Originally Posted by RaymondM

Chris,

Thank you very much for that battery analogy, this will help save my Ladybird from premature burn out,lol. BTW flying is great with my new little bird thanks again.

Ray

You're welcome, Raymond. And glad you're enjoying the Ladybird. It is the one that all these clones are trying to copy, but none of them come close to matching its performance.

Best,
Chris

Originally Posted by bobepine

The only way to give you a better (more expert) answer is to go though the firmware coding and explain its implications to you, I'm afraid. Bottom line is you wanted to know how it works... The answer is it works through firmware code alterations but you're not interested in looking at coding, yet, you want a better answer. Sorry, but your requirements for what you consider a "good" answer simply can't be met under such premises, I'm afraid.

Best,
Chris

One of two things generally happen when a question is asked. Someone that knows what they are talking about answering or someone else saying " idk." It's that easy, it didn't require four posts filled with useless, incorrect, and repetitive information to say that someone doesn't know the answer. A simple I don't know would have been much easier than someone that clearly knows less about software than I do trying to dumb down a concept that had already been confirmed and he knows nothing about. The point I was trying to make is that "with software" isn't a useful answer to "how does this software work?" Sure it is technically a correct answer, but it isn't helpful and needn't really take more than one post to say.

Originally Posted by skitchen8

One of two things generally happen when a question is asked. Someone that knows what they are talking about answering or someone else saying " idk." It's that easy, it didn't require four posts filled with useless, incorrect, and repetitive information to say that someone doesn't know the answer. A simple I don't know would have been much easier than someone that clearly knows less about software than I do trying to dumb down a concept that had already been confirmed and he knows nothing about. The point I was trying to make is that "with software" isn't a useful answer to "how does this software work?" Sure it is technically a correct answer, but it isn't helpful and needn't really take more than one post to say.

Seriously, what are you on about? You don't want to look at coding, yet you want an in depth answer regarding the workings of this hack. It's in the code, dude, and it's exactly the answer you got. The answer you received is correct and it goes as far as your willingness goes to look into it is concerned since you're not even interested in looking at coding. There is NO better answer to your question unless you want to look at the code. The answer you received showed clearly that the person trying to answer your question knows what he is talking about. He made a simple analogy and the analogy IS correct but you're dead set on bashing his posts when they are actually perfectly fine.

I don't know, man... Lay off the bottle, get a night of sleep and read this through tomorrow, perhaps. Me? I'm done repeating myself.

Best,
Chris

Okay I give up, useless answers are perfectly fine in any situation, and people shouldn't ever ask how things work without expecting answers of "because they do."

Makes perfect sense.

I also now know just because someone is unable to provide a better answer it means that it is the best answer out there, and nobody can possibly ever provide a better one.

Hey could someone direct me to the micro RTF quadcopters thread? I've seemed to have misplaced it.

I think going to the linked thread specifically discussing the modding of the devo tx's might be a better place to get your answers.

I never said I don't understand software. I said I don't understand programming. if you don't understand the difference your not qualified to participate in such an argument.

its that simple. my answer was correct. My answer was a "valid" answer to your question.

To provide another analogy to express the ridiculous nature of your argument (wherein your arguing for the very sake of arguing and nothing else)

I perform a loop. someone asks how did you do that loop.

I reply I increased power so the airplane would go faster once I had enough speed I pulled up reduced power to allow it to "crest" over the top upside down and then pulled up and added power as needed to resume normal flight.

this is a valid correct answer as to how I did the loop.

your reply would be that my answer was not valid because I did not explain the aerodynamic laws at play. I did not explain how a propeller works and how an elevator works and how wings make lift. that I did not explain mass very gravity constants and how body attractions work and how lift accounts for that. That I did not explain the electromagnetic spectrum to describe how my radio waves can get to the airplane that I did not explain diodes and capacitors and resistors to describe how the electronics in my radio work to generator those radio waves and how the receiver understands those radio waves and how servo's work and how batteries work and how optical sensors (my eyes) work and how touch feedback works (fingers on the sticks) and how atp amino acid instructions work to process neural information in my brain and send electrical impulse commands to my muscles to let me actually perform that.

you see in reality what you wanted was to argue with me. so you did. and invented whatever reason you needed to in order to argue.

did I get that about right? (no skitchen I am not asking you I already know what your answer is)

AND now back on topic (I am through with the deviation subthread and will not reply to any further replies on that in this thread)

I am wondering if I can improve the performance of the u816 by putting lady bird propellers on it (I wish the LB props where as cheap as the u816 props :-)

has anyone tried that? are they the same physically as far as the way they attach to the shaft?

@JamesChen: I didn't know the Ladybird outperformed the HotenX in very windy conditions. 'tho I would still love to own my own HotenX one-day, if only the price would come-down...

I for one give Massive props to Phractured Blue and Co. for being the coding Gods they are and releasing working Deviation fw already!
I am particularly excited because my Devo10 TX is next on the list to Deviate. Now I don't have to spend ~$90. to buy a FS9x TX for my V911 and V929 and I won't have to carry my WK2403 TX to the park to fly my WAlkera Helis either! plus the ability to bind and fly the taboo HH Mxx Blades is just too freaky a concept to boot.

People on the street will look, whisper and point because they will know that I have the "One" TX to rule them all!

All you RTF quad collectors/flyers out there.... don't forget to add the V.2 Ladybird to your fleet too. From user reports, it is very capable for half the price of a V.1 Ladybird.
A way to look at it is.... Walkera "bent-over-backwards" to bring the price-point of the primo Ladybird down to Consumer priceing so the masses can afford her.
For whatever the reasons may-be that you don't already posess one... don't overlook this gem as It is an inexpensive gateway to a manual flipping and rolling quad, plus the skills you will gain from it will be priceless! especially if you advance to larger sport Quads at a later date.

Originally Posted by nerys

I never said I don't understand software. I said I don't understand programming. if you don't understand the difference your not qualified to participate in such an argument.

its that simple. my answer was correct. My answer was a "valid" answer to your question.

To provide another analogy to express the ridiculous nature of your argument (wherein your arguing for the very sake of arguing and nothing else)

I perform a loop. someone asks how did you do that loop.

I reply I increased power so the airplane would go faster once I had enough speed I pulled up reduced power to allow it to "crest" over the top upside down and then pulled up and added power as needed to resume normal flight.

this is a valid correct answer as to how I did the loop.

your reply would be that my answer was not valid because I did not explain the aerodynamic laws at play. I did not explain how a propeller works and how an elevator works and how wings make lift. that I did not explain mass very gravity constants and how body attractions work and how lift accounts for that. That I did not explain the electromagnetic spectrum to describe how my radio waves can get to the airplane that I did not explain diodes and capacitors and resistors to describe how the electronics in my radio work to generator those radio waves and how the receiver understands those radio waves and how servo's work and how batteries work and how optical sensors (my eyes) work and how touch feedback works (fingers on the sticks) and how atp amino acid instructions work to process neural information in my brain and send electrical impulse commands to my muscles to let me actually perform that.

you see in reality what you wanted was to argue with me. so you did. and invented whatever reason you needed to in order to argue.

did I get that about right? (no skitchen I am not asking you I already know what your answer is)

AND now back on topic (I am through with the deviation subthread and will not reply to any further replies on that in this thread)

I am wondering if I can improve the performance of the u816 by putting lady bird propellers on it (I wish the LB props where as cheap as the u816 props :-)

has anyone tried that? are they the same physically as far as the way they attach to the shaft?

tl;dr

your problem not mine

----

anyway. I have the ladybird and it IS very responsive except in throttle. I am starting to think its the devo 4 tx thats the problem.

I am going to start saving up to get a devo 8 maybe a devo 10 if the FW is ready by the time I am ready to buy (couple months so it might be :-)

it would be killer nice to have one good high quality tx to do it all with

V,
You mean BOHICA It appears the Walkera V2 flight controller or "Receiver" as they call it is exactly the same FCB layout and components minus the $5 845 accelerometer and the connector for the firmware update. The contact lands are all still there. It would be an easy SMD work to put on the accel and then load the Walkera V1.1 firmware. Then you have the "twice the price" V1 version. Time to mod!
Cheers,
Jim
Quadrocopter and Tricopter Info Mega Link Index

Originally Posted by vpsporb

...
All you RTF quad collectors/flyers out there.... don't forget to add the V.2 Ladybird to your fleet too. From user reports, it is very capable for half the price of a V.1 Ladybird.
A way to look at it is.... Walkera "bent-over-backwards" to bring the price-point of the primo Ladybird down to Consumer priceing so the masses can afford her.
For whatever the reasons may-be that you don't already posess one... don't overlook this gem as It is an inexpensive gateway to a manual flipping and rolling quad, plus the skills you will gain from it will be priceless! especially if you advance to larger sport Quads at a later date.

N,
Yep...done that. No difference in flight, but the props do stay on, so that alone makes it worth it. Bangood has 3x complete sets of 4 Wakera props for $5.99. That's cheaper than half the price
Cheers,
Jim
Quadrocopter and Tricopter Info Mega Link Index

Originally Posted by nerys

...

I am wondering if I can improve the performance of the u816 by putting lady bird propellers on it (I wish the LB props where as cheap as the u816 props :-)

has anyone tried that? are they the same physically as far as the way they attach to the shaft?

Originally Posted by nerys

your problem not mine

----

anyway. I have the ladybird and it IS very responsive except in throttle. I am starting to think its the devo 4 tx thats the problem.

I am going to start saving up to get a devo 8 maybe a devo 10 if the FW is ready by the time I am ready to buy (couple months so it might be :-)

it would be killer nice to have one good high quality tx to do it all with

i reccamend the Devo8 cause of its color touch screen...makes it a lot easier to set up the mixes and the graph curves look real nice a precise on the color screen...plus the Deviation firmware has virtual channels so actually the devo 8 can control more then 8 channels...

oh i thought it was devo 6 and 7 only right now. so there is full support for the devo 8 already? sweet.

can channels be used to make the copter do flips ? like that extra "flip" button on the u816 ?

Originally Posted by nerys

oh i thought it was devo 6 and 7 only right now. so there is full support for the devo 8 already? sweet.

can channels be used to make the copter do flips ? like that extra "flip" button on the u816 ?

yes the Devo8 is fully supported it was the first release then the devo6 a few days later, i currently have my devo 8 setup and running very well using Deviation 1.1.2 the latest release....with deviation you can setup anything you want almost anyway you want once you understand how to use the mixer ..it is a bit confusing at first but after experimenting and using it you will soon understand its capabilities...the possibilities are nearly endless..10 mixes on any channel at any time...and all can run at the same time it doesn't limit the number of mixes like the devention firmware does...3 to 13 point curves is another example as well as a lot of preassigned curve functions...

i've added the deviation emulator that will run on windows to give you a idea on what it looks like and how it works...the release has a few more options and a few things changed but its a lot similar...

one thing really cool is you can take a picture of the actual model you are flying and use Gimp or photoshop and attach it to the model file and when you select the model it shows up on the screen instead of the corny Heli that Devo had...