www.immersionrc.com

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74

Thread: Diversity bi-directional / transceiver functionality?

  1. #11
    His Royal Sassiness ssassen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,693
    Quote Originally Posted by fluffypony View Post
    You're joking, right? There are literally several use-cases outlined above. To reiterate:

    1. Not everyone flies FPV

    2. Those who fly a more modern FC like the Pixhawk can and do fly UAV, including in follow-me mode or preplanned missions. In both scenarios (follow-me in particular) you'd want to be able to have the controller on-hand for emergencies, but you wouldn't be flying FPV.
    That's not the intended use when we designed the EzUHF system, it was meant purely for FPV. In order to support bidirectional comms we'll need to rewrite a very large portion of the firmware. That's not going to happen soon with several other higher priority projects we're currently working on. Take note that bidirectional comms *WILL* eat into your link budget and reduce effective range and reliability.
    Velvety smooth drone pilot for hire

  2. #12
    Navigator Xaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Hamburg/Zurich
    Posts
    350
    3. if video link is lost, telemetry remains

    4. no extra need for a telemetry module like the 3DR robotics

    5. it only eats into link budget if the remaining bandwidth / duty cycle is actually used for error correction

    and the list goes on. So please don't try to talk it down, if you don't want to do it, fine we'll go somewhere else. As always, its just a suggestion that you may ignore but would be foolish not to consider.

  3. #13
    His Royal Sassiness ssassen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,693
    All that just to get stats on your radio display? I'm sorry, but that doesn't justify the heroic effort required to re-code most of the firmware. If done properly the EzUHF Tx will need to get a USB driver and configuration that'll allow it to communicate with a PC etc. all that needs to be coded up too. I'm sorry, but right now we have potentially far more profitable products to develop and we don't have the time, nor the resources to implement this.
    Velvety smooth drone pilot for hire

  4. #14
    Navigator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by ssassen View Post
    All that just to get stats on your radio display? I'm sorry, but that doesn't justify the heroic effort required to re-code most of the firmware. If done properly the EzUHF Tx will need to get a USB driver and configuration that'll allow it to communicate with a PC etc. all that needs to be coded up too. I'm sorry, but right now we have potentially far more profitable products to develop and we don't have the time, nor the resources to implement this.
    We don't really care, so why don't you shut your excuse-hole and pay attention.

    - You described it as a "transceiver" in your original rc-groups thread: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=987753

    - Per your manual (http://www.immersionrc.com/downloads...al_EN_v1.0.pdf) - "This is our high-end receiver, which has the hardware support for a bi-directional link (NOTE: Firmware support for this will be added during the Summer of 2010)" (italics yours)

    - Oh, and this wouldn't be much of a problem, except that stores are still advertising this as bi-directional - per HobbyKing's listing - "Why ‘Bi-directional ready’?: The EzUHF Transmitter is a full transceiver, i.e. it includes both transmitter, and receiver hardware. The 8 Channel receiver is also a transceiver, so both are capable of bi-directional communications. Firmware to take advantage of these capabilities will available in the near future"

    You had an obligation to get this working from January 2009. What happened? Scratch that, I don't really care. You had an obligation.

    So either you're a scummy liar, unable to deliver on promises, or you really are going to deliver what you promise, you've just been a little delayed over the past 6 years.

  5. #15
    Navigator Xaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Hamburg/Zurich
    Posts
    350
    Although I don't support fluffypony's aggressive tone, he has a point.

    If you don't plan to implement a feature that was advertised from the beginning, the least you have to do is stop advertising it.


    And btw. yes ofc its not only for the radio, its for the base station software on a laptop. And yes that would mean you would have to develop a USB driver. Big deal, each of my PCBs nowadays has a USB port including a simple driver for serial communication. It's not hard to implement. Unless ofc it wasn't intended for in the first place and the hardware requirements are not given.

    Again: Fine if you don't want to do it, there are / will be people that will but at least don't keep the hopes up.

  6. #16
    His Royal Sassiness ssassen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,693
    Gents, I'm not saying we won't do it, just not right now.
    Velvety smooth drone pilot for hire

  7. #17
    Navigator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Xaser View Post
    Although I don't support fluffypony's aggressive tone, he has a point.

    If you don't plan to implement a feature that was advertised from the beginning, the least you have to do is stop advertising it.
    The aggression is only the result of immense frustration at Ssassen / ImmersionRC's point-of-view.

    I've been on their side, where product development doesn't play out as expected, but the first thing you do (like 5 years ago) is manage customer expectations. So don't advertise the functionality you're abandoning, don't promise it, and distance yourself from it with a "we had hoped to develop X, but unfortunately the work required is more complex than expected". Then offer discount vouchers / refunds / whatever, or hell - calculate the cost and say that it's going to be $10k more than expected to write the software, and if people want it to happen they'll have to send funds for it, 24-month crowd-funding cycle, accept irreversible payments like Bitcoin and wire transfers so you don't have to deal with disputes. Then let the people decide how important it us, and let them decide with their wallets!

    Quote Originally Posted by ssassen View Post
    Gents, I'm not saying we won't do it, just not right now.
    Oh shew - so shall we say another 6 years? Mid-2021 or so?

  8. #18
    His Royal Sassiness ssassen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,693
    Well, it is simple, there's virtually no demand for it, this is the 1st time I've had the 'can we haz bidirectional' question in the past three years or so. If there was a lot of demand for it we'd be more inclined to put some effort behind it. At the end of the day it is a question of available engineering resources spread across x number of projects due to complete in x number of days.

    As mentioned this isn't a high priority feature, as demand for it is extremely low.
    Velvety smooth drone pilot for hire

  9. #19
    His Royal Sassiness ssassen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Xaser View Post
    Although I don't support fluffypony's aggressive tone, he has a point.

    If you don't plan to implement a feature that was advertised from the beginning, the least you have to do is stop advertising it.


    And btw. yes ofc its not only for the radio, its for the base station software on a laptop. And yes that would mean you would have to develop a USB driver. Big deal, each of my PCBs nowadays has a USB port including a simple driver for serial communication. It's not hard to implement. Unless ofc it wasn't intended for in the first place and the hardware requirements are not given.

    Again: Fine if you don't want to do it, there are / will be people that will but at least don't keep the hopes up.
    I would beg to differ on the 'not hard to implement', as it is not just the implementation part, it is the verification, bugfixing, support across multiple OSs, etc. etc. That's a whole new can of worms.
    Velvety smooth drone pilot for hire

  10. #20
    Navigator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by ssassen View Post
    Well, it is simple, there's virtually no demand for it
    Then why did you even advertise it and make hand-wavy date promises?

    Quote Originally Posted by ssassen View Post
    this is the 1st time I've had the 'can we haz bidirectional' question in the past three years or so
    The FC landscape is completely different now. The older APM really wasn't on the same level as the Pixhawk, but since the release of the Pixhawk and other advanced flight controllers (Eagletree Vector, Brain FPV) where waypoints and unmanned missions are the norm and not the exception...well, the times they are a-changing. It's unsurprising this was not a feature in-demand over the past few years, and it should be unsurprising that it's in-demand now.

Similar Threads

  1. Developement of Defiance - fpv airframe
    By Daxo in forum PILOT'S LAB
    Replies: 833
    Last Post: 21st November 2017, 12:29 PM
  2. Using directional and omni antenna for diversity
    By Don Moretti in forum IFR - Video Link Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 1st February 2013, 11:22 PM
  3. EzUHF 8Ch RX used as transceiver
    By fededp in forum ImmersionRC
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10th January 2013, 02:05 PM
  4. DNT900 Transceiver from RFM : 40 Mile Range
    By KeyserSoze40 in forum RC TECH
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th April 2012, 06:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •