Change request : Mixer labels

Sorry to add a feature change request, since I realize development time is in short supply.
I understand if it's not possible to consider implementing.

Background:

I'm going to describe this from a plane pilot perspective, but it may also apply to helis -- I don't know...

1.) The Deviation manual defines a source as a control input (stick, switch, etc) and these have labels (AIL, ELE, THR, Hold0 etc.)

2.) It also defines a destination as a channel ( 1,2,3,4 etc.)

3.) The model.ini file organizes a mixer as a channel number, with mixes as sub-categories that define the various sources for that channel.

4.) The Tx UI also organizes a mixer as a channel with "mixer pages" as sub-categories that define the various sources for that channel.

Problem:
A big stumbling block for me when first trying to program the 7e in Deviation was understanding that the mixer pages were organized by channel (ie. destination), because the labels for these mixers contained source labels, e.g. 1-THR, 2-AIL, 3-ELE, etc.

If they had instead been labeled strictly as destinations, CH1, CH2, CH3, etc I could have easily made the connection and realized that the mixer pages were there to assign sources to these destinations.

It was the confusion about what a source was and what a destination was and how they were organized in the UI that made the learning task really difficult. What was AIL? A source, or a destination? Why was I assigning a source of AIL in a mixer page to 1-AIL? Wasn't it already a source?

The model.ini, by contrast made sense. Here I could see that under Channel 2 (the destination) I was assigning a source of "AIL" -- which meant the aileron stick.

The worst part was trying to work out how to do an elevon setup. Here Channel 2 was (lets say) assigned to the left wing servo, and Channel 3 was assigned to the right wing servo.

To make it work I needed to set up a source of the elevator stick for each channel and a source of the aileron stick for each channel. What threw me off was the mixer labeling again: 2-AIL, 3-ELE. I kept trying to treat those mixers as sources because of the labeling, and couldn't get anything to work.

Finally I was able to find an elevon template for a different Tx (with different switches) and working backwards realize that 2-AIL wasn't a source but really the destination: Channel 2.

Suggestion for change:

I see that people are still confused by this kind of thing so I would like to suggest that the labels for the mixers be changed. There are two possibilities for this, the first is the most basic change already mentioned: just call the mixers by their simple channel name. A side benefit of that is you no longer have to correct these labels for different Tx protocols from different manufacturers. Channel 2 is always channel 2.

A second benefit is that it is also consistent with the way things are handled and labeled in the model.ini.

-or-

The other even more desirable way to change those labels would to make them editable. Then a person with an elevon mix could, for instance label Channel 2 as "2-LWS" for left wing servo, and ch3 as "3-RWS" as desired.

Other unconventional aircraft setups and uses could be accomodated by users. Elevons, flaperons, spoilerons, V-tail mixes, blimps, or other aircraft could have meaningful channel names. This would make things much easier to setup, adjust, and program in the UI.

The drawback is that it would require an additional 3 character editable field in a model.ini.

As it stands now when adjusting a roll offset for my elevon equipped plane I have to do that in "2-AIL" and "3-ELE" and I can never remember whether 2-AIL or 3-ELE is the right hand servo -- I often implement a large numeric change, save it and then watch the surfaces move simply to find out which one a channel acts on, then edit back again to the value I want, or if in the wrong mixer, switch to the other mixer on the correct wing side. With meaningful mixer labels this wouldn't have been necessary.

Anyway, I hope that at some point one or the other of these two possible UI mixer label changes can be implemented to reduce the confusion newbies (and regular users in some setups!) have with the present labeling.

Thank you for your consideration!

probably part of the reason when I was messing a round with servo's like you do and was going what in the world am I doing wrong. I think the plane guys could get this mixer stuff easier. For me after playing with the 6 servo's and the reciever just trying to figure how to get them working as left right ail. and a left right ele was driving me nuts. I changed back to the devo firmware and had the same setup figured out in a matter of maybe an hour with the deviation and the mixer's I gave up after several days. I could see many more plane guys using this if it were easier to grasp. But seems this is a forum who wants to clearly cater to just heli's

Hi unclecrash,

I fly heli's and planks with my Devo equipment. Like you I would love to see setup screens in the Standard Gui for airplanes. They gui's are great and would make the radio much more user friendly for airplane users.

Just remember though, this is a bunch of private programmers who came up with something cool that they were kind enough to share. A lot of hard work was done to get what they wanted done.

I wish I had the know how (and time) to contribute to a dedicated airplane gui for addition to the Deviation project.

Right now, I'm hoping to do some airplane 'templates' to make it easier to set up a complex plane.

Thanks to all for the hard work.

JM2C

Can't agree more... as I have mentioned, the programmers are doing a great job, but in the perspective of a programmer, not a pilot..

even more confusing is CHx as source, a pilot would in no doubt thinks that CHx means the ultimate signal (after all lots of mixing and processing) that sends out on Channel x to the receiver, right?

No, take CH3 as throttle for example, CH3 still remains high even if you have flipped on the Throttle hold function... Ah....

I know I'm going to sound like a dick, but really, learn your R/C, you guys are nitpicking. Apologies in advance.

I wouldn't call this nitpicking, but what you guys need to understand is, as with all open source project.

If you want something done, either do it yourself and ask for integration on the main development branch, or wait for the developers to integrate it, if and only if they see fit or there is enough interest/consensus to do it.

What you plank flyers should do in the meantime is gather together in a new thread on the template forum, and discuss about templates for each type of plane/glider etc... and post them with a read me file so a newbie would know "what does what" in said template.

This would help mitigate the "magic" behind mixers on deviation.

It's actually an inconsistency leading to confusion -- what are defined by the manual as source names have been applied to destinations.

I agree that it is also a documentation issue, but in reverse. If some people cannot figure out what channel numbers apply to what functions, can't read their Rx manual, or count the plugs on their Rx, a simple table in the manual could spell that out for them by mfr. protocol instead of forcing software to try to do that by auto-lableing after determining protocol and model type, etc.

The unfortunate additional result of mis-labeling is causing additional confusion between source designations and destination designations. That is a poor tradeoff in terms of ease of use and gaining a working understanding of the system by newcomers.

One other point about using editable names is, the default could stay the same as at present, if desired, but by making the names editable they could be changed to suit anyone with any application.

BTW it isn't just plank fliers, it's also jet flyers who use elevons, and there are many other types of aircraft requiring wing/tail mixes. But besides that, by renaming editable channel tags, anyone can make it work for their application: cars, trains, robots, anything. Why should Deviation development be responsible for doing appropriate tag naming to suit users -- it is a programmable system after all -- wouldn't it fit the philosophy if channel names were a part of that user programmable option set?

It would be very nice to have editable names. It feels strange on my crawler to use rudder/aileron instead of something like steering 1/2. I consider this a really minor annoyance but I feel like deviation has evolve so much and to a point where it may be time to take care of this kind of detail.
Anyway deviation is an amazing work and things are getting better every day. So just wait and see... or help if you have the knowledge, skills, time, will...

I understand it is open source. So if something that doesn't come out as one's liking, either one can do it yourselves or just patiently wait for the other nice guys to work the things out.

So don't take me wrong, I have absolutely no complaint on the project, but honestly thanks PB and all other nice guys here who together makes Deviation into reality.

In fact, I have sold my two Futaba 9c two years ago and use my Devo 7e for all my R/C models planes, boats, tanks and heli.

Back to the point. As stupid as it was, the two big R/C brands mapped the output channels to their functions differently. For example, JR puts Throttle to CH1 and Futaba to CH3.

That was historical commercial strategy. But as independent as it is, Deviation still maps (more precisely names) channels to a particular function. So in the mixer GUI, people can see "1-ELE", "2-AIL" but in reality, I use channel 1 as Aileron and channel 2 as Elevator. Why put on a name while different pilot would assign different function to different channels under his personal preference? Would the confusion be gone by just naming each channel by its channel number?

Any reason why CH3 doesn't refer to the actual output but something that is only half processed and still subject to further mixing? Any use by doing that?

cmPang

Though I would prefer editable names to changing the present system to just calling them by the channel number, I still think that channel number would be better than what we have now.

And when I checked the Tx I found that the Source name IS available anyway for each channel, even if we renamed every mixer to just the channel number.

Look in the first Mixers Menu -- just below the Channel name tag is another line listing the first mixer page's source like this:

<2-AIL> <Complex>
AIL

2-AIL is redundant. It's also incorrect since it is a destination, not a source. And it's also incorrect if the channel is actually used for something else. Example lets say ELE is the actual source. We would now get:

<2-AIL> <Complex>
ELE

if we just used channel numbers as tags we would see:

<CH-2> <Complex>
ELE

Which would be consistent, understandable, identify what is connected to what, and maintain the conceptual distinction between destination and the source.

VTdev wrote: A big stumbling block for me when first trying to program the 7e in Deviation was understanding that the mixer pages were organized by channel (ie. destination), because the labels for these mixers contained source labels, e.g. 1-THR, 2-AIL, 3-ELE, etc.

The 'THR', 'AIL', etc in the mixer labels '1-THR', '2-AIL' are not sources, but default functions defined by the protocol being used. For example, if you choose DEVO protocol you'll see '1-ELE', '2-AIL', etc. And when I look at my Devo RX1002 receiver the first connector is labeled 'ELE', the second 'AIL', etc. No channel numbers are labeled on that rx.

The only other receiver I own is Flysky and its connectors are labeled CH1-8. In Deviation the Flysky protocol lists the mixers as '1-AIL', '2-ELE', etc. My V911 uses Flysky and sure enough, channel 1 controls roll, channel 2 pitch, etc.

As cmPang pointed out different manufacturers chose different default functions for the channels, and the Deviation labels reflect that. Don't know whether that helps or hinders. It did help me when setting up the RX1002 receiver.

hexfet wrote: For example, if you choose DEVO protocol you'll see '1-ELE', '2-AIL', etc. And when I look at my Devo RX1002 receiver the first connector is labeled 'ELE', the second 'AIL', etc. No channel numbers are labeled on that rx.

That example makes sense only to Walkera (who of course hopes every single pilot should use only Walkera receiver) but no one else.

It is common for a pilot to own different brands of radio equipment. In that case, no one would messes himself up by assigning Aileron to different channel for each and every receiver he uses. He would stick to one convention of his liking, say CH1 for Aileron no matter which radio he uses.

As an open source radio, Deviation has even a stronger reason to abandon that confusion and use the most straight forward designation, that is by Channel Number.

Let me state it clearly again, I am in no way complaining, Deviation is now every bit as best as all the other radio around, I only mean it can be even better.

cmPang

To sum it up, my view is:

CHx refers to all Channel outputs (I mean actual output signals that sends to the receiver) .. so it is a Destination for Mixer

Ail, Ele refers to the control sticks input (which depends on which Mode your Tx is being configured) .. so it is a Source for Mixers

cmPang

I can see hexfet's point -- that some receivers don't put their channel numbers on the plug slots, but instead use the 3 letter control surface codes.

The real problem is that a code like AIL can mean 3 entirely different things. It can mean a surface, an aileron. It can mean a channel name. And it can mean a stick name in Deviation.

And these are all mixed together, different for different manufacturers, both in sticks (modes) and channels (as already mentioned), and often reassigned by users.

So when one sees "AIL" there is absolutely no telling what it is. You actually have to learn to ignore it in many cases, in order to understand the software system. And starting out, you don't know that. You generally pick one of the meanings and try to follow the logic under that assumption -- usually only to find yourself at a dead end.

I'm going to say something I know will be unpopular, and almost certainly not implemented. But if one were starting out from scratch to build a system like this, to avoid all ambiguity, the sticks should all have unique names, too.

Instead of AIL for the aileron stick, something like RHSTK for right horizontal stick, etc. would make it clear what was being referred to.

And it would eliminate the need for Modes: Right Horizontal stick is always right horizontal stick, no matter what the mode. Modes would be merely mechanical, not software.

I'm not suggesting this be implemented. That would be a huge project and change. But just mentioning it to illustrate the problem ambiguous names cause.

I see your point ...

Introducing new acronyms is a _very_ bad idea.

I have always thought this and I think changing it might be worth the near tearm fallout. Devation also already dose this with the trims its not called Throttel trim and thats a good thing.