Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by flightengr, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Dec 02, 2017, 06:50 PM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
Just so you know - I'm still here. I was busy all last weekend, but have had a little time this weekend to work on RxEditor. I've not done a build yet that includes it, but have implemented the additional receiver orientation options and attitude trim. I've started working on the throttle-to-elevator mixes. I am hoping to get that done this weekend, then will do a build.

Tomorrow I maiden my build of a vintage model (with vintage power system, but other electronics are modern) - Midwest Electric Hots.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 02, 2017, 09:55 PM
Registered User
mdmyers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Just so you know - I'm still here. I was busy all last weekend, but have had a little time this weekend to work on RxEditor. I've not done a build yet that includes it, but have implemented the additional receiver orientation options and attitude trim. I've started working on the throttle-to-elevator mixes. I am hoping to get that done this weekend, then will do a build.

Tomorrow I maiden my build of a vintage model (with vintage power system, but other electronics are modern) - Midwest Electric Hots.
Thanks and good luck on the maiden tomorrow!
Dec 02, 2017, 10:11 PM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar

RxEditor 0.8.10


Got it finished tonight. Changes:
  • Added additional receiver orientations. There are now 16 possible.
  • Added attitude trim settings, with the assumption made by someone here that value/100 = degrees ... That might not end up being quite right, and if that's the case I'll change it. (It's helpful to have units though.)
  • Added throttle to elevator mix section, including a button to disable the mixes with a single click.

As always, it's here: https://github.com/atreis/RxEditor

Yes, there are many things requested that I've not done yet ... Don't worry, they're not lost and I'll get to them eventually.

Converting the receiver to non-safe - setting parameterVersion to 0xFF - seems peculiar to me ......... Not sure how to label that such that a user would understand what's going on, and that they then have to change it back again after using the Spektrum tool ... The flow there just seems very awkward. I'd like to think that one out better, or get a better idea for how to make it work before making it a non-advanced change.
Dec 03, 2017, 07:39 AM
Ghost Rider the pattern's full
santanig5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdmyers
if I initialize my Stearman on it's wheels and flip to SAFE mode, the elevator drops below in-line with the stabilizer but then rises back to in-line as I raise the tail to flying attitude.
Yep, this is what I meant. When testing if I change the value and have the plane in my stand (flat, level) I can see the elev change immediately when I flip the switch, If I have it sitting on it's gear then I have to lift the tail to see the effect.
Just wanted to be sure we were testing in the same way.
Dec 03, 2017, 02:34 PM
Registered User
mdmyers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Got it finished tonight. Changes:
  • Added additional receiver orientations. There are now 16 possible.
  • Added attitude trim settings, with the assumption made by someone here that value/100 = degrees ... That might not end up being quite right, and if that's the case I'll change it. (It's helpful to have units though.)
  • Added throttle to elevator mix section, including a button to disable the mixes with a single click.

As always, it's here: https://github.com/atreis/RxEditor

Yes, there are many things requested that I've not done yet ... Don't worry, they're not lost and I'll get to them eventually.
Thanks for what you've done, it looks great!

Quote:
Converting the receiver to non-safe - setting parameterVersion to 0xFF - seems peculiar to me ......... Not sure how to label that such that a user would understand what's going on, and that they then have to change it back again after using the Spektrum tool ... The flow there just seems very awkward. I'd like to think that one out better, or get a better idea for how to make it work before making it a non-advanced change.
Yeah, understand, this one may be better left for people to do manually on the current advanced tab although then there's really no way for anyone to know about it at all unless they dig it out of this thread. I agree that the flow looks/sounds awkward written out but I'd also argue that the basic steps are not different than with any other change except for an extra back and forth through SPS to change the parameterVersion.


In general, I had two thoughts with the text explanations I included. Firstly, they were me trying to summarize what each function did so I wouldn't have to go figure it out again later. Second, I was thinking that perhaps they could be included with the corresponding sections in RXEditor to give new users some explanation of what was going on and what things meant. I don't know that the words need to be plastered on the screen but maybe a ?/help button that just popped them up if you click on it? I'm not stuck on my words, flight and others may definitely have better ones, but I do think something like that will make the tool more self-explanatory and less intimidating to a broader user base and perhaps reduce some support type questions.

Lastly, and this is clearly a personal preference, I would like to see slightly different behavior when a change is made to a file but not saved. Currently if I edit a file but then decide I don't want to save the changes and go to open the same one again to start over or go to open a completely different one, the save file dialog pops up first. This threw me a couple times initially because I was expecting an open file dialog and didn't read and realize it was a save so I'd pick a new file thinking I was going to open it and it would try to save instead. I did get prompted that the file already existed which then made me pay closer attention and realize it was a save and not open dialog, so I didn't actually overwrite anything, but my vote might be for a yes/no dialog to pop up initially instead of going right to the save one, something like "Your file has changed, do you want to save it before opening a different one?". Then, if the answer was "Yes", pop up the save dialog followed by the open one and if "No", then go straight to the open dialog. Again, just my two cents because it's more what I'm used to and I'll defer if others like it as is.
Dec 03, 2017, 05:54 PM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
parameterVersion setting: Currently, on the SAFE tab, there's a SAFE on/off setting - this adjusts a different value - leaving the receiver as a safe receiver, but turning safe off. Would it be better to replace this? Put something alongside it? How to distinguish it from the other setting? (Perhaps the current SAFE-tab settings aren't actually that useful? They're really just things I found in the settings.) Another option (if the current SAFE on/off is useful) would be to put the parameterVersion change on a menu instead of one of the tabs. I'm not fond of making the user go to advanced either - there's nothing there that tells them the interesting values are FF and FE, and what they do.

Other feedback: I agree, and have made some notes. (I actually had a note already for the "save as" one, but hadn't entered it into github.) Thanks!
Dec 03, 2017, 08:10 PM
Registered User
mdmyers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
parameterVersion setting: Currently, on the SAFE tab, there's a SAFE on/off setting - this adjusts a different value - leaving the receiver as a safe receiver, but turning safe off. Would it be better to replace this? Put something alongside it? How to distinguish it from the other setting? (Perhaps the current SAFE-tab settings aren't actually that useful? They're really just things I found in the settings.) Another option (if the current SAFE on/off is useful) would be to put the parameterVersion change on a menu instead of one of the tabs. I'm not fond of making the user go to advanced either - there's nothing there that tells them the interesting values are FF and FE, and what they do.

Other feedback: I agree, and have made some notes. (I actually had a note already for the "save as" one, but hadn't entered it into github.) Thanks!
The SAFE on/off is different than the parameterVersion and is needed as are the other things you have there. I'm working on a tab outline for all the settings that encompass flight modes (both AS3X and SAFE). This would include all the stuff on the current SAFE tab plus more, I hope to get something out for review later this week. I'd say let's just put the parameterVersion in whatever form it might take on the back burner for now until we get the more basic stuff implemented.

Did your maiden go well?
Dec 04, 2017, 06:31 PM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
Sounds good. The maiden went great! I hand-launched. It flew very nicely, handled well, no real issues. Lands a bit hot, but seems sturdy enough to handle it. (I might add a skid just fore of the tail wheel to keep the tail wheel from catching on the grass.) It doesn't have as much power as other planes, but that's to be expected with that brushed motor. It still had plenty though. It flew for about 8 minutes on the 2200 2S and landed at storage voltage. All in all, I'm pleased.
Dec 04, 2017, 09:02 PM
Ghost Rider the pattern's full
santanig5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Got it finished tonight. Changes:
  • Added additional receiver orientations. There are now 16 possible.
  • Added attitude trim settings, with the assumption made by someone here that value/100 = degrees ... That might not end up being quite right, and if that's the case I'll change it. (It's helpful to have units though.)
  • Added throttle to elevator mix section, including a button to disable the mixes with a single click.

As always, it's here: https://github.com/atreis/RxEditor

Yes, there are many things requested that I've not done yet ... Don't worry, they're not lost and I'll get to them eventually.

Converting the receiver to non-safe - setting parameterVersion to 0xFF - seems peculiar to me ......... Not sure how to label that such that a user would understand what's going on, and that they then have to change it back again after using the Spektrum tool ... The flow there just seems very awkward. I'd like to think that one out better, or get a better idea for how to make it work before making it a non-advanced change.
I really like the changes, but check your verbiage on the ATT Trim Ailerons, I have my Supper Scorpion set to -600 and the programs says 6 degrees Rx left raises, but in reality the right raises, if Left is Port and Right is Starboard.
GJS
Dec 04, 2017, 09:27 PM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
Correct - starboard=right. I got the direction from mdmyers's pdf describing how it works. (Positive value = raise right side of receiver. Negative value = raise left side of receiver.) I believe this means you would use a negative value if your receiver is mounted with the left side raised a bit from level - left side higher than the right side if the plane is sitting level.

This assumes I read his sheet right.
Dec 04, 2017, 11:37 PM
Registered User
mdmyers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by santanig5
I really like the changes, but check your verbiage on the ATT Trim Ailerons, I have my Supper Scorpion set to -600 and the programs says 6 degrees Rx left raises, but in reality the right raises, if Left is Port and Right is Starboard.
GJS
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Correct - starboard=right. I got the direction from mdmyers's pdf describing how it works. (Positive value = raise right side of receiver. Negative value = raise left side of receiver.) I believe this means you would use a negative value if your receiver is mounted with the left side raised a bit from level - left side higher than the right side if the plane is sitting level.

This assumes I read his sheet right.
I just double checked my results and description and what Atreis has at least matches what was in my mind when I wrote it (for whatever that's worth!).

What I physically see is that if my RX were mounted on a 6 deg angle in the roll axis, with the left side being higher, I would have to put in a value of -600 for SAFE to think that mounting position was level instead. So calling that "RX left raised" in my mind describes the physical orientation of the RX that we are correcting for with the attTrim value. I'm guessing maybe you are thinking about the words as the describing the effect of applying the value rather than the physical orientation because in that case I can see why you would say that it raises the right side?

If the above is true and we are saying the same thing from two different directions then I guess we just need to pick one and probably add a few more words to clarify.
Dec 05, 2017, 05:58 AM
Ghost Rider the pattern's full
santanig5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdmyers
I just double checked my results and description and what Atreis has at least matches what was in my mind when I wrote it (for whatever that's worth!).

What I physically see is that if my RX were mounted on a 6 deg angle in the roll axis, with the left side being higher, I would have to put in a value of -600 for SAFE to think that mounting position was level instead. So calling that "RX left raised" in my mind describes the physical orientation of the RX that we are correcting for with the attTrim value. I'm guessing maybe you are thinking about the words as the describing the effect of applying the value rather than the physical orientation because in that case I can see why you would say that it raises the right side?

If the above is true and we are saying the same thing from two different directions then I guess we just need to pick one and probably add a few more words to clarify.
I will retest as mine is mounted on my jet. I also wonder if the Rx orientation matters.
Dec 05, 2017, 06:31 AM
Registered User
atreis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by santanig5
I will retest as mine is mounted on my jet. I also wonder if the Rx orientation matters.
I already have an item in my backlog to add a graphic for this trim value too. (It wouldn't show actual degrees, just the receiver relative to the plane in a simple way.) I think that would make it clearer.

I originally asked if orientation mattered, but some folk checked and determined that it didn't appear to - the Rx corrected for that. If you find otherwise though, there could be a version difference ...... (I hope not. )
Dec 05, 2017, 07:59 AM
Registered User
mdmyers's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Sounds good. The maiden went great! I hand-launched. It flew very nicely, handled well, no real issues. Lands a bit hot, but seems sturdy enough to handle it. (I might add a skid just fore of the tail wheel to keep the tail wheel from catching on the grass.) It doesn't have as much power as other planes, but that's to be expected with that brushed motor. It still had plenty though. It flew for about 8 minutes on the 2200 2S and landed at storage voltage. All in all, I'm pleased.
Cool, glad it went well, I'll bet it looks good in the air! I suppose you could consider a flaperon config to slow down the landings a bit if you have the channels available?
Last edited by mdmyers; Dec 05, 2017 at 12:10 PM.
Dec 05, 2017, 07:29 PM
Ghost Rider the pattern's full
santanig5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by santanig5
I will retest as mine is mounted on my jet. I also wonder if the Rx orientation matters.
I retested tonight and with my Rx orientation label up pins aft with a value of 1500 the right (starboard) aileron raised, with a value of -1500 the left (port) aileron raised.

what are others seeing? Does the Rx orientation have any affect?


Quick Reply
Message:
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! Turnigy TGY9X Unable to set fail safe on any channel luckyflyer Radios 2 Jun 06, 2016 06:49 PM
Discussion Setting up Fail safe on Eagle tree Vector Cary Pond FPV Talk 4 Sep 15, 2015 07:17 PM
Help! How to set fail/safe on DJI WK-M with Futaba Go4it Multirotor Drone Talk 3 May 10, 2012 04:58 PM