PPM I/O vs CAN Interface
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Crashmatt
Nov 30, 2010, 7:25:30 AM11/30/10
to RC servo interface
The CAN interface is not always the best solution for servo expansion.
Many people are now looking at using PPM servo I/O. Without a doubt,
this is easier to use than the CAN solution..
The hope (at the moment) is that CAN will give us some extra valuable
SPI and I2C ports and offload some processing.
CAN Interface owners: Please let me know what you will do with them.
I may consider taking some returns.
Many people are now looking at using PPM servo I/O. Without a doubt,
this is easier to use than the CAN solution..
The hope (at the moment) is that CAN will give us some extra valuable
SPI and I2C ports and offload some processing.
CAN Interface owners: Please let me know what you will do with them.
I may consider taking some returns.
Adam Barrow
Nov 30, 2010, 7:41:13 AM11/30/10
to rc-servo-...@googlegroups.com
Matt,
I would like to continue exploring the use of the CAN interface for offloading processing from the main UDB. Ideally, I see it as a peripheral bus that we can use to add external functionality to the UDB with.
I would like to continue exploring the use of the CAN interface for offloading processing from the main UDB. Ideally, I see it as a peripheral bus that we can use to add external functionality to the UDB with.
Adam Barrow
Sent from my mobile phone
Crashmatt
Dec 1, 2010, 1:10:55 AM12/1/10
to RC servo interface
That is the aim for the CAN interface but it is a struggle getting
there.
PPM is a great solution for simple UDB servo expansion. I completely
support anyone preferring to use it.
I do not wish to fool anyone into thinking that the CAN interface is
the only way to do the servo expansion.
Matt
there.
PPM is a great solution for simple UDB servo expansion. I completely
support anyone preferring to use it.
I do not wish to fool anyone into thinking that the CAN interface is
the only way to do the servo expansion.
Matt
Marc-X
Dec 11, 2010, 5:38:31 AM12/11/10
to RC servo interface
Matt,
Isn't it possible to use both PPM input to the UDB and your CAN-Bus
interface as an expansion board / co-processor?
I can't see the technical limitations that would make it impossible.
Please tell me (in a very short way) why this wouldn't be a
possibility.
Cheers!
/Marc
Isn't it possible to use both PPM input to the UDB and your CAN-Bus
interface as an expansion board / co-processor?
I can't see the technical limitations that would make it impossible.
Please tell me (in a very short way) why this wouldn't be a
possibility.
Cheers!
/Marc
Crashmatt
Dec 11, 2010, 9:56:57 AM12/11/10
to RC servo interface
Marc,
Its possible
Matt
Its possible
Matt
Crashmatt
Dec 11, 2010, 10:03:05 AM12/11/10
to RC servo interface
Now for the longer answer.
The next version of CAN code puts the autopilot on the interface.
UDB only does IMU and 3 servo outputs.
It would be easiest to route the PPM signal to the interface instead
of the UDB.
Very small code changes are required to support this.
It is possible to attach PPM to the UDB but it would need some
supporting software I do not wish to write.
How about 7 normal PWM channels plus one PPM input?
Matt
The next version of CAN code puts the autopilot on the interface.
UDB only does IMU and 3 servo outputs.
It would be easiest to route the PPM signal to the interface instead
of the UDB.
Very small code changes are required to support this.
It is possible to attach PPM to the UDB but it would need some
supporting software I do not wish to write.
How about 7 normal PWM channels plus one PPM input?
Matt
Marcus Fahlén
Dec 11, 2010, 6:22:17 PM12/11/10
to rc-servo-...@googlegroups.com
Matt,
Is it a very time consuming business of yours to keep up with the trunk updates? I mean to have the MP-Can up to latest code base standard with the ever growing support for new features and improvements?
You don't by any chance have any ideas of how to support helicopters in the MP3.x code? ;)
I am of the impression that the heli-crew has "crashed and burned". Anyway, it seems to me that they will stick to the MPv2 code base if they are going to produce any code at all, and that's not very promising for the future.
/Marc
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages