Thread Tools
Oct 10, 2019, 05:51 PM
LOOK UP
cbfsoar15's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissah
That's odd.

If you have 9v, that means the regulator is fine.
If the VTX pin has 9v, then the C1 pin should also have 9V. Do a continuity check between both those pins. It should be zero ohms. The two are connected together in the middle layer of the board.

That's also odd that VSW has 9v without the link in place. Are you confident that your soldering is fine and there is no solder dags under the headers? If all looks good, then it may be a problem on the internal track layer of the board.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 10, 2019, 08:22 PM
Registered User
Been working with this board for several months now, I will do some more testing and after that I think I need to start saving and buy the F765, I'll just use this on my Ranger where I don't need 2 cameras.

Thank you guys for all your help. RCG is my goto for every roadblocks. Please continue to share your best practices, tips and advice to newbie like me.
Oct 11, 2019, 07:51 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbfsoar15
I understand your annoyance with that possibility. If it was a poorly etched track, that lead to an open circuit. That would be very bad quality control. I'd then be worried about all Matek products.

I couldn't image that an accidental short circuit of the 9v supply to ground, would cause the track to burnout. I would think the regulator would have short circuit protection against that and the regulator would drop-out before the track blew-out.
Unless those specific tracks a very fine. And the impulse current from a short has blown it out.
That may also explain why so many on this thread have had Camera switcher issues. Although it would still technically be a user error.... but also a very under rated design!
Oct 11, 2019, 01:55 PM
LOOK UP
cbfsoar15's Avatar
i like to be sure of my builds
Oct 20, 2019, 06:22 PM
Registered User
stuwe's Avatar

BL_Heli32 Telemetry


A little practical tip for anyone interested in using ESC infos in the OSD. One of the best new features for me of the 722 compared to the 405 was that the ESC signal cable connector is now 3 pin! the middle one which is usually the +5V from the BEC is left blank and marked with N. I have now connected the 2 N pins at the bottom of the board and soldered 2 cables to the bottom of RX1. this saves me a complicated and messy Y-cable to connect 2 motors to the board. A nice and clean solution where you wire your ESC's as always. I did not take a pic sorry but its not hard to imagine. maybe the wiring diagram explains better.

i've suggested a internal connection from N to RX1 with a soldier bridge to Matek as i truly see BL32 with tele as the future in ESC - at least for us FPV freaks but they did not like the idea claiming it was too risky for newbies to fry the board... which i don't fully understand when the bridge - as always - is per default open. there is nothing to fry if you accidently connect a conventional ESC with a BEC...

I've tested it with Betaflight all the way up to Dshot1200 and it worked like a charme! the OSD configurability requires some improvements but hey - we're just at the beginning. I fly with iNav where you don't have the support. I hope this is only a quesition of time until this is fixed. i've wired my F722 "future ready"
and even though i can't take full advantage of that yet - i can at least configure both ESC's without changing any cable when the board is connected via usb - pass-through mode onto the ESC's work without any issues on that board!
Oct 21, 2019, 04:05 AM
Registered User
I did the same thing too. I thought it would tidy up the wiring on top of the board.

ESC telemetry will be released in iNav 2.3. Digital entity is working on finishing it now. Its the only 2.3 milestone to be complete before a release candidate comes out. Should be by the end of the month.
Oct 21, 2019, 01:16 PM
Registered User
stuwe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissah
ESC telemetry will be released in iNav 2.3. Digital entity is working on finishing it now. Its the only 2.3 milestone to be complete before a release candidate comes out. Should be by the end of the month.
fantastic news thank you for that!!
i've seen you connected yours to RX4. did you ever got that running?? i had issues assigning any other input but RX1 - only there i could get it to work..

would you also be in favor of a internal connection with a soldier bridge? of course that would take you the flexibility of choosing the port... unless a dip-switch is added
Oct 21, 2019, 04:46 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuwe
fantastic news thank you for that!!
i've seen you connected yours to RX4. did you ever got that running?? i had issues assigning any other input but RX1 - only there i could get it to work..

would you also be in favor of a internal connection with a soldier bridge? of course that would take you the flexibility of choosing the port... unless a dip-switch is added
It was less messy and easier access to put CRSF, GPS and SA on UART 1 , 2 and 3. Plus those pins are also 4.5v USB supplied. Which is good while testing on the bench, without having the flight battery connected.

I haven't tested it yet. It is odd that you are having issues though. A UART is a UART. It maybe different with iNav ESC telemetry, than BF. We will just have to wait and see.

When you say an internal connection or bridge.... Do you mean if the board was designed differently?
Last edited by Rissah; Oct 21, 2019 at 05:01 PM.
Oct 22, 2019, 07:14 AM
Registered User
stuwe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissah
I haven't tested it yet. It is odd that you are having issues though. A UART is a UART. It maybe different with iNav ESC telemetry, than BF. We will just have to wait and see.

When you say an internal connection or bridge.... Do you mean if the board was designed differently?
of course my tests were all done on betaflight. yeah let's see how this will play out on iNav.
yes i mean a board design change. just prepare that connection directly on the board and let the user decide via solder bridge if he wants to use it or not instead of our custom cables..
Oct 22, 2019, 07:26 AM
Registered User
nevenelestate's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuwe
of course my tests were all done on betaflight. yeah let's see how this will play out on iNav.
yes i mean a board design change. just prepare that connection directly on the board and let the user decide via solder bridge if he wants to use it or not instead of our custom cables..
When packing this much onto a small board it's not always easy to just have an extra trace routed across the board. But yes, it would be a nice feature to have added to a V2 board if possible.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools