Running TauLabs software on hardware that isn't supported? Work with others to get a new platform supported.

Naze32

no avatar
User

madz

Posts

39

Joined

Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:10 pm

Naze32

by madz » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:54 pm

Recently got Naze32 rev5 board.
I wonder how good it's hardware is for TauLabs and is it a good idea to add support for it?
And I know someone worked on it's support (rev4) for TauLabs, but stopped.
User avatar
User

peabody124

Posts

1339

Joined

Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Naze32

by peabody124 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:21 pm

I think it would be great to maintain a branch and have that functionality. I'm not sure it would get merged into the main tree, but typically maintaining branches that add a new target isn't too hard. Our policy is that we only merge open source hardware into the main repository. However, that gets a little dicey:

  • the discoveryF3/F4 targets only have schematics publishes, no files to build one yourself. the decision was made that the 25$ price point made it worth making an exception here and would encourage students etc.
  • revomini is not opensource. we mostly have support historically since i was the one who got it flying, and when we were doing the development we expected it to be open...
  • freedom design files are not there yet because it isn't finished. however it is producing data to drive useful improvements to the whole code base (e.g. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=27&start=20#p350)
no avatar
User

ernieift

Posts

193

Joined

Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:21 am

Re: Naze32

by ernieift » Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:05 pm

New targets would help to bring the software further. However the Naze32 has a STMF103 CPU like the coptercontrol.
I don't know much about the revisions of that hardware. But joergrohde has made a port of TL for a naze32 (http://fpv-community.de/showthread.php? ... r-Software).
User avatar
User

shred

Posts

287

Joined

Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:50 am

Re: Naze32

by shred » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:11 pm

I think it would be great to have support for the Naze32, as it is a very competitively priced board. However, my experience with running Tau Labs on a CC3D makes me wonder if the hardware is powerful enough, i.e., AFAIK rev5 uses STM32F103C with only 20k RAM, so you won't be able to use the really cool Tau Labs features.

Regarding including support for non open source hardware, I'm wondering if not including them into the main branch is the best policy, i.e., it may be confusing to users/contributors as they would have to use a different repo/branch for their hardware. Consequently, there is also the danger of a fork diverging from the main branch, which will make it difficult to contribute changes back to Tau Labs. Also, as peabody124 said, there are already several targets which are not open; "revolution" and "revomini" are not open as well and yet they are in the main branch. Maybe the best policy would be to have a "targets" folder with officially supported targets, which are covered by unit-tests, the build-bot, etc. And a "targets_contrib" folder which contains contributed targets, both open and non-open. Each target would have an assigned maintainer (usually he person who contributed it) and if a target stops being developed it will be removed from the main branch. Thoughts?
no avatar
User

madz

Posts

39

Joined

Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:10 pm

Re: Naze32

by madz » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:57 pm

There is also ultra-cheap naze32 compatible controller called Flip32 ($18) and Flip32+ ($35).
User avatar
User

cGiesen

Posts

115

Joined

Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:27 pm

Location

Bochum, Germany

Naze32

by cGiesen » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:24 pm

Yes, cheap. But only cheap ;)
Perhaps the new revision is better.

Gesendet mit meinem iPhone via Tapatalk
User avatar
User

AlPackin

Posts

82

Joined

Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:23 pm

Location

CT US

Re: Naze32

by AlPackin » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:50 pm

madz wrote:There is also ultra-cheap naze32 compatible controller called Flip32 ($18) and Flip32+ ($35).


I guess that is why TC seems to loath witespy and won't go open source with his work
User avatar
User

peabody124

Posts

1339

Joined

Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:33 pm

Re: Naze32

by peabody124 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:53 pm

Yeah - it might be useful to port so people can use the same GCS and have consistent settings - but it isn't a realistic target to take advantage of our newest features.
no avatar
User

joergrohde

Posts

51

Joined

Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:56 am

Re: Naze32

by joergrohde » Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:33 pm

No, I don´t make a port I only use the work from SVentas and SBaron, nothing more.
This port works only on rev4 boards. On rev3 boards you have to solder a wire from the MPU Int to the STM.
Rev5 I don´t, no it´s not published.
In may last year the stabilization routines, angle - attitude, from TL/OP where better then from the MultiWii port Baseflight.
I think this kicked a little bit the german developer from the Baseflight port Harakiri. And in August the 15th he published a Version, summergames 2.5, with fantastic and fast stabilization for angle/attitude and horizon. Fast releveling to horizontal position, no yawing.
At my Bolzkopter I have a Acronaze without mag but you can play elevator with him up and down without yawing.
And the autolanding also at failsafe condition works very good if you have the naze32 with baro.

But the hardware from the Naze is limited by layout and CPU Power. And imho the design of the Sparky use more options from the CPU pins at same pincount.
I would like to see a small board 36mm with a F4 :) and perhaps sensors from STM.
User avatar
User

shred

Posts

287

Joined

Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:50 am

Re: Naze32

by shred » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:04 pm

joergrohde wrote:But the hardware from the Naze is limited by layout and CPU Power. And imho the design of the Sparky use more options from the CPU pins at same pincount.
I would like to see a small board 36mm with a F4 :) and perhaps sensors from STM.


Patience.. I'm working on it :D. I should be able to release the details about the board before the end of April and it should be available for purchase this summer. I'm currently evaluating whether I should replace the MS5611 baro with the LPS25H from ST, which according to the datasheet should be more accurate.
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign
cron