Thread Tools
Mar 02, 2017, 09:21 PM
FPV Melbourne
yak-54's Avatar
Nothing to see here move along all
Last edited by yak-54; Feb 22, 2018 at 04:06 AM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 02, 2017, 09:33 PM
Registered User
dkemxr's Avatar
After the usual connection dance with multiple attempts/restarts/power cycles got both modules flashed, configured and working on the bench. The RSSI channel function failed with an error message but I think that's expected with this Rev right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
I'm waiting for your feedbacks, so far only Narpat had an issue with this version (can't connect). However as the baudrate has slightly changed in this version it may be the cause. I'd like to have more feedbacks, and could either revert to the previous baudrate (which is also very close to 57k) or add an option.

Just to remind the whole story, the atmega can't produce exactly 57k6 baudrate, so we're trying two baudrates very close to it.

At first sight no risk to fly with this version, and I won't do any major change on it, it will become the stable version as soon as many users have tested it.
Mar 03, 2017, 01:32 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by yak-54
4S 4000 mah

what would be safe low volt limit under load i have away used 3.8 per cell
i was out at the field and the heli boy's tell me that way to low
(The cell voltage is not a very precise indicator, better use the mAh counter.)

It seems that lipo are not made to be emptied completely, but only to 20% of their capacity. The other point to remember is that the cell voltage is strongly dependent of the current.

So with the motor running the cell voltage could go as low as 3V, even if the battery still has 20% of capacity.

My rule of thumb is that if the voltage of my 4S battery is between 12V and 13V with motor off, it's time to plan the landing.

Anyway that's only for the last minute of the flight, but to know when to come back during a long range flight, the mAh counter is the only useful value.

This said a plane can afford a little more risk than a copter as it can glide for the landing.
Mar 03, 2017, 01:35 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkemxr
After the usual connection dance with multiple attempts/restarts/power cycles got both modules flashed, configured and working on the bench. The RSSI channel function failed with an error message but I think that's expected with this Rev right?
Yes for the RSSI that's normal. And after flashing it can be required to restart the ULRS CC, that's a point I'll have to solve. Not really a bug but a missing feature : it should redetect the modules just after flashing.
Mar 03, 2017, 11:07 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Very instructive site explaining the drone laws country per country (clickable map) :

https://droneregulations.info/
Mar 03, 2017, 01:46 PM
Discovering the joys of flying
Adilson's Avatar
Hello
I'm finally returning to this subject. I just grabbed my 2 Dolphin boards and if I connect the receiver on ULRS I can see it detects the board fine and is communicating with the transmitter but if I connect to the transmitter ULRS shows only COM 15 0 and I can't do anything, change paramenters, install firmware, nothing. Any clues?
Mar 03, 2017, 03:09 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
Is it with version 2.33 or 2.34 ?
Mar 03, 2017, 03:11 PM
Discovering the joys of flying
Adilson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
Is it with version 2.33 or 2.34 ?
2.33 but I already solved (I was about to report). I had to wipe the TX eeprom and install the firmware again.
Mar 05, 2017, 05:43 AM
RC fanatic
I for one am quite sad to see this forum dry up as it has. Ben, I think this is largely due to a blatantly obvious lack of community interest in the ULRS beta project at the moment.

When I first became one of your followers about a year ago, I was really impressed by your drive in this project - it was obvious that you were very keen to see advancements and got a real kick out of the interest from the community, which just grew and grew in numbers - so it was self perpetuating. I went against all my personal instincts, to follow a closed-source project (which I never would have normally done, due to the huge risks) in light of you showing such a keen interest and outlining your ambitions for this project which were followed up with real progress, again and again. Many others followed suit in joining in with your interests and we put our time and efforts into: designing and building hardware, testing (even many less than perfect) releases, in craft we had dedicated to ULRS, effectively making an investment in you and your project (both in time, effort, and money). I'm thinking that many of us are now wondering if that was a bad gamble!

Its sad to see that the project has become so stale now.

I'm referring to he fact that the forum here can go 2 days without a post - that has to be very obvious to you that people who invested in your project are losing interest, and its not surprising that this is the case given the promises of high expectations but then rather diminishing delivery on these of late.

I appreciate that ULRS for you is probably just a sideline as you need to make a living (like we all do), but you need to improve in some areas if you even have the slightest chance of building the community interest back to what it was 4-5 months ago. For instance:
  • Keep the information flowing - keep us informed with where you are in the project, and what your hopes are realistically. No news for most is considered bad news.
  • Let us know what you need from us, so we can help
  • Concentrate on getting the core functionality of ULRS to match that of your competition as far as features are concerned - before going off on a tangent to work on more interesting work (like the virtual cockpit) - if you don't grab the interest of people with your core product then there will be no one around to see the benefits of the cool add-ons like virtual cockpit or Video broadcast.
  • Make realistic goals, and then stick to them ('under promise, over deliver' is the equivalent management BS) - I mean the release you promised mid December came out just 2 weeks ago - that's not realistic!

I really want this project to work and you need to understand that only with the support of the community here do you have any chance of making a success with ULRS 2. So let's see what we can achieve together, and get the ball rolling again.

Best wishes, Paul

Edit - I wanted to add, that I myself run a coding project, and I am the only coder on it just now, so I appreciate how hard it is keeping up with requests, issues and all the mental efforts required to manage a project as well as a life - but in my case the project is open source, so if somebody wants something so badly, then they can get involved and send in their pull requests. Of course your project is closed source so its a big gamble for us in giving the trust to one person to come through with the results, knowing that if they disappear, then so does our investment. Just a thought!
Last edited by athertop; Mar 05, 2017 at 05:49 AM.
Mar 05, 2017, 06:06 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Hi Paul,

We are Sunday, and there were 83 posts since Monday, which seems good to me.

I'm following a request of the users to stop developing new features until the stable release is ready, which is exactly where we are : the version 2.34 is under testing by the beta testers, and then it will become the stable release, and then there will be new features.

Also remember that there's a version of this project which is completely open source.
Mar 05, 2017, 07:00 AM
Discovering the joys of flying
Adilson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by athertop
I for one am quite sad to see this forum dry up as it has. Ben, I think this is largely due to a blatantly obvious lack of community interest in the ULRS beta project at the moment.

When I first became one of your followers about a year ago, I was really impressed by your drive in this project - it was obvious that you were very keen to see advancements and got a real kick out of the interest from the community, which just grew and grew in numbers - so it was self perpetuating. I went against all my personal instincts, to follow a closed-source project (which I never would have normally done, due to the huge risks) in light of you showing such a keen interest and outlining your ambitions for this project which were followed up with real progress, again and again. Many others followed suit in joining in with your interests and we put our time and efforts into: designing and building hardware, testing (even many less than perfect) releases, in craft we had dedicated to ULRS, effectively making an investment in you and your project (both in time, effort, and money). I'm thinking that many of us are now wondering if that was a bad gamble!

Its sad to see that the project has become so stale now.

I'm referring to he fact that the forum here can go 2 days without a post - that has to be very obvious to you that people who invested in your project are losing interest, and its not surprising that this is the case given the promises of high expectations but then rather diminishing delivery on these of late.

I appreciate that ULRS for you is probably just a sideline as you need to make a living (like we all do), but you need to improve in some areas if you even have the slightest chance of building the community interest back to what it was 4-5 months ago. For instance:
  • Keep the information flowing - keep us informed with where you are in the project, and what your hopes are realistically. No news for most is considered bad news.
  • Let us know what you need from us, so we can help
  • Concentrate on getting the core functionality of ULRS to match that of your competition as far as features are concerned - before going off on a tangent to work on more interesting work (like the virtual cockpit) - if you don't grab the interest of people with your core product then there will be no one around to see the benefits of the cool add-ons like virtual cockpit or Video broadcast.
  • Make realistic goals, and then stick to them ('under promise, over deliver' is the equivalent management BS) - I mean the release you promised mid December came out just 2 weeks ago - that's not realistic!

I really want this project to work and you need to understand that only with the support of the community here do you have any chance of making a success with ULRS 2. So let's see what we can achieve together, and get the ball rolling again.

Best wishes, Paul

Edit - I wanted to add, that I myself run a coding project, and I am the only coder on it just now, so I appreciate how hard it is keeping up with requests, issues and all the mental efforts required to manage a project as well as a life - but in my case the project is open source, so if somebody wants something so badly, then they can get involved and send in their pull requests. Of course your project is closed source so its a big gamble for us in giving the trust to one person to come through with the results, knowing that if they disappear, then so does our investment. Just a thought!
I can't agree more. I am a big proponent of free software and I have no problems paying for things that have value to me (I contribute for several ones like betaflight) so, in an ideal world, this project would be open and could cash on contributions and other things like, for instance, a paid configuration program.
Last edited by Adilson; Mar 05, 2017 at 07:00 AM. Reason: typo
Mar 05, 2017, 07:21 AM
Registered User
gyrex's Avatar
Interesting post from Paul. Personally, I really wish this project was open source. I often worry about project stagnation and/or cessation in the event of a tragedy and/or lack of interest from the closed source coder/s, especially when it's only 1 person on the project. I'd be happy to make a decent donation since I feel like there's value here in this wonderful project but I wonder how much more progress this project would achieve if more people were involved. It sounds like Paul can code and possibly others... Imagine what you guys could achieve with 2-3 or even more people working on it!

In any case, thanks for your continued time and efforts Flip
Mar 05, 2017, 07:28 AM
RC fanatic
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
Hi Paul,
We are Sunday, and there were 83 posts since Monday, which seems good to me.
Back in September 2016 we were getting 150+ a week

Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
I'm following a request of the users to stop developing new features until the stable release is ready, which is exactly where we are : the version 2.34 is under testing by the beta testers, and then it will become the stable release, and then there will be new features.
That's good to know - I never spotted that in the chat sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
Also remember that there's a version of this project which is completely open source.
That old version is not the one we have invested in though. We invested in the v2 beta programme, and took the gamble that our investment in this closed-source project would bring great rewards worthy of our investment; and we did this in the main part because of the very keen interest of both the developer and community. All I am saying (and there is no need to be so defensive in response) is that in order to maintain interest and attract new people into making the same investment, you need to keep things moving in a direction which has a future. From what I can see, the development effort has slowed quite a bit, and I have to wonder if that is due to the current hardware not being capable of supporting the road-mapped features. So if the current hardware is not the future (and we have spoken about this before) then we need to draw a line maybe and and openly chat about the path forward - there was mention of having Sammi develop new hardware for example which I've not heard mention of in a long time. The suggestion was for 32bit hardware like the teensy which will support far more features. We need to keep chat about the future plans going to maintain this interest.
Mar 05, 2017, 10:00 AM
Registered User
I have been very busy myself. But I am still hoping for the stable release of ULRS as I have a 7 ULRS boards and as many flying things into which they will go. What free time I have is being spent building things.

As a base line I just want stable releases for existing hardware for Northern Hemishere Spring with no more 30 day expirations of ULRS CC. I think a lot of people here are in that boat. This may be why it is quiet.

What has been achieved has been impressive but we do seem to have maxed out the hardware and development has slowed before we even have the stable release. Realistically, the stable release of ULRS 2.x is years (or many, many months) late.

I am ready and happy to pay my $50 but I worry about the project being able to transition to this new phase. Ben, I am not sure the structure is really working but please prove me wrong. Without investing in hardware it is really hard to monetize this. And as you have observed, it is not a mass market. With so many DIY hardware targets the support effort will kill you very quickly as soon as some people pay a $1.

I wonder if you would not be better served open sourcing under a PX4-like license that would allow you to develop proprietary solutions for commercial operations in private forks. It would lift some weight off your shoulders and allow some community input in a public branch. It is open source Lite but it may be worth looking at. You would likely earn more $$ this way as well.
Last edited by Marc Dornan; Mar 05, 2017 at 10:06 AM.
Mar 05, 2017, 10:43 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
I don't know exactly what's the request here, I don't plan to stop the project, and I can't allow much more time to it either, and it will stay closed source.

The list of future features is here : http://www.itluxembourg.lu/site/future-features/ and if there's a specific emergency for a feature I can change the priorities.

Regarding the current status, the 2.34a release candidate is released since something like one week, and this version will just be relabelled as stable version as soon as we get sufficient feedback from beta testers.
Last edited by flipflap; Mar 05, 2017 at 10:52 AM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools