skyartec compatibility

RoGuE_StreaK
Offline

18 Mar 2013 23:20 #7905 by RoGuE_StreaK

Replied by RoGuE_StreaK on topic skyartec compatibility

PhracturedBlue wrote: I've been working on this module. It is used by SP260

Sweet, would love to see this at some stage. Do you have any of the NE planes of that era to see what they did differently between the heli and plane TXs?

PhracturedBlue wrote: My guess is that it would be beyond most people doing these mods to wire it up though.

If given the details, I could design up a standardised PCB to make available; as to soldering and distribution, that would be time dependent. Though DIY through-hole soldering should be achievable by anyone who can solder in the existing modules, so could just do a "kit" form.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

dc59
Offline

19 Mar 2013 00:29 #7907 by dc59

Replied by dc59 on topic skyartec compatibility

PhracturedBlue wrote: I've been working on this module. It is used by SP260, the AnyConnect, and the V922 (getting the v922 to work will be much harder since they use the new 'E' chip which means there is no exposed SPI for me to snoop, and I need to learn how to snoop over the air instead)

Unfortunately, it requires an extra pin to work-with which will make it more challenging to use along side other modules. I'm still trying to decide how to proceed with it.

Thanks PB.
I am not exactly understand the difference between nRF24L01 & nRF24LE1,are they compatible to each other? or I should buy 24LE1 module?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PhracturedBlue
Offline

19 Mar 2013 01:50 #7908 by PhracturedBlue

Replied by PhracturedBlue on topic skyartec compatibility

You cannot use the 'E' module. It has a completely different interface and will not be compatible with Deviation. The '0' model is able to communicate with an 'E' chip (and vise-versa) so you would want the '0'. but as I said, I make no guarantees I can ever make it work or that I'll even bother to try much now that I've seen the interface.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

rbe2012
Offline
So much to do, so little time...

19 Mar 2013 06:15 #7915 by rbe2012

Replied by rbe2012 on topic skyartec compatibility

RoGuE_StreaK wrote: I could design up a standardised PCB to make available; as to soldering and distribution, that would be time dependent. Though DIY through-hole soldering should be achievable by anyone who can solder in the existing modules, so could just do a "kit" form.

A good idea. If we take the signals from the 5-pin-header-holes (where was nothing soldered in at my Devo8, you can see what I mean in the Devo8 vibration motor thread ) it seems to be easy to mount such a pcb with a pin header on the devo8 board.
I'm sorry, my English is very hard today...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

dc59
Offline

19 Mar 2013 06:18 #7916 by dc59

Replied by dc59 on topic skyartec compatibility

PhracturedBlue wrote: You cannot use the 'E' module. It has a completely different interface and will not be compatible with Deviation. The '0' model is able to communicate with an 'E' chip (and vise-versa) so you would want the '0'. but as I said, I make no guarantees I can ever make it work or that I'll even bother to try much now that I've seen the interface.

I got it,Thanks!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

RandMental
Offline

19 Mar 2013 06:44 - 19 Mar 2013 19:49 #7917 by RandMental

Replied by RandMental on topic skyartec compatibility

RoGuE_StreaK wrote: I could design up a standardised PCB to make available; as to soldering and distribution, that would be time dependent. Though DIY through-hole soldering should be achievable by anyone who can solder in the existing modules, so could just do a "kit" form.

I support this idea and suggest we agree on the 3:8 encoder schematic and make sure PB can supports it with a standard tx.ini setting.

Using a SOIC size 74HC138, such a board can be relatively small and make a big difference, allow easy upgrades with (eventually) all 3 modules.

I can also assist with such a PCB for the Devo8s, and perhaps as RoGuE_StreaK suggested even make it available as a fully soldered kit.

I don't have a Devo10, does it have a similar header that one can use to attach a pin header and PCB?

Last edit: 19 Mar 2013 19:49 by RandMental.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

rbe2012
Offline
So much to do, so little time...

19 Mar 2013 08:08 #7918 by rbe2012

Replied by rbe2012 on topic skyartec compatibility

PB, would you support such a 3-to-8 decoder? This means that the way of enabling a specific module must be configurable (TMS, TCK [, PB12] or 1...8 of the decoder).
If yes I propose to open a new thread for this.

Do we have photos of all boards? I did not find them, but I remember there must be some old threads with pictures. Maybe they could be added to the corresponding articles?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PhracturedBlue
Offline

19 Mar 2013 20:07 #7926 by PhracturedBlue

Replied by PhracturedBlue on topic skyartec compatibility

here is what my grand thought has always been:
design a circuit board which has pads/holes for all known modules and a 8-way mux the board would plug into the existing CYRF socket with maybe a secondary plug into the 5-pin debug header.
it would provide 3.3V and 5V supplies as needed by each board.
you'd have the pads stacked such that you could plug in one of the 3 or 4 most common a7105 boards, the Devo CYRF board, one of the cc2500 boards, a nrf24l01 board, and leave some open connections for things like a CC2520 or whatever comes down the pipe. The switch needs to be able to operate at 2MHz or so with 3.3V signals. You may need 2 of these because some chips like the the CYRF and nff need an extra pin assigned. alternatively we could use it to power-gate the modules (which would reduce power a bit). I am currently using a Maxim 4581 in my test setup and it works well.

Of course the holy-grail is to build a custom transceiver using the individual transceiver chips and an analog 2.4GHz mux. then you could have a single power amp and single antenna. It would be much cheaper to produce (the chips sell for $1-$2 each as opposed to ~$15 for a module with power-amp). you'd then offer it in 2 flavors: (1) devo compliant - replaces the CYRF module or (2) PPM compliant - where it includes an ARM processor and the Deviation protocol stack and can be plugged into any existing trainer port of any transmitter. You could also include a bluetooth module to allow configuring it via smartphone.

I really think you could build these modules in small/medium volume for < $30. The problem is that I have no experience designing RF circuits, and I wouldn't want to do the actual production due to not wanting to appear to be a commercail enterprise.

Of course it would cost quite a bit in terms of time and prototyping efforts to get such a board designed. Someday I may start, but I just don't have time now.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mullson
Offline

21 Mar 2013 12:57 #7950 by Mullson

Replied by Mullson on topic skyartec compatibility

PhracturedBlue wrote: Also, I finished developing the skyartec protocol so it should now be fully functional

Will it work with FrSky D8R-II plus? Or am I better of with a OrangeRx R910?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

sbstnp
Offline

21 Mar 2013 12:58 #7951 by sbstnp

Replied by sbstnp on topic skyartec compatibility

Mullson wrote: Will it work with FrSky D8R-II plus? Or am I better of with a OrangeRx R910?

FrSky isn't Skyartec.

Devo 10 + 4in1
~~Spektrum Dx9~~
FrSky Taranis + TBS Crossfire

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mullson
Offline

21 Mar 2013 13:06 - 21 Mar 2013 13:09 #7952 by Mullson

Replied by Mullson on topic skyartec compatibility

sbstnp wrote:
Mullson wrote: Will it work with FrSky D8R-II plus? Or am I better of with a OrangeRx R910?

FrSky isn't Skyartec.

Its cc2500 so I mean will it work in the near future? Or is it better to go DSM2?
I am transforming from 35mhz. Or do you have any other god alternatives for a 450 heli?

Last edit: 21 Mar 2013 13:09 by Mullson.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PhracturedBlue
Offline

21 Mar 2013 13:14 #7953 by PhracturedBlue

Replied by PhracturedBlue on topic skyartec compatibility

I have also implemented the frsky one-way and 2-way protocols:
www.deviationtx.com/forum/protocol-devel...-frsky-compatibility

Just like skyartec, the code is brand new and only tested by me.
The nice thing about the orange is you need no mods to use it. But I don't think there is an orange telemetry module, so you need to pay Spektrum prices for telemetry. I have not yet implemented telemetry for the frsky protocol though.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mullson
Offline

21 Mar 2013 13:41 #7956 by Mullson

Replied by Mullson on topic skyartec compatibility

PhracturedBlue wrote: I have also implemented the frsky one-way and 2-way protocols:
www.deviationtx.com/forum/protocol-devel...-frsky-compatibility

Just like skyartec, the code is brand new and only tested by me.
The nice thing about the orange is you need no mods to use it. But I don't think there is an orange telemetry module, so you need to pay Spektrum prices for telemetry. I have not yet implemented telemetry for the frsky protocol though.

Nice!
Then I buy a FrSky D8R-II plus. I am not going to fly whit it for 2 months any way. I really like the FrSky D8R-II plus whit its implemented telemetry. If the telemetry will be functional or not will be a surprise.
Do you think that's a good idea? Or do you recommend Orange or any other set-up?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

lhomme
Offline

21 Mar 2013 13:49 #7957 by lhomme

Replied by lhomme on topic skyartec compatibility

Hi PhracturedBlue,

I first would like to congratulate about your work. I am currently using the deviation project.
I noticed you want too design some hardware to support the maximum RF chips with a single antenna and power amp. As an engineer, this sounds logical to me

I also think you could provide your own all-in-one transmitter with the software you already have and some latest trends hardware.
Actually, i m working in ATMEL as micro-electronic designer in france. I also have some coworkers that have caught the RC fever.
Well, i can't make you an RF pcb, but i can provide you support on how to do it, and give you tips about drivers/interfaces/processors and so on.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PhracturedBlue
Offline

21 Mar 2013 13:58 #7958 by PhracturedBlue

Replied by PhracturedBlue on topic skyartec compatibility

I think the frsky is a nice system. But until others start testing it I can't say how reliable it will be. The DSM2/X code has a lot more testing behind it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

dc59
Offline

26 Mar 2013 00:35 #8085 by dc59

Replied by dc59 on topic skyartec compatibility

Hi PB,

I got a problem about skyartec binding,but I'm not sure that's a bug or not.

I and some friends tried to bind with skyartec wasp nano cp(6ch mini 3D heli)
but never succeed yet.

We tried:
DEVO 7E + Skyartec RF module(from NASA 701 tx)
DEVO 7E + XL2500-D03 module
DEVO 10 + XL2500-D03 module

Deviation build:
devo10-805d3c106e16
devo7e-6d4df4436d9f

tx.ini setting:

CC2500 moudle used TCK pin.

pin connections:

Is there any thing wrong?

Have you ever bind with Skyartec wasp nano cp rx?

Thanks for helping.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

dc59
Offline

26 Mar 2013 09:24 #8094 by dc59

Replied by dc59 on topic skyartec compatibility

Hi PB,
it's me again....

About ModuleInstallation.pdf file, my friend found a question,here is skyartec CC2500 module connection port:

you can find pin 2 is "MOSI",but in ModuleInstallation.pdf connections table

skyartec pin 2(MOSI)connect to TX MISO pin, is it correct ?

Thanks !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

PhracturedBlue
Offline

26 Mar 2013 14:03 #8100 by PhracturedBlue

Replied by PhracturedBlue on topic skyartec compatibility

You highlighted the V911 table, but you are right, it appears in the table that the MISO and MOSI are mixed up.
I need to go look at it again, but the 'si' pin should connect to the MOSI pin on the Tx and the 'so' pin should connect to the MISO pin on the transmitter.
MOSI is pin 4 on the transmitter MISO is pin 5 (those are module pins). I don't recall the mapping on the Devo7e though. perhaps pins 3 and 4.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Hexperience
Offline

26 Mar 2013 19:21 - 26 Mar 2013 19:28 #8122 by Hexperience

Replied by Hexperience on topic skyartec compatibility

I take it this applies to both the skyartec module and a cc2500-pa bought off of ebay?

As long as we find the correct pins on the module we'll be ok right? This is what mine says...

So long as I match up mosi to si (etc) ??

Cheers

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.

Last edit: 26 Mar 2013 19:28 by Hexperience.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

dc59
Offline

27 Mar 2013 00:44 #8127 by dc59

Replied by dc59 on topic skyartec compatibility

PhracturedBlue wrote: You highlighted the V911 table, but you are right, it appears in the table that the MISO and MOSI are mixed up.
I need to go look at it again, but the 'si' pin should connect to the MOSI pin on the Tx and the 'so' pin should connect to the MISO pin on the transmitter.
MOSI is pin 4 on the transmitter MISO is pin 5 (those are module pins). I don't recall the mapping on the Devo7e though. perhaps pins 3 and 4.

It's really appreciated PB!
I swapped MISO(so) & MOSI(si) pin on XL2500-D03 module,It works perfect now!
I can bind to wasp nano cp & fly it without any problem.
Thanks again.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.174 seconds

Force desktop display

skyartec compatibility

Attachments:

Attachments:

Attachments: