lucas

  • **
  • 67
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2016, 07:48:01 pm »

You're much better off doing something like that where the LP software will support the board without you having to spend the money hiring a programmer and maintaining a separate fork of the project for your board.


Why a separate fork?  Does this mean only current Hardware will be supported by the LP official Dev team?  What does it take to get support for new hardware?




Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2016, 08:39:02 pm »
Ok, I just got here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but Daxo has an idea about doing a FC module supporting LP firmware (maybe nano compatible?) that can be solderd directly to a PCB like that board on the picture from bangood, right?

I had a similar idea rattling around my head for a while now and have some skill in designing PCBs.

So maybe we could try to come up with something like that.
Any taughts?

hwh

  • *
  • 1018
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2016, 09:24:19 pm »
...
Why a separate fork?  Does this mean only current Hardware will be supported by the LP official Dev team?  What does it take to get support for new hardware?

I don't think there's any formal policy but to get put into the main repository a board really needs to be both widely available and significantly better in some way than existing boards. If I build a board for myself or even to sell a few hundred it's not practical to put support into the main repository because then the project has to support it and update the firmware in the future.  As features are added to the main code they have to be integrated and tested with each of the target boards.

The only new board currently being put in is the Sparky 2 board.  It's being put in because some of the developers thought it had advantages (more ports IIRC) and that the build quality would be higher than the Chinese clones.  It's been a work in progress for months and still doesn't have all the features supported yet.  It's a lot of work.

There's no real need to go to other processors or sensors.  We're nowhere near maxing out the F405 and F411 boards.  The F3xx processors are somewhere between the F103 and the F4 chips and have no advantage over the F4 ones.

If I were doing a board I'd use the F411 or F405.  They still have room for firmware expansion and plenty of speed.  The F103 on the cc3d is maxed out as far as memory goes, no features can be added but if you want an acro board without gps flight modes and autonomous flight then the cc3d design is a good one.  The same chips, hooked together the same as the cc3d but with a different board shape or size or different connectors would still run the same firmware and have no software development costs.

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2016, 05:22:27 pm »
All valid points Hwh, something to take into consider for sure.

I've decided to start raising the money for this, will have just enough time to take everything into consider.


Previously discussed aside for a moment, I'll try to be short so I don't derail the topic too much.


Today, during lunch break I had a really crazy idea regarding Fc stuff.

However, I would ask for a bit of help on few things first to asses is the idea really that crazy. Guess, I always try to determine am I asking the right questions before finding the answers.


I'm not an open source software or hardware developer so I can't be sure about the following and would really appreciate to hear what's important to you guyz.

1.how important is it for you to have an among the fastest/convenient MCU and most featured IMU(gyro, accel. magn and ofc it's sample rate) in the FC so you can work on the stuff you want?

2. Would you agree that the biggest hurdle in FC making  for an open source/or not  project is the cost of the MCU and IMU ?

3. - I'll ask this one a bit later to avoid going to much into depth while still being too abstract.


I'm thinking to make few illustrations of what I have in mind but I really am curious to hear answers on these questions.

Again, this might be just a bit ahead of time or highly unlikely duo to human factor.
Innovation Matters

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2016, 05:55:29 pm »
I've made a quick sketch to kick off the idea, all said is said in generally. Bare with me for a little while ;)




To be continued...... ;)
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 06:02:28 pm by Daxo »
Innovation Matters

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: Flight controller hardware design standard, Wth would that be?
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2016, 05:57:24 pm »
.... Will leave it at that for now, to spark some thought before continuing.  :)
Innovation Matters