Re: [Paparazzi-devel] comparison between I2c and PWM Esc (evan igor)

[Hawk refaat]

Hello;

Interesting...
What is the update rate of PWM?

i mean it'll be different if you will use turbo PWM or normal 50 Hz PWM and then we could compare to I2c.

> From: address@hidden
> Subject: Paparazzi-devel Digest, Vol 106, Issue 72
> To: address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:20:15 -0500
>
> Send Paparazzi-devel mailing list submissions to
> address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Paparazzi-devel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: px4 autopilot and paparazzi (Tilman Baumann)
> 2. px4 autopilot and paparazzi (Sergey Krukowski)
> 3. comparison between I2c and PWM Esc (evan igor)
> 4. Re: Questions about stability of lisa-l in quad rotor
> (Stephen Dwyer)
> 5. Re: px4 autopilot and paparazzi (Felix Ruess)
> 6. Re: px4 autopilot and paparazzi (Felix Ruess)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:07:17 +0000
> From: Tilman Baumann <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] px4 autopilot and paparazzi
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 29/01/13 17:18, Luis Carlos wrote:
> >
> > hi everyone......its possible to porting the paparazzi code to the pk4
> > autopilot?? in this case please help me waith instruccions for this...
> >
>
> There would be two ways to do it.
> Either bare-bone. Just port to the new hardware. (Similar or same CPU AFAIK)
>
> But what would be really cool would be to run ppz as a application in
> NutX. We could even get the FBW/AP split back by running in two processes.
> Not sure if that would bring any insurmountable problems. But in any
> case, it's far from trivial.
> (Ardupilot has done this)
>
> But really, I'm just having a rainbow shining out of my arse right now.
> I can't even contemplate the effort or required steps in any detail. I
> just hope someone picks up the ball and runs with it.
> I just want Paparazzi on this hardware really badly. :D
>
> The PX4 software is developing quite interestingly as well. I like what
> I see, but I think it will take a very long while for that to get
> anywhere near ppz case of features and reliability.
> The stack looks sweet though. Could get used to that...
>
> Cheers
> Tilman
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:05:17 +0100
> From: "Sergey Krukowski" <address@hidden>
> To: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Paparazzi-devel] px4 autopilot and paparazzi
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi guys!
> It's probably my bad, that you have no idea about Krooz autopilot.
>
> http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/Krooz
>
> It's also based on the F4 series processor and the most part of the
> Paparazzi autopilot software is already ported on F4 series.
> Check out my git krooz_port branch:
>
> https://github.com/softsr/paparazzi
>
> Regards,
> Sergey
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:27:40 +0200
> From: evan igor <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Paparazzi-devel] comparison between I2c and PWM Esc
> Message-ID:
> <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Is there any real life advantages to use I2C protocol instead of high
> refresh rate (300 Hz) PWM signal.
> I think that if I use multicopter bigger than 50 - 70 cm in diameter with
> 10 -11 inch propellers (bigger propeller, bigger inertia) than the
> difference is very small. As I understand the use of normal (high update
> rate) ESC is more reliable than I2C ESC also.
> then for 4 Kg quad copter with 80cm diameter it's preferable to use PWM or
> I2c Esc
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130129/5e8415e4/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:03:35 -0700
> From: Stephen Dwyer <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Questions about stability of lisa-l in
> quad rotor
> Message-ID:
> <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hello,
>
> As far as choosing between Lisa/M and Lisa/L, it depends on your needs. The
> code running on each is the same, so it is more your preference based on
> the application, required peripherals that may or may not be onboard, etc.
> However, Transition Robotics is currently selling finished Lisa/M v2.0
> units, while Lisa/L is much harder to come by (besides the aforementioned
> pcb availability at PPZUAV). In addition, there are many more Lisa/M
> devices around (especially in the hands of developers).
>
> It is hoped that soon a Gumstix breakout board of sorts will be designed
> and released to easily interface with Lisa/M and other autopilots, reducing
> the need of having one onboard Lisa/L. Not sure if this will influence your
> decision.
>
> Not sure if that helps or just makes it more confusing. Hopefully the
> former.
>
> Thanks,
> -Stephen Dwyer
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Sergey Krukowski <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Hallo!****
> >
> > If you haven?t yet really chosen which board to use, there is a feature
> > list of all autopilots on the following site:****
> >
> > http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/Category:Autopilots****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Imho, in the heigh-weight multirotor application the main problem is to
> > have a really stable motor control, which means a reliable ESC and its
> > control bus. In that way I wouldn?t recommend to use I2C motor controllers,
> > when you have more than 6 rotors. The I2C bus is very sensible to any
> > hardware problems (bad connection, long wires, ESC problems).****
> >
> > Regards,****
> >
> > Sergey ****
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130129/69550d21/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:09:15 +0100
> From: Felix Ruess <address@hidden>
> To: Paparazzi devel list <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] px4 autopilot and paparazzi
> Message-ID:
> <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> of course it's _possible_ ;-)
>
> But as Tilman pointed out this needs some work as we currently neither have
> the cortex m4 supported directly, nor nuttx/posix.
>
> Option 1: bare metal cortex m4 support
> This is something that we wanted to add for quite a while already. (e.g.
> Lisa/M 2 could just take the m4 without further hardware changes).
> While most drivers and architecture specific files from our "stm32" arch
> (currently only the F1) could probably be used without real changes, we
> need a better way to handle the possible differences. As a first step we
> could try to see where exactly the differences are and include the f4
> instead of the f1 headers.
> Contributions welcome!
>
> Option 2: posix/nuttx support
> It might be a good option to create a rather generic "posix" arch. Since
> nuttx apparently aims to be very posix compliant a lot of stuff would
> probably run under nuttx and linux as well.
> This would also be a good step towards supporting paparazzi to run on linux
> (on a gumstix/beagleboard/raspberrypi) or on the Parrot AR Drone. There has
> already been some success regarding the latter.
> I don't know much about nuttx itself and how low level driver (e.g. SPI and
> I2C with DMA) are handled...
>
> Cheers, Felix
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Tilman Baumann <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On 29/01/13 17:18, Luis Carlos wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> hi everyone......its possible to porting the paparazzi code to the pk4
> >> autopilot?? in this case please help me waith instruccions for this...
> >>
> >>
> > There would be two ways to do it.
> > Either bare-bone. Just port to the new hardware. (Similar or same CPU
> > AFAIK)
> >
> > But what would be really cool would be to run ppz as a application in
> > NutX. We could even get the FBW/AP split back by running in two processes.
> > Not sure if that would bring any insurmountable problems. But in any case,
> > it's far from trivial.
> > (Ardupilot has done this)
> >
> > But really, I'm just having a rainbow shining out of my arse right now. I
> > can't even contemplate the effort or required steps in any detail. I just
> > hope someone picks up the ball and runs with it.
> > I just want Paparazzi on this hardware really badly. :D
> >
> > The PX4 software is developing quite interestingly as well. I like what I
> > see, but I think it will take a very long while for that to get anywhere
> > near ppz case of features and reliability.
> > The stack looks sweet though. Could get used to that...
> >
> > Cheers
> > Tilman
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/**mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-**devel<https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130129/1f6ebd1f/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:20:04 +0100
> From: Felix Ruess <address@hidden>
> To: Paparazzi devel list <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] px4 autopilot and paparazzi
> Message-ID:
> <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Sergey,
>
> great to hear you have it running!
> A quick glance at your repository showed that you basically added defines
> for the F4 and included these corresponding headers and adapted the
> architecture specific parts where needed.
> I probably would have done the same at first, but I think this clearly
> shows that we need to move some stuff out into the board files (e.g. which
> pins, timers, etc. are used).
>
> Would you be willing to help integrating this in a more generic fashion
> into Paparazzi? That would be really great!
>
> Cheers, Felix
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Sergey Krukowski <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys!
> > It's probably my bad, that you have no idea about Krooz autopilot.
> >
> > http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/**Krooz<http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/Krooz>
> >
> > It's also based on the F4 series processor and the most part of the
> > Paparazzi autopilot software is already ported on F4 series.
> > Check out my git krooz_port branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/softsr/**paparazzi<https://github.com/softsr/paparazzi>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sergey
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/**mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-**devel<https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel>
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130129/2bd2b1ce/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
> End of Paparazzi-devel Digest, Vol 106, Issue 72
> ************************************************