Future Form

With the right guts (like a Universal Module) you could build a controller from the ground up with just some switches and sticks ...

What would the ultimate controller look like?

So comfortable in your hands you don't want to put it down. Small, light. Modular. Add more switches, knobs, and sticks just by plugging them in or snapping them on. Maybe?

Today's transmitter's are so 'last century'. Large, cumbersome. Toggle switches seem so dated. Isn't there a better shape and form?

Should the transmitter have a display? The pilot's eyes are usually elsewhere while flying. Unless the display is good for at-a-glance usage. Or you have a smarter aircraft that flies itself. Perhaps the display should be optional or removable. The Universal Module might support that.

What would the ultimate controller look like? Do we need to do some prototyping to find out? The Universal Module seems like a good core. Perhaps a 3D printer or something could flesh out the rest.

There are already some controllers with pluggable modules available. Or at least proposals with them. They all cost far more than I was willing to spend - even for the base module.

Not sure what you would use instead of toggle switches. Old can mean well-tested and comfortable as well as dated. In particular, toggle switches give you both a visual and tactile feedback on the state of the switch. This is important because, as you noted, you don't want to be looking at the screen while you're flying. A 21st century solution would be a touch screen of some kind, which wouldn't have the tactile feedback. Even buttons - which have no tactile feedback on the state - have tactile feedback on the position which one you're touching, which is again important. So maybe we should replace toggles and switches with something completely different.

The transmitter needs some kind of display, for both telemetry data and configuration. You might be able to use an audio interface if you could get a suitable spoken word thing working, but that won't work for deaf pilots. I suspect it's much better for telemetry for those who can hear, though. These days, a bluetooth interface and a smart phone app might well do instead of an on-screen display, especially with audio telemetry data. That way, you only need to have the display in your hands while you're adjusting the model, and can put it away while you're flying.

I notice you didn't pick on the sticks as being dated. Kids these days seem perfectly comfortably with an motion-based interface on their smart phone: tilt it left/right/forward/back for cyclic controls, rotate it for the rudder, and lower/raise the thing for throttle control.

So lets go as far out as I can picture going: your transmitter is nothing more than a µ-controller, bluetooth and rf modules. The actual controller is all in some kind of portable computing device and an app running on it. The sticks are replaced by motion as described. Instead of switches & buttons, you have a set of gestures. We're going to replace the tactile feedback of toggles with audio feedback - say a gesture that tells you about anything not in it's default value for this model.

This brings the notion of "pluggable modules" into the 21st century a well. Since you're connecting the rf module via bluetooth, why not do the same with an actual controller, with the motion/gesture version as a default? Game controllers connected by bluetooth seem to be perfectly acceptable, so there's no reason you can't use one here as well. Bind them, assign the buttons on the controller the the gestures you already have programmed in, and away you go. Want more controls? Bind another bluetooth module. Say you want an FPV system with head tracking? Buy it and bind it - no need for anything as old fashioned as wires! Want to replace the cyclic stick with a mouse or trackball? You can buy either one of those that does BT, so ...

After reading your post I spent some time researching many of the various switches available. There are so many to choose from.

I've always thought toggle switches were cool. And transmitters with toggle switches look pretty cool.

After looking at all kinds of possibilities it occurred to me that toggle switches are probably not the best for this purpose. I don't want to have to look at my transmitter while flying. Switches that lend themselves to that kind of use are preferable. Toggle switches don't seem to fill that bill all that well. A three-position toggle isn't all that easy to tell it's position by feel. Other types of switches do it better. And toggles are too easily bumped. I do that too often, myself.

Modern airliners, nuclear reactors, and other sensitive control panels all seem to have abandoned their use of toggles for one reason or another.

A 3-position rotary with flat knobs to distinguish it easily from a potentiometer would probably be safer. Less likely to be inadvertently bumped into a new position. Easier to tell how it's set from a quick touch, (without bumping it.)

This is the tip of the iceberg. Maybe there are other forms of actuators that are better still.

Interesting thought. Can you get rotary switches that are drop in replacements for the toggle switches? If so, it would make it easy to experiment with.

Since they've replaced toggles in mission-critical applications, I suspect this can bed worked out as well, but the other "by feel" issue is telling one from another. So you tend to get at most 8 switches on a Tx: front and top on the left and right side each get a pair, typically long & short and possibly round & flat. Since it's not unusual to find an analog twist knob next to them, replacing them both with a rotary switch could be problematic.

On the other hand, I see rotary switches that incorporate an independent push-button, which would be a great space saver for a small Tx. For instance, you could do the 2x3 mod on a 7e using a pair of 3-position rotary switches with a latching push button and not need to drill more holes.

Unless you can get rotary switches that can work easily with a single finger, then I personally would think there's an issue with having to take your hand off a stick to turn the switch with two or three fingers, which to me would be typical. And if it's they are single-finger, then that would inversely mean that they are just as easy to bump to a different position as a toggle?

I think the ultimate tx would have the ability for the operator to place a simple head set on with a mic and ear piece on and have voice commands as well as voice announcements ...and the ability for you to program what ever voice command you want and want it to do...just imagine how easy it would be setting up a new model if all you have to do is tell the tx what you want each ch and switch to do..as well as what percentages ect you want...

mwm wrote: Interesting thought. Can you get rotary switches that are drop in replacements for the toggle switches? If so, it would make it easy to experiment with.

Yes, there are some nice ones that I've seen. Will look more closely at dimensions.

Since they've replaced toggles in mission-critical applications, I suspect this can be worked out as well, but the other "by feel" issue is telling one from another. So you tend to get at most 8 switches on a Tx: front and top on the left and right side each get a pair, typically long & short and possibly round & flat. Since it's not unusual to find an analog twist knob next to them, replacing them both with a rotary switch could be problematic.

There are all kinds of cool knobs available to differentiate from the usual round ones. Vertical flats, notched, and others, meant to suggest what they control -- a pot or a multi-way switch. I like the vertical flat knobs for mult-ways. Even small ones are easy to grab, and really stand out to the touch.

On the other hand, I see rotary switches that incorporate an independent push-button, which would be a great space saver for a small Tx. For instance, you could do the 2x3 mod on a 7e using a pair of 3-position rotary switches with a latching push button and not need to drill more holes.

All kinds of possibilities. Trying to think of other disciplines to borrow from. Otherwise a trek through the Mouser catalog ...

RoGuE_StreaK wrote: Unless you can get rotary switches that can work easily with a single finger, then I personally would think there's an issue with having to take your hand off a stick to turn the switch with two or three fingers, which to me would be typical. And if it's they are single-finger, then that would inversely mean that they are just as easy to bump to a different position as a toggle?

I've been thinking about your post. There are some rotary switches that can be operated with a single finger. But I still have a feeling there's something better out there. Or a redesign or reorganization of the radio layout that will make things much better, somehow.

With your post in mind I've been trying to like those toggles. But I don't. They're hard to use with one finger. And much easier to bump. But the hard-to-use part bothers me the most. The toy radios with their buttons on the shoulders are often nicer. Toggles still look cool. And a big radio with a forest of them looks cool. But I think there's a much better way to do things. Just haven't seen it yet.

Thanks for your post.

I don't like buttons for stateful things (which most switches are), because a quick glance at the Tx won't tell me what state things are in. Even though I habitually configure toggle icons for them, I never actually look at those when flying.

The new Taranis X9E (there's a thread on it) uses a "tray" layout. I'm not sure exactly what that means. Maybe that's your new layout?

Do you know the best part about open source projects? YOU can do whatever YOU want (assuming you have the time / desire / knowledge)!

Instead of trying to convience us that your way is better by explaning the same thing over and over (and no one jumping on) simply SHOW US! Come up with this "future form" that's going to blow us all out of the water. Even if you don't have the ability to create a new product from scratch, mod your current one with these new switch things (whatever they are) and rub it in our face, we love that! I guarentee you that if it is indeed better we'll all jump on board as fast as possible, I mean look at the thread below this- adding extra input" the whole time I had a way in my mind that a lot of folks didn't agree with, they wanted to do a cleaner, easier less add-on way but you know what, the moment I got it working and showed proof in a video and posted up a BOM and how-to and the code people were ordering the parts and asking questions and taking and [the coolest part] other people were understanding and even answering questions about it themselves!

Seriously, don't try to sell it, just do it, we'll buy in later.

Cereal_Killer wrote: ...
Seriously, don't try to sell it, just do it, we'll buy in later.

Jeez. If you don't like the discussion then don't read it. I'm actually looking for ideas from others. I don't have that wonderful, 'perfect' idea in mind yet. And I'm clear, that even if I did that someone probably has a better one that will blow mine away. But I'm not even at the start. Much more thought is necessary. Your thoughts too, if you like.

Deviation is all about combining good ideas. I think.

mwm wrote: I don't like buttons for stateful things (which most switches are), because a quick glance at the Tx won't tell me what state things are in. Even though I habitually configure toggle icons for them, I never actually look at those when flying.

The new Taranis X9E (there's a thread on it) uses a "tray" layout. I'm not sure exactly what that means. Maybe that's your new layout?

I've sometimes thought it would be nice if we had tiny status LEDs next to the switches. So an at-a-glance look could tell you a whole lot -- perhaps with colors. That might make buttons, or some other different control more acceptable. Although lots of lights in your face is not always appreciated either, but there may be a way to make it work.

Just a thought. Still looking for ideas.

I dismissed magic_marty's voice control thing at first blush. With more thought it does seem possible to do that reasonably. Don't know if we'd hate it or love it ...

There are switches & buttons availabie with LED's built in. Here's a shot of the hatch on my Focus. This one wouldn't be appropriate for Tx, but I suspect you can find some that are - especially since it doesn't need to be waterproof.

The voice control thing is certainly possible. Look at what Google and Apple are doing with Siri and Google Now. The easy way to go for one of our products would be something like the sparkfun VR shield: www.sparkfun.com/products/13316 You probably want a better form factor, though.

I'm not a big fan of voice recognition stuff, though. Just picture the mayhem that would result at a major event the first time someone shouted "throttle hold" in a panic!

Hey, mwm, missed the shot of the hatch on your Focus ...

Switches you can easily see and feel the position of would be nice. Looking through the catalogs some of the rocker switches look good. Easy to see. Easy to feel their position. Easy to activate. Lower profile and a little safer from accidental activation.

Would be nice if there was a place with lots of samples to fondle. Where is the annual switch convention held?

Voice control would be in keeping with Deviation's extensibility. Adding a new 'switch' would take no new hardware. Cool. But implementation and reliability could be tricky. Google and Apple make voice look easy. But Google sends your voice commands over the network to a large computer to analyze. Free-form, random-person voice recognition still requires a large database and horsepower. The Sparkfun thing might be doable. But it might suffer more from the mayhem problems you mentioned. If you train it to your voice, it might not recognize you when you become excited. Like when your aircraft is plummeting or flying away on the wind.

Voice recognition is messy but also simplifying in some ways.

The Sparkfun thing isn't cheap. If it's sufficiently robust it might work. But voice control is likely to be slower than a switch. And you don't want something like the brakes on your car controlled by voice. But, perhaps the two switches on the 7e are all you need. Create a dozen others out of thin air with voice.

I have 17 model files on my 7e. They're not all cleaned up and 'normalized', yet. So switches are used for different things on different models. No telling what's going to happen when I bind a model I haven't used for a bit. Like the FY326. Flip was ON when I bound it, first time. That quad can execute a complete flip from a dead stop on the ground! :-/ (Okay, not so good to download and use a model file without reading it. Flip should probably be a momentary switch.)

Anyway, voice output could certainly add to safety. The 'status' command could list all the current settings. And they might be announced automatically when a model is bound.

Hmm. Voice output may be more important than better switches or voice input.

I managed to forget the attachment. Happening to me a lot lately. I've added it to the post.

You might want to look at my switch conversion utility for normalizing your models. It figures out what you're using for throttle hold, the four dual rate switches, and timer resets, and you can set what switches it should use for those on output.

Mine are mostly regularized. What I really want to do is upgrade the timer reset from a switch on most of them to a button, as I started them before we had the button feature. But I need to add the ability to deal with virtual switches first, which means I need to improve the channel/switch distinctions.

I bought one of these in hopes to someday figure out how I could use it with my 12s ...with it mounted on the back the buttons would be rite at finger tips reach.

m.ebay.com/itm/APM-Flight-Controller-Fli...740893366?nav=SEARCH

magic_marty wrote: I bought one of these in hopes to someday figure out how I could use it with my 12s ...with it mounted on the back the buttons would be rite at finger tips reach.

m.ebay.com/itm/APM-Flight-Controller-Fli...740893366?nav=SEARCH

That unit sends different voltages to the out pin depending on the button you pushed. The idea is that you connect it instead of one of your analog pots, and that simulates the 5 values needed by the APM for its flight modes. Problem is that the device needs to be powered by 5V and outputs a 0-5V signal, while I think that the analog signals in a Devo are limited to 3.3V, so there's a real risk to damage something.

Here's all the info I found at the time on this device: www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=30384337&postcount=20076 . Personally I think it's a bad design, and one of the many alternatives using PPM is preferred. Injecting a voltage into a receiver from an outside PCB seems a very bad idea. Unfortunately the download link seems to be broken, and I'm not sure where you can find those docs anymore (if you truly need them, ping me I might have them on a backup HD somewhere)

mwm wrote: ...

You might want to look at my switch conversion utility for normalizing your models. It figures out what you're using for throttle hold, the four dual rate switches, and timer resets, and you can set what switches it should use for those on output.

Thanks for putting that together! I need to install my extra switches first. But every time I think about it I get lazy and end up flying one of my quads instead ... Soon ...

Mine are mostly regularized. What I really want to do is upgrade the timer reset from a switch on most of them to a button, as I started them before we had the button feature. But I need to add the ability to deal with virtual switches first, which means I need to improve the channel/switch distinctions.

I keep thinking about assigning flight modes to a button, like the toy radios. That would make the extra switches on the 7e available for something else, or unnecessary for those that don't have them. Need to try that.