Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by JohnET, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Jun 05, 2017, 12:05 AM
Registered User
+1 for the RTHX mode idea, but I think it would simplify the UI as well as confusion by simply adding one toggle option instead of another mode:

- Stick movement disengages RTH ON/OFF.

It can default to ON so behavior stays the same as current vector firmware, but if you choose OFF then it performs like SBUS failsafe or the proposed RTHX mode. This way the behavior is very explicit.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 05, 2017, 02:20 AM
because rust never sleeps....
HugoRogers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by moshen
+1 for the RTHX mode idea, but I think it would simplify the UI as well as confusion by simply adding one toggle option instead of another mode:

- Stick movement disengages RTH ON/OFF.

It can default to ON so behavior stays the same as current vector firmware, but if you choose OFF then it performs like SBUS failsafe or the proposed RTHX mode. This way the behavior is very explicit.
I am all for simplification, but I think we have enough toggles going on at the moment. Talk about overloading a single input

Actually I see this the opposite way. I would much rather have the option of breaking some of the functions on the mode toggle out onto other channels/switches. I have about a dozen control inputs on my TX (excluding gimbal inputs). I don't really get the obsession with trying to put as many functions as possible onto a single switch.
Last edited by HugoRogers; Jun 05, 2017 at 02:36 AM.
Jun 05, 2017, 02:24 AM
because rust never sleeps....
HugoRogers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabaz
Your flight controller should be just as usable and attractive to LOS flyers, and or when I'm sick of wearing goggles as it is to fpv guys.

Get with it.
Should it now ?

USP of Vector is that it has an integrated OSD. The clue is in there.

Get with it.
Last edited by HugoRogers; Jun 05, 2017 at 07:32 AM.
Jun 05, 2017, 07:05 AM
I'd be mad without a Taranis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabaz
Your flight controller should be just as usable and attractive to LOS flyers, and or when I'm sick of wearing goggles as it is to fpv guys.

Bad business, limited market share, and reading thru this forum, iritating and loosing current customers.

Get with it.
False.

If you're flying LOS, how do you use the information the Vector provides via OSD? You should get yourself a Guardian, or other similar flight stabilizer, if you fly LOS.

#getwithit
Jun 05, 2017, 03:59 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoRogers
I am all for simplification, but I think we have enough toggles going on at the moment. Talk about overloading a single input

Actually I see this the opposite way. I would much rather have the option of breaking some of the functions on the mode toggle out onto other channels/switches. I have about a dozen control inputs on my TX (excluding gimbal inputs). I don't really get the obsession with trying to put as many functions as possible onto a single switch.
I see it as just another configurability on RTH behavior, similar to the RTH altitude, gains, and other configurable options. Since this is the only difference between RTH and RTHX it feels cleaner to me. Also it produces less confusion on if the other RTH configuration options also apply to RTHX in the UI.
Jun 06, 2017, 01:45 AM
because rust never sleeps....
HugoRogers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by moshen
I see it as just another configurability on RTH behavior, similar to the RTH altitude, gains, and other configurable options. Since this is the only difference between RTH and RTHX it feels cleaner to me. Also it produces less confusion on if the other RTH configuration options also apply to RTHX in the UI.
I agree, there is some sense in this, I am just frustrated that the mode switch is a dumping ground whenever we need to input something. It is already serving at least 7 different functions.
Jun 06, 2017, 09:33 AM
FPV guru
evensis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabaz
Configurable LEDs, for status. Illumination, etc for LOS flying or my spotter. Completely unacceptable that you guys can't give up one single wire for this function and force us to use the limited proprietary one that you guys sell.

Your flight controller should be just as usable and attractive to LOS flyers, and or when I'm sick of wearing goggles as it is to fpv guys.

Bad business, limited market share, and reading thru this forum, iritating and loosing current customers.

Get with it.
I have to question the worth of LOS with a Vector as ones of its main features is the OSD, perhaps with drones but micro vector more applicable if you want to get it to hover for pictures or something but still wasting a lot of functionality. The Guardian stabiliser as mentioned prior is far more appropriate to LOS fliers and is certainly an attractive product as planning to put one on a new LOS project I have in mind.

I personally continue to invest in ET's products, and don't see that changing any time soon for any new projects, I've spent well over 1k with them now.

Back onto topic with RTHX, I am completely for this feature (+1). I've actually now realised my 'wandering' I had a few weeks back with my maiden flight on a EVE-2000 (was convinced I was going to lose the model at one point) was the result of the trims, and I had totally forgotten about incorporating them. Thankfully managed to get video signal back in the end but was touch and go.
Jun 06, 2017, 11:23 AM
Registered User
saturnprime's Avatar
Hi all, not sure how this would work, but I'd love to fly my vector on my connex prosite. Is there a way to overlay on an HD signal?
Jun 06, 2017, 01:02 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturnprime
Hi all, not sure how this would work, but I'd love to fly my vector on my connex prosite. Is there a way to overlay on an HD signal?
Short answer: No

If that was to be a possibility it would actually have to be the Connex TX unit that would need an analog video input to overlay over the digital image, and then have the digital download send it to the ground. No doubt we'll see units like Vector for digital video in the future, but my guess is that they are 1-2 years away still.
Jun 06, 2017, 01:16 PM
Registered User
...I would like to clear understand this mode RTHX.
Is it only to forget the trims when in rth?
Is it to overpass the question of regain/loose the link when out of range so ... rth ?
If all the others considerations regarding the actual mode rth are maintained why a new mode ?
Can we all adapt to RTHX instead off rth ( then rename rthx to be only rth )?
... I am not understanding. Maybe JohnET can explain please again to me ( if I am the only one ) but I do agree that more modes and/or mode toggle gestures could be hard.
Tank you
Jun 06, 2017, 03:42 PM
Registered User
saturnprime's Avatar
Thanks Sindre, it'll be awesome when they do play together!

Best OSD on HD Video just makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindre
Short answer: No

If that was to be a possibility it would actually have to be the Connex TX unit that would need an analog video input to overlay over the digital image, and then have the digital download send it to the ground. No doubt we'll see units like Vector for digital video in the future, but my guess is that they are 1-2 years away still.
Jun 07, 2017, 06:33 AM
Aalesund, Norway
Quote:
Originally Posted by zemanel
...I would like to clear understand this mode RTHX.
Is it only to forget the trims when in rth?
Is it to overpass the question of regain/loose the link when out of range so ... rth ?
If all the others considerations regarding the actual mode rth are maintained why a new mode ?
Can we all adapt to RTHX instead off rth ( then rename rthx to be only rth )?
... I am not understanding. Maybe JohnET can explain please again to me ( if I am the only one ) but I do agree that more modes and/or mode toggle gestures could be hard.
Tank you
RTHX is like RTH except that you can not override it in any other way than:
1) Switch it off/change mode via the switch
2) In case of a failsafe situation, regain radio link.

RTHX is really how most other flight controllers work.
Jun 07, 2017, 06:41 AM
because rust never sleeps....
HugoRogers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggad
RTHX is like RTH except that you can not override it in any other way than:
1) Switch it off/change mode via the switch
2) In case of a failsafe situation, regain radio link.

RTHX is really how most other flight controllers work.
and, to be honest. If you have actually lost the link (which is what it is designed for) why would you worry about taking over control anyway.

RTHX seems a great plan. It seems to make sense for the reason given above, and, it will add huge amounts of reliability to the existing RTH which has unfortunately let plenty of people down.
Jun 14, 2017, 02:47 AM
Registered User
nonoze's Avatar

The possibility to create landmarks


Hi,

The new feature i'd really love to see is the possibility to assign passive landmarks, with for exemple, the possibility to choose between a few icons. That way, with the help of Google earth, you could represent dangers like power line, restricted areas, roads, villages, woods, etc... Or simply runway alignment!

Right now, i'm using waypoints to represent runway centerline, 500m before and after the runway, so i can come from a distance with a perfect angle, but using "standard" waypoints as passive Landmark makes the usage of other waypoints impossible, it would appear messy on the OSD, and the usage of auto-waypoints tricky, seems like a good recipe for disaster!

This new feature could be a "Landmark" option in the vector menu, nearby the waypoints section...

Also, the way i imagine it, is small colored icons, and if the map is model centered, theses icons would disapear when out of the map, not accumulating in the borders like waypoints and home icon do.

Could be awesome don't you think?
Last edited by nonoze; Jun 14, 2017 at 06:34 AM.
Jun 16, 2017, 07:43 AM
Registered User
matchbox's Avatar

Stall warning alert


I would like to request a stall warning alert indicator.
Being that there are two types of stalls that can occur.

1)Low air speed over the aerofoil.
If this type of stall occurs, a model that is well balanced and with a forward
C.G.
is more likely to fall flat and level.
(this requires a Pitot sensor in conjuction with a known wing area and aerofoil lift coefficient).

2)Aerofoil high angle of attack.
Caused by too much “elevator” input; with too little thrust to maintain air flow over the wing in a
climb.
(GPS speed sensing needed in conjuction with elevator stick input position, IMU elevation angle of
attack, current sensing and/or throttle position).

John,
I believe the second type of stall poses the highest risk. This is a true aerofoil stall, and will always lead to the dropping of a wing tip and sending the plane into a spiral.
Air speed sensing is inaccurate under this condition and of little use to predict it. Plus the condition is not easily noticed, unless you know your model well and are very much aware of these points to monitor.


I would recommend that the GUI would need two user inputs for operation.
1) The models approximate stall speed with no wind. Determined by the ‘wing area’ and ‘general aerofoil type’.
2) The current sensing or throttle position. Determined by the planes ‘thrust to weight ratio’.

I understand this would be a challenge, and variations of the thrust loading and IMU angle of attack would be difficult to predict perfectly, due to the model type.
But even if it is not totally accurate. It would still have great benefit in predicting the onset of a stall and then giving an audio or written message, to make the pilot aware to take action.

Thanks
Last edited by matchbox; Jun 16, 2017 at 06:43 PM.


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Idea Vector Feature Request Rick01 Eagle Tree Systems 2 Oct 13, 2014 05:16 AM
Discussion Vector Feature Request Rick01 Eagle Tree Systems 0 Dec 06, 2013 12:04 PM