Thread Tools
Feb 07, 2019, 01:58 PM
Registered User
CHOYADO's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap

I'll add support for this board but don't ask every day is it done because I've got many non hobby related stuff to do first.

It's cool to see there's still so much interested in this project even in freeze state.
Flip Flap,

You mentioned that the project is in a "freeze state". What exactly is meant by that? I assume it means that it is not actively being developed. Would you mind giving a quick update on current development plans, timelines etc? What is the future / endgame plan for the project?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Feb 07, 2019, 02:54 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
I mean that it has reached its objective of providing a long range system with 16 RC channels and full mavlink telemetry. It works on a variety of off the shelf or DIY modules.

It would be difficult to add much more features to the current hardware, and even the existing features were much more difficult to develop that they would have been on a recent microcontroller. To have only 2kb of RAM is very challenging for example, and only one hardware UART is very constraining.

I don't want to disable some features to add others (such as disable telemetry to allow sbus etc), and I think that part of its success is its simplicity.

As I explained already, if there's an issue such as the failsafe I'll correct it so that the system is perfectly usable, but don't plan to develop it further.

To some extend a system tested by many users and which doesn't receive frequent updates will just get more and more tested and reliable. Every change can introduce new bugs.

And in the end the mission of an LRS system is to be reliable and just be forgotten, the creative features should be implemented in the flight controller.

So I don't exclude to make an ULRS 3.X some day, on a modern microcontroller, but that's not a plan for soon.

But what I try to do is continue to provide support, and update the documentation as new ideas are proposed (such as the OrangeRX resistor trick). I enjoy the discussions and ideas here as this thread has brought together people who like to build, experiment and share their ideas.

Until 2017 I was working 4 days on 5 for my job so I had a lot of time for this hobby, but that changed and I've got a lot more work (which is good).

So, should you fly with it, yes, should you worry, no, should you expect big new developments, no, except an ULRS 3.X but not soon. I still have got a lot of motivation and ideas, but more ideas than time
Feb 07, 2019, 05:23 PM
RX5
RX5
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by RICKY24
Hello RX5, I have checked it and there are no protection resistors, the control pins of the RFM are directly connected to the ATMEGA.

I see very complex to add the 4 resistances necessary for the modification that you propose, mainly because due to the miniaturization of the receiver the cotrol tracks of the STK are double-sided, on the one hand they are under the RFM and they cross to the other side just below the ATMEGA .

I see much easier to work all the receiver with the modification proposed by CHOYADO to 3.8v with the simple change of the resistance R7 for a 7.5k (you have to desolder previously the R7) or if you want to get more power the proposal by my consistent to cut a track, add 2 dionos 1N4148 in series, desoldar the VCC pin of the RFM of the plate and join with a cable the VCC pin of the RFM to the power of 5v, in this way the RFM is fed to 5v and the Rest of the receiver to approximately 3.5v.

Greetings from Spain.

I edit to add photos of my receiver this morning with the RFM module removed before modifying so that you can see what I explain without having to disassemble yours.
That explains it!

Thanks Ricky24
Feb 07, 2019, 05:24 PM
RX5
RX5
Registered User
-nothing to see here. Double post

EDIT
====

Since last week, Ive ordered the wolfbox 1watt/100mw combo. && also a few RFM modules on ebay. Arduino I have a few as well.

When the wolfbox arrives, still no Idea if id be doing hardware mods to it.

Was thinking of doing it the 'ulrs mini' way with the modules. Only problem, I dont have a prefabricated board..might probably end up point to point soldering arduino and rfm(for the rx).using 0805 parts. Have a few perfboards and might use that. Etching/making pcb is not an option.

I hope my orders arrive soooooooon
Last edited by RX5; Feb 07, 2019 at 05:41 PM.
Feb 07, 2019, 06:34 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
I mean that it has reached its objective of providing a long range system with 16 RC channels and full mavlink telemetry. It works on a variety of off the shelf or DIY modules.

It would be difficult to add much more features to the current hardware, and even the existing features were much more difficult to develop that they would have been on a recent microcontroller. To have only 2kb of RAM is very challenging for example, and only one hardware UART is very constraining.

I don't want to disable some features to add others (such as disable telemetry to allow sbus etc), and I think that part of its success is its simplicity.

As I explained already, if there's an issue such as the failsafe I'll correct it so that the system is perfectly usable, but don't plan to develop it further.

To some extend a system tested by many users and which doesn't receive frequent updates will just get more and more tested and reliable. Every change can introduce new bugs.

And in the end the mission of an LRS system is to be reliable and just be forgotten, the creative features should be implemented in the flight controller.

So I don't exclude to make an ULRS 3.X some day, on a modern microcontroller, but that's not a plan for soon.

But what I try to do is continue to provide support, and update the documentation as new ideas are proposed (such as the OrangeRX resistor trick). I enjoy the discussions and ideas here as this thread has brought together people who like to build, experiment and share their ideas.

Until 2017 I was working 4 days on 5 for my job so I had a lot of time for this hobby, but that changed and I've got a lot more work (which is good).

So, should you fly with it, yes, should you worry, no, should you expect big new developments, no, except an ULRS 3.X but not soon. I still have got a lot of motivation and ideas, but more ideas than time
i used atmega644 to replace at328 for projects arduino that keep source code. Only compiled .
at644 with two uart . 4kb sram. 64k is enough. and it easy to solder instead 48 pin 0.5mm stm32f103.
I know this project can use stm32 but will rewrite all source code instead use arduino with stm32

So i suggest replace by atmega644 or 1284...
Last edited by Dragon Ball Supe; Feb 07, 2019 at 09:06 PM.
Feb 08, 2019, 08:31 AM
Registered User
Hi flip flap
This is my ulrs unit vid.
Same results with all except that one with arduino nano.
Ultimate lrs test (0 min 32 sec)
Last edited by Aboud M; Feb 09, 2019 at 04:41 AM.
Feb 08, 2019, 10:14 AM
default-PT

915 Frequency


Quote:
Originally Posted by flipflap
Exactly, there are different modules for the different frequencies. And then there are different parameters to the send to the modules, but this is a small change. I know a lot of users would like to use the 868 / 915 frequencies, that's on the todo list for ULRS.
Hi Flipflap,

Can you do this one last thing? That would be awesome!

Regards
Feb 08, 2019, 10:21 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Hey that's a post of 2016
Feb 08, 2019, 10:30 AM
Registered User
Sebastos's Avatar
Flipflap, please!!!!



I'd like to be Tester!
Feb 08, 2019, 10:32 AM
Registered User
Sebastos's Avatar
Another question:
Is it possible to replace 915Mhz element with a 433Mhz RFM23BP inside the modules, or the PCB is different?
Feb 08, 2019, 10:51 AM
Discovering the joys of flying
Adilson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastos
Another question:
Is it possible to replace 915Mhz element with a 433Mhz RFM23BP inside the modules, or the PCB is different?
AFAIK, they are pin compatible.
Feb 08, 2019, 11:09 AM
Multirotors are models too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adilson
AFAIK, they are pin compatible.
there would just have to be some code changes to reflect the different band....
Latest blog entry: Test entry
Feb 08, 2019, 11:14 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Replacing 915 by 433 will work as the firmware is for 433.

But not the opposite
Feb 08, 2019, 11:30 AM
Registered User
Sebastos's Avatar
Thanks!
Feb 09, 2019, 05:19 AM
RC fanatic
Did the new release happen (the one promised with failsafe fix and disconnect protection code fixed)? I've not been on in a wee while so wondered if this is now under test with the community?


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools