Add two switches to the Devo 7e

The simplest and most user orienated way would be a standard tx.ini file with all the stock hardware set as default. A section at the end of the file would be for the choice of any hardware mod that the user has made and this setting cannot be set in the UI in the transmitter but only by editing the file..

In that way, for a casual user, he doesn't need to border whatever mod may be, but for the one who has delibrately done the mod has his only responsibility to edit the tx.ini file in order to activate the extra functions...

cmpang wrote: The simplest and most user orienated way would be a standard tx.ini file with all the stock hardware set as default. A section at the end of the file would be for the choice of any hardware mod that the user has made and this setting cannot be set in the UI in the transmitter but only by editing the file..

In that way, for a casual user, he doesn't need to border whatever mod may be, but for the one who has delibrately done the mod has his only responsibility to edit the tx.ini file in order to activate the extra functions...

This sounds really good! This have my vote.
Just tell me how? And if I can do anything to make it happen.

cmpang, Do you still use devo7e-691dcbb8c671? If so how do you manage the voltage-throttle issue?

I still would prefer a solution where a tx-dependency could be used to be very sure that only a specific tx with special extensions / mods will try to use them. The hopefully unique hardware tx id could be an anchor for this.
Another way will be to force the users which mod their tx do build their own version. This can be supported with manuals and patch files but sooner or later we will exclude those who know how to solder (which are the most r/c people) but not how to work with more or less complex build environments.
I see that we have a space limit too. It comes up with 7e and 10 but will with 6/8 (12?) too sooner or later. If all possible mods will be supported the code has to be integrated in every deViation installation (not to mention the code for extending ini-files etc.). Maybe this could be solved / reduced with modularity like for the protocols?
Maybe only a personal build will give the full power (I really love OpenSource projects!).

[quote="Mullson" post=6708..... Do you still use devo7e-691dcbb8c671? If so how do you manage the voltage-throttle issue?[/quote]

yes I am still using the 671 build.. just ignor the voltage-throttle issue at the moment and don't see any harm as yet..

I believe this mod opens up more possibilities than just adding a switch or two. I haven't looked through the sources to see what it would take to support them, but electronically there are certainly other possibilities. Given that the 7E already has two 2-way switches, some might find adding something different more useful.

Personally, I was thinking about a three-way switch (on1/off/on2) because I have those in my parts bin. But a four-way switch is also a possibility. And of course, you could put in a trim switch if you could find room.

As a wild thought for dealing with that kind of possibility, I note that this is all about labeling, at least in the advanced GUI, because it doesn't try and tie switches to uses. While you could do this in the transmitter config menu, that seems like overkill. It's not something you really want to change very often, so doing it in the tx.ini file is probably reasonable. Maybe something like (again, I have no idea how hard this would be to do):

; Disable the two mod switches by default
; comment these out if you added extra switches.
label - AIL_DR0 ; Disable the two 2-way switches by default
label - AIL_DR1
label - ELE_DR0
label - ELE_DR1

; Uncomment this if you added a 3 or 4-way switch
; label GEAR0 FMODE0 ; Change the FMODE switch to a GEAR switch
; label GEAR1 FMODE1

; Uncomment this for an added 3-way switch
; label FMODE0 AIL_DR0 ELE_DR1
; label FMODE1 AIL_DR0 ELE_DR0
; label FMODE2 AIL_DR1 ELE_DR0

; Uncomment this for an added 4-way switch
; label FMODE0 AIL_DR0 ELE_DR0
; label FMODE1 AIL_DR1 ELE_DR0
; label FMODE2 AIL_DR0 ELE_DR1
; label FMODE3 AIL_DR1 ELE_DR1

; Uncomment this if you added a trimmer
; label - AIL_DR0
; label - ELE_DR0
; trimmer TRIM1 AIL_DR1 ELE_DR1

I just finished setting things up so I could build the software. I'm about to look into the issue raised in the devo7e thread about a sticky throttle hold.

I guess I let myself get carried away with the suggestion. That was just speculation - like I said, I haven't looked at the software. The main point was that any such solution should be able to deal with more than just a simple switch or two extra, but the possible variations on that extra switch (3/4-way or trimmer instead of 2 2-way). Sorry 'bout that.

Edit

Is this liable (3/4-way or trimmer instead of 2 2-way-) I think not...
My brain is cooking and I cant see this happening, please educate me.
I am open to wild ideas if so FMODE3. But get real its a small TX and its so nice to have it for extras and small fingers. We fix and (IT WILL GET COPIED)but open source is always Live and living.
making money is a spreading disease that can't be stopped except by love!
And we all have it to give for the things that we appreciate.

Pleas just let them be in the menus. The new switches.
I can learn to code it but my head is going to be stuffed so I will forget where I put my whatever I said you said Hm... Wherever..

Trainer functionality is the next thing to do. (The FMM is already up and running. I can do penix better then ever. But education Is important and really the main concern for this TX.
And if Ihave to get deaper I will do it. (start to code this)

Back to topics, there is always the whill more settings for a spesific heli or what ever.
But I need more than two fast switch able variables for real. No cam just for exampel battery lag after half flight time.
Cheers

A thought; electrically I would think the two two-position switches (off/on) could be conglomerated into one three-position (off / on1 / on2); ie., in position 0 it is the equivalent of both being off, position 1 is equivalent of ELE D/R on, AIL D/R off, and position 2 is equivalent of ELE D/R off, AIL D/R on? Would have to choose and wire the switch correctly, not sure how a single-pole three-pos works so might need to use dual-pole?

As to whether/how such a setup could be mapped to give the desired result of a three-position, I don't know. Never used one myself, but there seems to be a desire for it, so just proposing a possible solution that doesn't impact the electrical/code system. Means you can only add "one" switch, but may be more useful for some.

Usual 3-way-switches have a neutral position in the middle and one swtiching position to the left and the other to the right and they have three connectors. Every switching pos is assigned an output connector (mostly on the other side), which is connected to the middle connector when active. So you have three connections, say L, M and R for left, middle and right.
When the switch is in neutral position, no connectors are linked.
When he is to the left, M and R are linked, and for right L and M.
Sou you would have to connect the red line in the first post to M, the diodes to L and R and the yellow and orange wires to the diodes.
This way it should work.

Yes
But then wouldn't it be more freedom of choice with two switches able to add or subtract values in any directions or on inputs, one by one or in total.
If you have to choose between two on\off or one on1\0ff\on2 two will be better, true?

Yes, two switches give you 4 possible statuses, while the one 2-way switch only add three posible statuses.

However, in our RC world it depends on what the switches need to do, if I remember correctly the DEVo7e has two 2 position switches, therefore in my case I would prefer an additional 3 position switch.

Going still further:
A four position switch is better than to pair two 2-state-switches because in the second case you will have to switch both synchronously to change states without moving through the unwanted. But it depends on switch construction if you will get it to work with only two input lines (you would need something like on1-off-on2-on(1+2) , not on1-off-on2-on3).

rbe2012 wrote: Going still further:
A four position switch is better than to pair two 2-state-switches because in the second case you will have to switch both synchronously to change states without moving through the unwanted. But it depends on switch construction if you will get it to work with only two input lines (you would need something like on1-off-on2-on(1+2) , not on1-off-on2-on3).

Now that would be nice! And space saving.

rbe2012 wrote: Going still further:
A four position switch is better than to pair two 2-state-switches because...

I have not seen 4 position toggle switches, but rotary switches have anything from 2 to 12 positions. I am sure a miniature rotary switch will fit, but as far as I know we don't have the extra inputs for such a 4 position switch.

RandMental wrote: but as far as I know we don't have the extra inputs for such a 4 position switch.

I believe RBE is saying to still just use the two switch lines, and with the right wiring the 4pos could give
1 - both off
2 - sw1 on, sw2 off
3 - sw1 off, sw2 on
4 - sw1 on, sw2 on

So you could have none, either, or both, from the one switch, without going through intermediary steps.

I still haven't really played around with the EMU, let alone installed on my 7E, to understand or guess how you could actually program the mixers to make this useful, or even if the current mixer setups could actually achieve the desired result. I'll let you guys squabble over the actual workings then when the dust settles stroll through Bradbury style !

Yes I meant this. And a rotary switch would be worth a look, did not think of that.
I just don't know what it could be used for. Maybe light control?