Thread Tools
Mar 06, 2017, 11:45 AM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmwjoon
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.
You're right. It's not very good to users to use.

I've flown f3b, f3k, f3j and f3f with the taranis so I'm not speaking from the perspective of ignorance. For f3k the radio is at a sweet spot. You only have two wing servos so it's more sane and the special switches alow some good stuff in things like launch transition settings.

F3b it becomes unfriendly becuase of the sheer amount of modes and settings. The mixer menu is always a chore.

Agree with your point about jeti. It's got good features but it's a little messy at times.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 06, 2017, 11:47 AM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
People in the opentx community struggle to comprehend that things could be improved. Like i saw you might as well be criticising a religion...
By "OpenTX community" do you mean the developers or the users?
Latest blog entry: Shepard Tone Vario Update
Mar 06, 2017, 03:52 PM
Registered User
Other radio operating systems have specific glider functions. Off the top of my head (what I have used currently and in the past) Jeti, JR, Futaba, and Sanwa have/had specific glider templates. So glider users felt they had some representation in the operating system development.

Opentx may not feel like they had sailplane users in mind but trust me they did. In addition to that the open source model means that we actually do have a voice with folks developing updates. Let's be honest how many times did they update SD10 firmware after it was released? I think Jeti does a decent job continuing development but you can tell there are only a couple people working on those, not the dozens of people working on Opentx and the hundreds of people making suggestions.

I don't think Frsky does a good job explaining what Opentx actually is so maybe that is part of the problem.
Mar 06, 2017, 04:25 PM
Registered User
Harri Pihl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami Mike
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?
True but, as others have said, most radios can do most stuff needed for a full house competion glider; Herrigs are doing fine with Graupner/SJ, JW with JR and so on.
Mar 06, 2017, 04:38 PM
Registered User
mpjf01's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
People in the opentx community struggle to comprehend that things could be improved. Like i saw you might as well be criticising a religion...
That's not alt all true, have a look at the issues list on Github, there's hundreds of changes being made, every day someone suggests something and there is a discussion.

If all you do is criticise (it's all you've done here) then you will get a negative response. Come up with a positive proposal for improvement, one that attracts a measure of support from others, and you may well find a different reaction. At least you have a way to suggest improvements that allows the community to discuss and for action to be taken if deemed necessary.

And, of course, you always have the option to make a version for yourself that does suit you, using as much or as little of the existing programming as you wish. Try that with anyone else's system.
Mar 06, 2017, 04:58 PM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Pihl
True but, as others have said, most radios can do most stuff needed for a full house competion glider; Herrigs are doing fine with Graupner/SJ, JW with JR and so on.
Yeah but they're heretics not true open acoloytes.
Mar 06, 2017, 05:03 PM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpjf01
That's not alt all true, have a look at the issues list on Github, there's hundreds of changes being made, every day someone suggests something and there is a discussion.

If all you do is criticise (it's all you've done here) then you will get a negative response. Come up with a positive proposal for improvement, one that attracts a measure of support from others, and you may well find a different reaction. At least you have a way to suggest improvements that allows the community to discuss and for action to be taken if deemed necessary.

And, of course, you always have the option to make a version for yourself that does suit you, using as much or as little of the existing programming as you wish. Try that with anyone else's system.
Is it a discussion about how perfekt opentx is.....
Mar 06, 2017, 05:35 PM
Registered User
mpjf01's Avatar
You make my point. Say something positive and you'll get a positive reaction. Keep complaining though and you'll achieve nothing.
Mar 06, 2017, 07:43 PM
Taranis Tyro...
MattyB's Avatar
Even as a big OpenTX fan I agree that setups do need to be designed carefully to be easily maintainable. If you are making changes in the field it can be tricky to work out what you need to do as your setups grow in complexity, and I agree the inability to drag and drop the order of flight phases is a big omission when you get close to maxing them out. Personally I have never hit upon the GVAR limit Satinet talks about, but then I don't fly F3X multi-task in competition so that was never likely.

Lets look at it a different way though. An entirely free, multipurpose open source firmware is a tenable competitor for the very best sets from the most premium of manufacturers - indeed it beats quite a few of them hands down. Bugs are squished in a trice, and new features added at the request of users with almost unbelievable speed. Not only that, it runs on $100 hardware just as well as $700 TXs like the Horus. Finally a huge community of users has grown up to help each other get the best out of it and peers like ER9X. As a Brucie bonus you can even buy TXs off nice people like T9 and Aloft rather than that rather grumpy and defensive gentleman at Esprit...

Is OpenTX perfectly optimised for F3X competition use? No, or course not - it was designed to be as flexible as possible, so it's not really optimised for anything. Could some elements be done better? Almost certainly, but remember the developers focus is still to meet the needs of the average flyer, not any specific group with niche needs. As has been suggested above there is nothing to stop someone knowledgeable enough from forking the firmware and optimising it for F3X, but will they? Personally I doubt it - it may not be perfect, but it gets close enough for all but the very top 0.01% of pilots.

Tom, if you don't like the way it works then contribute to evolving it in the direction you want or choose another TX, but whinging about what it isn't really won't make ay difference. Just go fly, it's a lot more fun.
Last edited by MattyB; Mar 06, 2017 at 07:48 PM.
Mar 07, 2017, 07:14 AM
Registered User
mikeshellim'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...
For the record, the F3J/TD setup is downloaded most from the US. The F5J setups are downloaded most from Germany. The F3F setup is equally popular in the US and UK. (Source: bit.ly stats over the last month).

Quote:
... however, not many of them actually understands how it works.
That's possibly true - though not necessarily an issue unless the user wants to make deep changes. Simple mods (altering switch layout, changing crow deadband, reversing controls etc.) are already documented. Many uses are happy to use the templates as appliances and build their OpenTx skills as needed.

There seems to be a trend towards using templates and OpenTx is a pretty good platform for this, as the resulting templates don't carry the baggage of lots of irrelevant menus. And the GVARs menu provides a perfectly acceptable front end in many cases.

OpenTx should be seen as a development platform as much as an operating system and judged in that light.
Last edited by mikeshellim; Mar 07, 2017 at 10:50 AM.
Mar 07, 2017, 02:43 PM
F3B
satinet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeshellim
For the record, the F3J/TD setup is downloaded most from the US. The F5J setups are downloaded most from Germany. The F3F setup is equally popular in the US and UK. (Source: bit.ly stats over the last month).



That's possibly true - though not necessarily an issue unless the user wants to make deep changes. Simple mods (altering switch layout, changing crow deadband, reversing controls etc.) are already documented. Many uses are happy to use the templates as appliances and build their OpenTx skills as needed.

There seems to be a trend towards using templates and OpenTx is a pretty good platform for this, as the resulting templates don't carry the baggage of lots of irrelevant menus. And the GVARs menu provides a perfectly acceptable front end in many cases.

OpenTx should be seen as a development platform as much as an operating system and judged in that light.
Mike looking at your setup on companion, it really only confirms what I feel when using opentx. It's obviously a very sophisticated setup but it's only for f3f which has no launch or thermal settings etc to consider and you are at 55/64 mixers.

Your first gvar - ail2flp, to me would be unsatisfactory it does not allow you to adjust the differential of the mix as well as the volume. That probably isn't a super critical setting, but often flaps and ailerons have very different linkage geometry. I don't see how it is going to work properly without being able to adjust the differential as well as the volume. As I say on a radio with better flight modes you could just set what ever settings you want in each flight mode.
Mar 07, 2017, 05:11 PM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
Mike looking at your setup on companion, it really only confirms what I feel when using opentx. It's obviously a very sophisticated setup but it's only for f3f which has no launch or thermal settings etc to consider and you are at 55/64 mixers.
Apparently you're looking at the wrong setup. I think this is the one you're looking for.

Quote:
Your first gvar - ail2flp, to me would be unsatisfactory it does not allow you to adjust the differential of the mix as well as the volume. That probably isn't a super critical setting, but often flaps and ailerons have very different linkage geometry. I don't see how it is going to work properly without being able to adjust the differential as well as the volume. As I say on a radio with better flight modes you could just set what ever settings you want in each flight mode.
I believe if you calibrate your model properly the flaps and ailerons will stay together, but I'm not sure because I haven't played with Mike's F3F setup or with aileron-to-flap mixing. I'll let him answer that.

At any rate, if the problems you mention are real they can certainly be more than adequately addressed with a Taranis radio running OpenTX. Your claims amount to criticisms of Mike's F3F setup, not criticisms of the Taranis or OpenTX.
Latest blog entry: Shepard Tone Vario Update
Mar 07, 2017, 06:29 PM
Registered User
mikeshellim's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
Your first gvar - ail2flp, to me would be unsatisfactory it does not allow you to adjust the differential of the mix as well as the volume. That probably isn't a super critical setting, but often flaps and ailerons have very different linkage geometry. I don't see how it is going to work properly without being able to adjust the differential as well as the volume. As I say on a radio with better flight modes you could just set what ever settings you want in each flight mode.
Tom, Ail2Fl is just an aileron to flap mix. Differential is dealt with separately.

Diff for both ailerons and flaps is adjustable in flight, using the rudder trim. Assuming the servos are correctly calibrated, the flaps and ailerons will correctly observe the diff values - irrespective of mechanical differences or non-linearities in the linkages. So 50% diff will be 50% less down movement for all the wing surfaces.

The key is to calibrate the servos precisely. On all my setups, there's a special 'CAL' mode. As you move the stick in CAL mode, both flaps pause at each point on a 5-point curve, so it's very easy to match the flap responses. Same for the V-tail and ailerons, although a 3-point curve is normally sufficient for these. Flap linearity is important for diff to work properly - CALing them by eye is usually sufficient but if you're fussy then you can always use a deflection meter.

Once the servos are calibrated, the mixer values will be the same on both sides. This fact greatly simplifies both the programming and adjustment. No need for 'flight mode trims', and only one adjustment is needed for each mix.

This may sound pretty simplistic, but it actually works pretty well. If your linkages are completely out of whack, then just just add more points to the cal curve. Is 17 enough for you? ;-)

Just one thing to watch: if your linkages have diff built-in, then you will have to re-linearise them in CAL mode. But not such a big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by satinet
Mike looking at your setup on companion, it really only confirms what I feel when using opentx. It's obviously a very sophisticated setup but it's only for f3f which has no launch or thermal settings etc to consider and you are at 55/64 mixers.
Have a look at the F3J setup - it has 8 flight modes - Launch, Zoom, Thermal, Cruise, Speed, Kapow, Landing, plus CAL mode. As I've tried to explain, adding extra flight modes does not necessarily mean more GVARs or even more mixers; often it's just a question of filling in some existing boxes in the GVAR grid.

I have a template for an Inside F5J with 6 wing servos, and although it's a bit of a squeeze, it has all the functionality of the 4-servo template. It was easy to modify the E-Soar Plus template for the extra pair of surfaces, mainly a question of dragging and dropping a few mixers.
Last edited by mikeshellim; Mar 07, 2017 at 06:42 PM.
Mar 07, 2017, 09:27 PM
Registered User
MikeC's Avatar
Thread quickly turned into a critique/defense of OpenTX. Too bad, though the intention was good.

Mike
Mar 07, 2017, 09:51 PM
Pompano Hill Flyers
Miami Mike's Avatar
That's fine, especially if the thread provides an opportunity to clear up misconceptions about the Taranis and OpenTX, and I hadn't realized there were so many until now.

Anything about the Taranis, Horus, or OpenTX in conjunction with sailplanes is welcome here as far as I'm concerned.
Latest blog entry: Shepard Tone Vario Update


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools