HiSKY protocol

Sure thing, I checked that it is not motor. But there is some strange behavior when I checked it with oscilloscope. It's as if the FET is still working but only half-way - it seems to not open fully for no reason. I am not that familiar with electronics and am not sure is there fault mode for FETs like this one. I started (restarted, actually if you count childhood fascination with electronics) it only two years ago.

Victor, I just ran 3 more batteries through the Q-Bot. The intermittent bind is much worse the closer the transmitter is to the receiver at 2 to 3 feet it is probably about 50%. At 4' it will occasionally lose bind. Over 8 feet bind is solid.

While flying the only time it loses bind is when you first start to take off if the transmitter is closer than 6 to 8' to the Q-Bot.

Once it is actually in the air it has not lost bind with a range from 40' away to hovering 2 inches away from the transmitter. I tried all different transmitter antenna orientations relative to the Q-Bot. If it is flying it does not lose bind and the control is very smooth and reliable.

Ardy wrote: Victor Thanks for your work on this protocol. Here are my results so far.

I have the V922 and a Q-Bot. I was able to bind both to my Devo 7E.

The Q-Bot was easy to bind and seems to fly fine. When setting still at close range... 4ft or less the bind light will go out intermittently. I have not had it drop out while flying even at close range. I am using the transmitter antenna from a WLToys V939 soldered to a nRF24L01P. The antenna is routed horizontally inside the top edge of the Devo 7E.

The V922 flies using SeByDocKy's model config. I did have a hard time getting it to bind the first time. I'm not good enough with the V922 to compare performance to the HT-8 module. I have not seen the V922 bind light drop out like it does on the Q-Bot.

Yes to bind with V922, the TX shoud be close. As depicted in my video, sometimes you need to switch on again the TX.. By the way, it's working well for me ... I didn't (yet) observed any cut-off/drop out

I would like to tell that in rcgroups here:

www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1859830

There is an user that is working for HiSky providing infomation on new releases. If the understanding of the code is incomplete we could ask him to ask to hisky if it's possible to get some help like Skyartec did.

Two different name, but the same user.

www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=38980

www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=494808

I asked him about protocol sometime ago, but either HiSky is not interested or he does not feel comfortable asking this kind of questions, so I never got an answer.

Thanks for mentioning this anyway - the more people interested in this the more successful our collective effort. Some advances in DSMX reversing were done specifically because of large public interest and collaboration, for instance.

@MassiveOverkill hoho! I soldered the FET and it works. It is different in dynamics from V202 (yaw rate is better), so I can not fly it that good as I learned to fly V202.

For the record, it is n-FET and I used PVM45EN by NXP and it works great.

Great Victor! I forgot I still have my FBL 70 (I actually get that model mixed up with my Q Bot). I've going to try flying it today..........it works!!! Now I just need an FBL70 config.

I've merged Gordo's and SBD's config which works somewhat for the Devo 7E


FMOD1 goes to 100% throttle though so this config still needs work.

Hi I would like to know if this module is good for HiSky protocol:

I read PA power amplification so is it good? But it hasn't the metal shield...I don't know what this involve...

www.ebay.it/itm/121118879770?ssPageName=...id=p3984.m1423.l2649

with an antenna like this:

www.ebay.it/itm/280971594075?ssPageName=...id=p3984.m1423.l2649

I know that in the past page has been told that shielded is better but since in the item description is written 1100meters and with this module I will only fly micro stuff maybe the shield isn't required, but I don't know if this is true...With a flexible antenna it's more convenient to suit it in the DEVO 10.

I would also like to know what is the name of the antenna connector in the photo. Thanks!

It is OK, although a bit expensive - you can easily make such an antenna from a piece of 50 Ohm cable yourself. As far as I can see it uses nRF24L01+ which is a plus . Shielded module is better because it is less noisy itself - it both creates less noise when transmitting and less susceptible to external noise when receiving - but many modules in other TXs are unshielded with no noticeable difference. It probably makes a difference for FCC certification, but otherwise you're fine.

victzh wrote: It is OK, although a bit expensive - you can easily make such an antenna from a piece of 50 Ohm cable yourself. As far as I can see it uses nRF24L01+ which is a plus . Shielded module is better because it is less noisy itself - it both creates less noise when transmitting and less susceptible to external noise when receiving - but many modules in other TXs are unshielded with no noticeable difference. It probably makes a difference for FCC certification, but otherwise you're fine.

Can the unshielded module interfere with the original Devo 10 module or when not in use it's deactivated?

Do you knwo the name of the antenna connector of my ebay link image?

Thanks!

P.S. Is this 50ohm cable ok?

www.ebay.it/itm/1M-RF-Coaxial-cable-50oh...tem4abb9dfddb&_uhb=1

I should remove the shield of 40mm to act as antenna?

Thanks guys! But I would like to buy the best: a shielded module with u.fl connector and flexible antenna...I need to find a shielded module with u.fl connector and the buying the frsky antenna...

Anyone knows where to find the shielded module with u.fl antenna connector?

MassiveOverkill wrote: Great Victor! I forgot I still have my FBL 70 (I actually get that model mixed up with my Q Bot). I've going to try flying it today..........it works!!! Now I just need an FBL70 config.

I've merged Gordo's and SBD's config which works somewhat for the Devo 7E

File Attachment:

File Name: FBL70.ini
File Size:2 KB

FMOD1 goes to 100% throttle though so this config still needs work.

MO, this model will work also for V922/FBL100 ? or it's quiet different ?

SeByDocKy wrote:

MassiveOverkill wrote: Great Victor! I forgot I still have my FBL 70 (I actually get that model mixed up with my Q Bot). I've going to try flying it today..........it works!!! Now I just need an FBL70 config.

I've merged Gordo's and SBD's config which works somewhat for the Devo 7E

File Attachment:

File Name: FBL70.ini
File Size:2 KB

FMOD1 goes to 100% throttle though so this config still needs work.

MO, this model will work also for V922/FBL100 ? or it's quiet different ?

FBL 100 is CP so I don't think so I would think it should work on the FBL 90 though.

@matrixFLYER you can easily buy unshielded one, it's OK. As far as I understand, the modules are not totally deactivated if you switched from one module to another in one session, but they don't emit radiowaves anyway until the actual packet is being transmitted. So it's OK. Of my modules one is unshielded for sure - A7105, and it does not harm at all.

Hi victzh,
When you get a moment...can you point me in the right direction?

How do I merge the FBL100 protocol code into the latest nightly. This way, I can apply other patches too. i.e. 3 pos. switch.

As you may recall, a while back I tried and wasn't successful in compiling.

Thanks.

Hi Daryoon, this has nothing to do with Hisky, but could you, please, point me to the 3-way switch patch ?

Thank you.

@Daryoon mind you, the code is preliminary, for instance it will not work well if there are more than one transmitter with the same code are active.

Can you apply the patch to your fresh checkout? The patch is attached to this message.

Please, report the success or failure.

The patch has been successfully applied to the last slice of the source tree from rbe2012. But I suggest to rename the protocol of FBL100 in HiSky, not to introduce confusion. Because the protocol should be suitable for the entire range of helicopter models HiSky.

Babay wrote: The patch has been successfully applied to the last slice of the source tree from rbe2012. But I suggest to rename the protocol of FBL100 in HiSky, not to introduce confusion. Because the protocol should be suitable for the entire range of helicopter models HiSky.

Agreed, how about we call it HiSky