Control Mixer

PhracturedBlue wrote: I implemented the er9x system almost as-is, but did not implement the dual-rate/expo as a pre-filter. Instead the template will automatically define multiple mixers to get the desired behavior. We may need a new template or moodify the existing template to handle the flight-mode switch.

Here is the DR template. There is only 1 screen for input, but it is implemented as 2 mixers:
1) ch = If (! dr_switch) Input1 * rate1 * curve1
2) ch = If (dr_switch) Input1 * rate2 * curve1

To do flight mode, you'd need something like this:
Here is a collective definition (throttle stick controls the collective in both modes, but with different curves)
1) var1 = If (! fmode) Input1 * curve1 //This is a 2d curve
2) var1 = If (fmode) Input1 * curve2 //This is a 3d curve
3) collective = If (! dr_switch) var1 * rate1
4) collective = If (dr_switch) var1 * rate2

The throttle could be the same, using an 'idle up' curve for 3dmode, or it could be a function of a different channel (like the collective or a mix) for 3dmode.

Note that after defining a dual-rate mode (and pressing 'ok'), you can switch to 'complex' to see how the mixers were actually configured.

FDR wrote: Main sreen:
1. On the screen in the first column there are the 8 channels (numbered correctly from 1 to 8, so users can understand, as opposed to the right pane of the emulator, where the same channels are indexed from zero)

2. The second column contains the stick associated with this channel, or does this come from the source? If it is the source, what happens when the mixer type is "None", because it has no source definition? Is it an unassigned channel then? Either way, I couldn't change that, so it is so far probably just a hardcoded example, isn't it?

4. The last (fourth) column shows the switches and/or curves applied. I couldn't change it either, so the comment for the 2nd column applies here too. What I do not understand is: what if it is a complex mixer, which can have more pages (= more mixers) with different switches and curves? The other thing: in all the "switch" controls the items are rather channels, than actually harware or software switches.

ch1  <control1> <switch1> <curve1>
 +   <control2> <switch2> <curve2>
 R   <control3> <switch3> <curve3>

"None" mixer type:
5. See 2. Is it an unassigned channel then? By the way it freezes when I click OK in the "None" window...

"Simple" mixer type:
6. "Src" is the source stick or channel value. I see the four sticks: THR, RUD, ELE, AIL; the three premixed cyclic channel: CYC0, CYC2, CYC2 (Wouldn't be better to index them 1 to 3 for the non-programmer users? ); and the channel outputs (?) from Ch1 to Ch12. Will the channels be used as a calculated dummy one to use in other mixes, like in the er9x, or these are only the actual channels, and there are other ways to implement the intermediate calculations?

7. "Curve" I see some useful predefined functions here, plus the EXPO option, which duplicates the function of the "Expo" mixer type, plus the PWL curves with six different resolution from 3 points to 13. (They are cool! ) My only (GUI related) complaints here, that it is not visible that some of them are clickable, which then opens it for editing. I realized it only by accident. Is there a way to indicate the editing possibility? By the way it contradicts one of my GUI ideas to show a selection list in case of clicking in such an option spin button...

Expo editing screen:
10. IMO it would be better to insist on one layout for the OK and Cancel buttons. For me it is more logical in the OK-Cancel order than vice versa, YMMV.

Curve editing screen:
12. It is also cool to set points by touch! It would be even better if one doesn't have to select the point first, but just clicking throw the graph to set the curve, i.e. it could use the X coordinate of the click to change the point.

13. GUI related: IMO the graphs should maintain the same proportional XY size on all screens to help to understand the curves. Besides I would like some helping grid (with low contrast, for example dark grey, supposing a black background, and light grey for the XY axles) by every 20% or 25%. Other fancy idea is to show the X and Y value projections of the actual stick (or channel) value point with dashed or dotted lines, where applicable...

14. Is it intentional that if I set a curve, and then go to an other channel, there will be the same curve by default?

Scale, Offset, Max, Min:
15. I see no effect they have. Shouldn't they change the transfer function visibly?
16. Again the opposit order, i.e. Min-Max would be more logical to me. YMMV

"DualRate" mixer type:
17. How the D/R value is different from the Scale or Min/Max? Since neither of them has effect on the graph, it isn't easy to understand...

18. Shouldn't some of the values offer more than 100% to scale thing up? That is where the separate D/R filter would come handy, or the current travel adjust after the mixes...

19. I have already written about the switches which are rather channels in point 4.

"Expo" mixer type:
21. What is the difference between the expo mixer type and a simple mixer type with expo curve, apart from the possibility to define a switch and directly editing the expo value (i.e. without opening the expo screen)?

22. There is a little bug on opening the expo screen by clicking into the expo box: open a mixer by clicking the button; step throw to complex type; change the curve to any PWL; step back one to expo type; click into the expo box: it will show the curve screen instead of the expo screen.

"Complex" mixer type:
24. The new controls are: the "Mixers" which determines how many mixes this complex type consists of; the "Page" which says which of the mixers we are seeing/editing now; and the "Mux", which determines how this mixer affect the previous mixes (i.e the output value so far).
25. The "Mux" can replace the whole previous value with the one it calculates, but it has sense only if it depends on a switch. It can also multiply the previous value with it's calculated value, or add it as a correction value.

26. IMO the logical order is Mixers (= Mixer count), Page (Current mixer), Mux, all the other settings...

PhracturedBlue wrote: 4. Do you think we should go the er9x route for this?

ch1 <input>               // the stick
 *  <scale_1>             // a basic limit
 *  <scale_2> <switch_1>  // d/r
 *  <expo_1>  <switch_1>  // expo
 *  <curve_1> <switch_2>  // a curve, which is a simple transfer function
 R  <curve_2> <switch_3>
 +  <mix_1>   <switch_2>  // a mix, which depends on other channels value
 *  <mix_2>
 *  <travel>              // the final "scaling"

ch1 <input>               // the stick
 *  <scale_1>             // a basic limit
 *  <scale_2> <switch_1>  // d/r
 *  <expo_1>  <switch_1>  // expo
 *  <curve_1> <switch_2>  // a curve, which is a simple transfer function
 R  <curve_2> <switch_3>
 +  <mix_1>   <switch_2>  // a mix, which depends on other channels value
 *  <mix_2>
 *  <travel>              // the final "scaling"

if (switch) then
    mix = input * f(x) * scale + offset
    if (mux == ADD) then
        out = out + mix
    else if (mux == MULT) then
        out = out * mix
    else if (mux == REPLACE) then
        out = mix

if (switch) then
    if (type == SCALE)
       mix = scale + offset
    else if (type == TRANSFER_FUNCTION) then
       mix = f(x)
    if (input) then
       mix = mix * input

    if (mux == ADD) then
       out = out + mix
    if (mux == MULT) then
       out = out * mix
    else if (mux == REPLACE) then
        out = mix

Other thing I have forgotten, that we should allow to change the functions order (within sense), in your approach it would be the order of pages in a complex mixer...

PhracturedBlue wrote: As you said, this is nearly identical to the 'complex' mixer, (or to the original er9x implementation). the main difference is that you have broken down the transfer function and scale/offset into separate 'mixers'. From my perspective currently a single mixer implements:

To me it is harder to understand. That said, it may be that my idea for 'templates' that hide the complexity of the mixers is poorly thought out or at least poorly implemented. I was trying to make the most common cases easy to implement. To properly do 3-position fmode + 3-position dual-rate channel, it will take many lines in a complex mixer. I could try to abstract that away by building a better 'dual rate' template that can handle all of that for the user, and only expose the settings that are needed (the page could potentially look just like the Devo8 dual-rate page, though I'm not keen on that layout either) and leave the user ignorant of the mixers. Alternatively we could take the er9x route, and force the user to learn the (reasonably simple) mixer rules, and build complex expressions with them. In my use of er9x, I think this is too high of a learning curve for most users.

PhracturedBlue wrote:

Curve editing screen:
12. It is also cool to set points by touch! It would be even better if one doesn't have to select the point first, but just clicking throw the graph to set the curve, i.e. it could use the X coordinate of the click to change the point.

With the mouse this would make sense. The problem is that the touch-screen is not as accurate, and if there are more than 3 points, you could easily grab the wrong one. I agree the current interface isn't as nice, but it is more robust.

PhracturedBlue wrote:

"None" mixer type:
5. See 2. Is it an unassigned channel then? By the way it freezes when I click OK in the "None" window...

Yes, this is an unassigned channel. I've fixed the hang. Do you think 'Unassigned' would be a better name?

"Simple" mixer type:
6. ..... Will the channels be used as a calculated dummy one to use in other mixes, like in the er9x, or these are only the actual channels, and there are other ways to implement the intermediate calculations?

....
Currently sources work like er9x where unused channels can be used as intermediate variables. I've been thinking that may be confusing, so I was considering having 3 categories: inputs (sticks, switches, buttons), channels (actual channels), and 'vars' which are intermediate. Do you think this would be more clear? It means the main page would need to show all channels and all vars

7. "Curve" I see some useful predefined functions here, plus the EXPO option, which duplicates the function of the "Expo" mixer type, plus the PWL curves with six different resolution from 3 points to 13. (They are cool! ) My only (GUI related) complaints here, that it is not visible that some of them are clickable, which then opens it for editing. I realized it only by accident. Is there a way to indicate the editing possibility? By the way it contradicts one of my GUI ideas to show a selection list in case of clicking in such an option spin button...

See my answer to 21 for the expo stuff.
As for indicating where it can be clicked....For the cases where no option is clickable (the min/max buttons) we could use a different button or different text color to indicate it. For the 'curve' spinbox, I'm not sure what to do. I could have them all be clickable and just have no control options when the curve screen pops up? Also I don't understand your last sentence. Can you rephrase which GUI idea you don't like?

Scale, Offset, Max, Min:
15. I see no effect they have. Shouldn't they change the transfer function visibly?
16. Again the opposit order, i.e. Min-Max would be more logical to me. YMMV

I am planning to move the min/max to a 'channel page' because they aren't actually part of the mixer at all. they set the physical limits of the channel. It is also where I'll set the channel reverse. Do you think that'll make more sense?
Currently the curve at the bottom of the screen is not the final transfer function. It is just an image of the curve. Having it be the transfer function would be really cool (and here you could overlay the actual value of the stick input. But I'm afraid it would be confusing because it would only apply for the specific mixer/template. I.e. the curve would not necessarily represent what the final channel would look like since mixers can stack. Also if another mixer were the soucre, I'm not sure I could get the overlay to work. I'm open to opinions

PhracturedBlue wrote: The system I've developed can be modeled exactly like the er9x system. You don't need to model d/r the way I have. You can model it as a curve and and multiplier (so that the curve doesn't need to be duplicated).
I really don't see any difference between expo and a curve. Expo is just one specific transfer function.
I think you may be getting confused by my poorly defined template pages and the capabilities of the mixer. If you like the er9x way of inputting expo and d/r better, we could have a template that looks nearly the same (2 switches, 3 scalers and 3 curves). The main problem I have with their approach is that once I define a D/R or expo on a stick, I can't get at the raw value of that stick anymore. My approach allows you to do so. Their mixers are fully capable to implement the same capability available on the D/R expo page (I've done so) so the underlying implementation doesn't seem important. It is just a question of presentation in my mind, and it is clear you don't like mine Also, by moving the expo d/r function into the mixer, it is now easy to apply it at to any input and/or intermediate channel.

Let me merge the d/r and expo templates into one with the same capabilities as the er9x controls, and see if that helps any.

FDR wrote: Walkera uses dropdown lists instead your (let's call) option spin buttons. The dropdown's advantage, that you see all the options you can choose, don't have to scroll them up and down to find the one you are looking for.

Your approach with the long clicks is better. (I have one observation here: if I push the arrow, then first it adds one, only after then it starts to step throw by 5, so in the end you have to correct it back. Anyway I feel 10 would suit as large steps better: the usual range is -100..+100, which is 20 steps by 10.)

-----   ------   -----   -----
|<--|   |TEXT|   |-->|   |...|
-----   ------   -----   -----

-----------   -----
|TEXT    v|   |...|
-----------   -----

PhracturedBlue wrote: Let me merge the d/r and expo templates into one with the same capabilities as the er9x controls, and see if that helps any.

PhracturedBlue wrote: I've just committed a merged dual_rate/expo template that closely resembles the er9x solution.
It isn't polished yet and may not work perfectly (I wanted to get feedback on whether this is a useful direction), but it should give you an idea of how it should work.

I also took your suggestions on the curve editor.

As I mentioned before the curve on the 'template' page is based on the current inputs.
So if you try the new expo/d-r page, set sw1 = 'Mix1', set sw2 = 'Mix2' set different curves/scaling for each, and then press 'b' to toggle between the 3 settings.

If you Click on 'Med Rate' or 'Low Rate' it will allow you to have a different curve than the 'high rate' (the default is that they all use the same curve)