Taranis/Horus/OpenTX radio mods and programming for F3X/ TD - Page 2 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Mar 06, 2017, 12:26 AM
Registered User
mpjf01's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet

Flight modes are not good? Come on you can't even move the flight modes around with out a major headache. Trying putting a new flight mode in above your existing modes and see where it gets you. Have fun going through every mixer line. Change the priority of the existing flight modes........

Having a radio that you can make adjustments on easily mid contest , or mid flying session is more useful that being able to play la cucaracha when your plane goes over 500ft.

I've been saying for ages that opentx would be a far better glider radio if it had a flight mode trim screen like jeti, but all you ever hear is how you don't understand (the religion) properly. No doubt I'll be told I just don't get it..........

Anyway - sorry for taking the thread away from it's original direction.
I don't agree with all of your arguments, especially those suggesting that OpenTX/FMs are hard to use mid contest etc. However, moving flight modes around, or adding new, are time consuming activities in a complex model and it could be useful to consider mechanisms for improving that even while conceding that they are activities unlikely to be required very often.

Also likely to be useful would be two things

1. A way to allow copying and pasting multiple mix lines within a model and to other models
2. Decoupling mixes from channels.

Both are the subject of a current GITHUB discussion

https://github.com/opentx/opentx/issues/4518

although the first has not attracted any interest so far.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 06, 2017, 01:28 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeshellim
Attached screen shots which show all the day to day adjustments on my Needle 115 - look, no Mixers menu!

The four key mixes (diff, snapflap volume, snapflap expo and crow compensation) are adjusted directly from the transmitter using spare trims and knobs, so there is little scope for error during a competition.

BTW I really dont get this 'flight mode trim' thingie on the Jeti. What happens if you replace a servo... do you then have to do a grand tour of all the flight modes, tweaking all these 'trim' adjustments? And what if you have some trim dialed in, how do you distinguish that from shifts due to bent linkages/drifting servos?
No flight mode trim is one screen. It would probably take under a minute to retrim a particular servo. It's massively superior to open tx in terms of simple adjustment of the trailing edge. You just dial in what ever setting you want for a particular flight mode. You turn the dial until the servo is where you want it. If you fly an f3x with launch settings it's very useful.

Disagree those are key mixers for all f3x. Elevator travel is very important. Other discilpines have far more complex setups than f3f.
Last edited by satinet; Mar 06, 2017 at 01:38 AM.
Mar 06, 2017, 03:09 AM
Registered User
mikeshellim's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
No flight mode trim is one screen. It would probably take under a minute to retrim a particular servo.
Just so I understand, I've had a look at the Jeti manual, the sections on Flight Mode Trims and the Servo Balancer function.

As I understand it, Flight Mode Trims are for applying offsets to groups of related servos, the Servo Balancer is for equalising servo responses.

That makes sense, and I'm confused by your reference to using FM trims to adjust a single wing servo after a servo swap. Why not use the Servo Balancer function? That operates at the servo level and would be the best place to balance up your movements. Or have I missed something?
Last edited by mikeshellim; Mar 06, 2017 at 03:41 AM.
Mar 06, 2017, 05:57 AM
Registered User
If we started a Jeti / Opentx discussion it would never end There is very little similarity at all. In the Jeti primarily works via surface and input. In Jeti there is a single screen for all the flight mode trims. In Opentx there could either be multiple lines in the mixer with different offsets or you may have use GVAR to setup offset. So if you wanted to tweak some kind of wing setting you could in Jeti just use only 1 screen while in Opentx may have to goto 1 screen, 4 screens, heck even 4 screens * # flight modes to change those settings.

Again you're ability to change settings in the your program are mostly user errors and how you are utilizing the mixer and GVAR. If you have GVARs left over wing offset would be good to have there if it's something you like to change.

Admittedly Jeti is not bad and I find it as easy to use as an SD-10. Jeti is a little more robust because of free mixes but it's still a plug and chug operating system.
Mar 06, 2017, 06:39 AM
Registered User
Harri Pihl's Avatar
Well, the main problem with all the th9x derivates (like opentx etc.) is that while you can do a lot, you probably won't remember after a week how you actually did it. Of course you can use Mike's system and I know that many in UK do so, however, not many of them actually understands how it works.
Mar 06, 2017, 06:51 AM
Thank you, early adopters.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Pihl
Of course you can use Mike's system and I know that many in UK do so, however, not many of them actually understands how it works.
I didn't, so I set out to study and experiment with it until I was eventually satisfied that I do understand how it works, and I know of no better way to learn OpenTX programming.
Latest blog entry: The Big OpenTX Trim Mess
Mar 06, 2017, 06:57 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Pihl
Well, the main problem with all the th9x derivates (like opentx etc.) is that while you can do a lot, you probably won't remember after a week how you actually did it. Of course you can use Mike's system and I know that many in UK do so, however, not many of them actually understands how it works.
Exactly right
Mar 06, 2017, 06:58 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
I actually prefered the hi-tech aurora9 over jeti for ease of making adjustments and everything being in the same place. Really good radio in a lot of ways. Miles nicer to use than open tx.

Imho jeti has some illogical menu structures.
Mar 06, 2017, 07:00 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeshellim
Just so I understand, I've had a look at the Jeti manual, the sections on Flight Mode Trims and the Servo Balancer function.

As I understand it, Flight Mode Trims are for applying offsets to groups of related servos, the Servo Balancer is for equalising servo responses.

That makes sense, and I'm confused by your reference to using FM trims to adjust a single wing servo after a servo swap. Why not use the Servo Balancer function? That operates at the servo level and would be the best place to balance up your movements. Or have I missed something?
Yeah you could. Flight mode trim allows you to trim groups of servos or individual servos in each fight mode. Or you can make an adjusment to one then link it back together again. It's not how you subtrim the servo centres. That's just like on open tx or p4000 etc.

You said about using flight mode trim, not me. I was responding to what you said.

Changing a servo shouldn't make much difference to anything unless you also change the linkage, on any model or radio. You might just have to subtrim it for a new centre.
Last edited by satinet; Mar 06, 2017 at 07:07 AM.
Mar 06, 2017, 07:09 AM
Registered User
Harri Pihl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami Mike
I didn't, so I set out to study and experiment with it until I was eventually satisfied that I do understand how it works, and I know of no better way to learn OpenTX programming.
That's fine when you understand and remember. However, what if you forgot or someone asks help for his own equally complicated setup made completely different way? This is the situation I find myself very often with all the th9x derivates.
Mar 06, 2017, 07:19 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmwjoon
If we started a Jeti / Opentx discussion it would never end There is very little similarity at all. In the Jeti primarily works via surface and input. In Jeti there is a single screen for all the flight mode trims. In Opentx there could either be multiple lines in the mixer with different offsets or you may have use GVAR to setup offset. So if you wanted to tweak some kind of wing setting you could in Jeti just use only 1 screen while in Opentx may have to goto 1 screen, 4 screens, heck even 4 screens * # flight modes to change those settings.

Again you're ability to change settings in the your program are mostly user errors and how you are utilizing the mixer and GVAR. If you have GVARs left over wing offset would be good to have there if it's something you like to change.

Admittedly Jeti is not bad and I find it as easy to use as an SD-10. Jeti is a little more robust because of free mixes but it's still a plug and chug operating system.
Maybe one day you will be free from the opentx cult. It will feel good!

Look in f3b i had a set up with 8 flight modes. Now settings that would change between modes would be way way more than the number of gvars there are. So you would end up with masses of mixer lines. You just can't get round the reality that it doesn't work very well from a user perspective. You can calibrate the servos all you want but they still don't always line up at large flap deflections.

Opentx has a lot of merits and can do stuff other radios can't. However other systems can do stuff simpler and better than opentx in some important areas.

Like i say top guys, e.g herrigs, wurts etc use all different brands of radios. It's down to skill and practice in f3x. My point is a lot of good stuff will happen if it's easy to make adjustments on your radio and understand what is happening.
Last edited by satinet; Mar 06, 2017 at 07:25 AM.
Mar 06, 2017, 07:26 AM
Registered User
mpjf01's Avatar
I don't have a Jeti or an Aurora so much of this discussion is pretty much meaningless to me, and I suspect, others.

If someone believes that OpenTx can be improved how about putting forward a clear proposal for change taking account of existing OpenTx methodologies (meaning that it shouldn't require a substantial redevelopment of the system). Then we would have something tangible and relevant to discuss. Just telling me that something else is better isn't helpful.
Last edited by mpjf01; Mar 06, 2017 at 07:35 AM.
Mar 06, 2017, 08:23 AM
Thank you, early adopters.
Miami Mike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Pihl
That's fine when you understand and remember. However, what if you forgot or someone asks help for his own equally complicated setup made completely different way? This is the situation I find myself very often with all the th9x derivates.
Okay, you're saying that programming an OpenTX radio requires more time and effort than a simpler radio. That's true, and an inescapable consequence of versatility.

But isn't it also true that building, setting up, and trimming a Multi Task F3X sailplane for serious competition requires more time and effort than setting up a park flier to fly around a schoolyard? Considering all of the money and work a serious competitor puts into his glider to optimize its performance, and the time and effort he puts into developing his knowledge and flying skill, do you think it makes sense for him to choose his radio based upon how easy it is to program, at the expense of being restricted to doing things someone else's way rather than the way he would prefer?
Latest blog entry: The Big OpenTX Trim Mess
Mar 06, 2017, 09:56 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
Maybe one day you will be free from the opentx cult. It will feel good!

Look in f3b i had a set up with 8 flight modes. Now settings that would change between modes would be way way more than the number of gvars there are. So you would end up with masses of mixer lines. You just can't get round the reality that it doesn't work very well from a user perspective. You can calibrate the servos all you want but they still don't always line up at large flap deflections.

Opentx has a lot of merits and can do stuff other radios can't. However other systems can do stuff simpler and better than opentx in some important areas.

Like i say top guys, e.g herrigs, wurts etc use all different brands of radios. It's down to skill and practice in f3x. My point is a lot of good stuff will happen if it's easy to make adjustments on your radio and understand what is happening.
Haha, it is a little bit of a cult isn't it?

All your arguments are somewhat true, but like I said before most of your issues are user issues.

Some of the Jeti stuff isn't straightforward because things in the OS have been added over time so that creates some splintering of the menus.

I've been using opentx for 5 years and programmed from scratch maybe 75 models? About 20 gliders? It took a few years but now I can literally decode the matrix now.

Traditional radio systems don't require this kind of time and learning curve but the end result is you can customize your program any way you wish. Definitely not for everyone.
Mar 06, 2017, 10:37 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpjf01
I don't have a Jeti or an Aurora so much of this discussion is pretty much meaningless to me, and I suspect, others.

If someone believes that OpenTx can be improved how about putting forward a clear proposal for change taking account of existing OpenTx methodologies (meaning that it shouldn't require a substantial redevelopment of the system). Then we would have something tangible and relevant to discuss. Just telling me that something else is better isn't helpful.
People in the opentx community struggle to comprehend that things could be improved. Like i saw you might as well be criticising a religion...


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools