal was catch
//

40 18
45 55 56 22 00 00 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 
A			// Check if signal is still available
F
0F 04
C

40 18
45 55 56 22 00 00 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05
A			// Check if signal is still available
F
0F 54
C

40 18
45 55 56 22 00 00 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05
A			// Check if signal is still available
F
0F 18
C

40 18
45 55 56 22 00 00 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05 DC 05
A			// Check if signal is still available
F
0F 68
C
Hope, it's can help. I can give plot of SPI signal if someone need. Now, I only need to check the bind process, then I'll write the C code.
Surfbreizh is offline Find More Posts by Surfbreizh
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 03:15 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
very good work. hmmmm... id 56220000 channels 04 54 18 68? i dont see how these fit into the algorithm. but then i wasnt able to get my v911 radios to correspond either. what tx and model rx did you use?
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 03:18 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakestew View Post
But 1W is not a lot of power.
more than enough to be illegal in nearly every country in the world. of course that does not deter most of the fpv enthusiasts here on rcgroups. rf rc pirates are my biggest problem with out of sight flying. thanks a bunch.
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 01, 2013, 05:17 AM
Registered User
Joined Dec 2012
28 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
very good work. hmmmm... id 56220000 channels 04 54 18 68? i dont see how these fit into the algorithm. but then i wasnt able to get my v911 radios to correspond either. what tx and model rx did you use?
I used a Eurgle tx and Rx as following :
Surfbreizh is offline Find More Posts by Surfbreizh
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 01, 2013, 03:04 PM
RC beginner
New York
Joined Oct 2008
6,054 Posts
if im not mistaken isnt that a v1 which is incompatible with the current hopping protocol?
dave1993 is offline Find More Posts by dave1993
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 01, 2013, 09:30 PM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2012
14 Posts
I put some flysky SDR code up on github. I haven't had any free time in the past 6 months to work on this anymore.

This isn't even compile tested and it needs a howto in order to be even remotely useful to anyone. If I have time this week I will try to crop some sample captures to a manageable size, they are all currently >2gb.

https://github.com/zeza/gnuradio-rc-testcode

The important files are

gr-amiccom
-amiccom_frame_detect.cc
- grc block

gr-flysky
-dump_every_sync.py
-flysky_bind_code.cc
-flysky_dumpsync.cc
-grc blocks
zeza is offline Find More Posts by zeza
Last edited by zeza; Jan 01, 2013 at 10:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 01, 2013, 11:12 PM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2012
682 Posts
Thanks zeza. I have a USRP now, but I was never able to get far with it. Hopefully this will help get me going. I'll start digging through the code and grc files, it is certainly better than what I currently have.
PhracturedBlue is offline Find More Posts by PhracturedBlue
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 02, 2013, 03:43 AM
Registered User
United States, ID
Joined Sep 2011
593 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1993 View Post
more than enough to be illegal in nearly every country in the world. of course that does not deter most of the fpv enthusiasts here on rcgroups. rf rc pirates are my biggest problem with out of sight flying. thanks a bunch.
Here in the US I can run up to 4 watts in the 915 ISM band. Most 2.4g wifi devices broadcast 500mw-1w.

With a uC controlled radio there's no reason to be broadcasting at full power until you need it, and if you need the power to keep control of your plane that becomes a safety issue where it would be better to risk some minor interference to someone than crash a plane.
jakestew is offline Find More Posts by jakestew
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Benefits of buying FlySky TH9x (v2) over Turnigy 9x (v2) wwfisher Radios 98 Dec 09, 2014 09:06 PM
Question 9X - FlySky/iMax/Turnigy/Eurgle FOR DUMMIES aeajr Radios 1016 Nov 18, 2014 06:53 PM
Found turnigy 9x/flysky 9x wanted!!! kremecheze Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 2 Mar 25, 2012 05:04 PM
Wanted ER9x or Turnigy/Flysky 9x daign FPV Equipment (FS/W) 0 Mar 22, 2012 07:21 PM
Found Turnigy/FlySky/Eurkle/etc 9X Shell flyandi Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) 0 Mar 11, 2012 07:12 PM