wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

I'm pretty sure by default it selects analog but if you use the PC to select digital servos, I believe it uses a higher frame rate.

Scott Geller

My Feedback: (6)

Yes I'm aware of that setting, neither made a difference.

Scott

Springbok Flyer

Hi Bob,

Please can you complete the sequence and add the servo's in to it? Not being funny about this, just want to be absolutely sure.

Thanks,

Jan

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

servos after the cortex in that scenario

Bob_B

My Feedback: (11)

Rx - PB - Cortex - Servos

Ive also pinged my friend and asked which PB device he's using, I will post his answer asap.

i just heard back from my friend, he is using a Power Box Evolution.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I would think RX-Cortex-PB-Servos would be the way to go though. That way the Cortex is simply stabilizing the axis and the power box is distributing the power and signal to the servos, it would also remove the limitation of 5 stabilized servos.

Bob_B

My Feedback: (11)

We did a field install and could only locate the cortex on the output side of the power box it sounds like putting the cortex between the receiver in the power box would be the ideal way I just don't know enough about that unit. I would be happy to experiment if someone would like to donate a power box to me . I believe this is an area that the manufacture needs to investigate and provide recommended set ups with the sort of devices.

wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

I got the impression that one of the powerbox units that uses redundant receivers (active/standby) was being used. In that case the Cortex would need to be after the powerbox. If there is a single receiver, then it would make sense to use Rx, Cortex, Powerbox..

Max2011

My Feedback: (1)

Could you not just hook up one of those power box to the system and see how it works? When I set up my Cortex(programming it)I actually hold it in my hand rather than attach it to the plane. This way you can actually move it around to see if it is working as you want. You don't actually need to fly the plane to test the unit.

Kenrico

I asked the same question as Jan before, I Have a power box Cockpit and a Futaba 6014 RX. the logic would be to use it between the Rx and Pb since im only using one 1 channel for each surface from Rx to Pb, and then on the PB each servo has its own channel and are matched. If we use it between the Rx and Pb then we would only be using one channel each on the Cortex and the let the power box do the rest.

just my opinion,

Springbok Flyer

Bob,

That is the sequence I would think, will be the best.

The PB units can be used to make adjustments to the servo's, but then it is always better to do these adjustments from the Tx anyway as you don't need to dive inside your model every time you need an adjustment. The PB unit is great for power stabilisation and for channel expansion - like getting 18 channels to use (and adjust) on my Futaba 18mz, when there is no 18 ch Rx available.

Let's remember, the Cortex is a device to influence the output of the servo, without input from the Tx via the Rx. (Unless a specific Tx input is received from the pilot). Therefore, the Cortex must remain in direct contact with the servo's and draw it's power from the PB.

In doing it this way, the use of multiple Rx's via the PB will remain viable as the system can continue to select either Rx, whilst signals are sent via the PB unit to the Cortex and onto the servo's.

I have a lot of PB (mainly SRS units) with dual Rx (using Futaba 18mz) but only one Cortex. Currently the Cortex is in a non PB single Rx installation. I was hoping to find someone who is actually using it in a configuration with multiple Rx's and PB, before I invest in another one. If this is not actually a proven option, then I will in future go with the iGyro.

Cheers,

Jan

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

You have a 5 stabilized output limitation though. So if you have 4 aileron servos, 2 elevator servos, and a rudder servo or two......then what you're proposing simply won't work, where the PB would expand that capability.

I guess if all you had was 5 outputs from the PB it wouldn't matter.

siclick33

The generic term 'Powerbox' is being used here but the Powerbox units vary in their capability and how they work alongside the Cortex.

With the SRS Powerboxes, the Cortex must go between the Powerbox and the Servos. It can't go between the RX and the Powerbox because the Cortex doesn't have a serial output.

In a non-SRS Powerbox the Cortex can either go between the RX and Powerbox or between the Powerbox and the servos. In this setup I would put it between the RX and the Powerbox to take advantage of the capabilities of the Powerbox. The only thing to make sure of using this method is that there is power to the RX, either by a direct patch lead connection between the RX and Powerbox (likely to happen anyway using non-stabilised channels such as throttle) and/or back through the Cortex.

Springbok Flyer

I think you are misunderstanding my statement.

Both the PB and the 18mz can be programmed to have as many ailerons, elevators and rudder (or anything else for that matter) as you like. Therefor whatever is programmed (without the Cortex) and is working with a Rx - PB - Servo sequence, should continue to work when we slot the Cortex into the sequence (Rx - PB - Cortex - Servo). Please note we are only slotting the Cortex in between on the 5 servo's that you want to have gyro stabilised, not all the other channels.

....hope I've not misunderstood you!

Cheers,

Jan

siclick33

I think the point being made above is what happens if you have more than 5 servos that you want gyro-stabilised?

If you have one of the non-SRS Powerboxes with match channels, and you put the Cortex between the RX and the Powerbox then you can plug multiple servos into that channels output from the Powerbox and use the Powerbox to match them. For example, if you have one Cortex channel to stabilise the Yaw axis then you could plug that output into the Powerbox. From that channels output from the Powerbox you could then plug in 2 servos (e.g. rudder and nose steering). With the Cortex after the Powerbox you would either have to use 2 Cortex outputs, Y-leads or Matchboxes to achieve the same result.

If you only want to stabilise 5 servos then it doesn't matter too much, but if you want to stabilise more than 5 servos then it makes sense to used the capabilities of the Powerbox if you can.

Bob_B

My Feedback: (11)

Are you saying the power box can be used as a matchbox type device?

Kenrico

The Power box has a Servo match function, for example on the Hawk i want to use it on has 2 servos on the Elevator, and each servo connected in separate slots on the PB but respond to the same one channel coming from the RX. these two servos are matched in the Pb software so they don't fight each other.
I can't see a problem by placing the Gyro in Between the Rx n Pb.
thats the way i plan on doing it and i would only use one slot each on the Cortex ( 1 Ail, 1 Elev Etc.
that would also take the servo load off the Gyro and leave it up to the PB

RobinLeblond

I have a very specific question for both IGyro and Cortex (I post in both threads) :
If I have « special » ailerons acting like this:
Flight mode I:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ailerons stick input[/TD]
[TD]Receiver ch out ail1[/TD]
[TD]Receiver ch out ail1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Level fligh (no input) (centered)[/TD]
[TD]+100[/TD]
[TD]+100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full right turn[/TD]
[TD]+100[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full left turn[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[TD]+100[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Flight mode 2 (inactive):
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ailerons stick input[/TD]
[TD]Receiver ch out ail1[/TD]
[TD]Receiver ch out ail1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Level fligh (no input) (centered)[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full right turn[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full left turn[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[TD]-100[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

See those special ailerons as “only going up” (being down when active and up when inactive) ailerons or like flap mixed with aileron (since flap cannot goes up).
Questions :
Is Cortex can do this?
Is IGyro 3e can do this?
Thanks

wfield0455

My Feedback: (7)

I'm having a difficult time understanding your chart because you have both columns called Ail1 out. I'm also having difficulty deciding if
-100 means the aileron is down. Let me update your chart so it makes sense to me and see if I have the behavior correct.

Flight mode I:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ailerons stick input[/TD]
[TD]Left Aileron[/TD]
[TD]Right Aileron[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Centered[/TD]
[TD]Centered[/TD]
[TD]Centered[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full right turn[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[TD]Centered[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full left turn[/TD]
[TD]Centered[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Flight mode 2 (inactive):
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ailerons stick input[/TD]
[TD]Left Aileron[/TD]
[TD]Right Aileron[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Level fligh (no input) (centered)[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full right turn[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full left turn[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[TD]Down[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

If this is the correct behavior, then yes, I think the Cortex can do this. However it would need to have the Aileron function disabled (not stabilized) for flight mode 2.
Since it appears in flight mode 2, your ailerons become flaps, I assume your elevators act as Tailerons also ?

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

F-14?

RobinLeblond

Lol.. I have to admit it isn't clear... it would be more like this :

Flight mode I:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ailerons stick input
[/TD]
[TD]Left Aileron
[/TD]
[TD]Right Aileron
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Centered
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full right turn
[/TD]
[TD]Down
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full left turn
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[TD]Down
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Flight mode 2 (inactive):
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Ailerons stick input
[/TD]
[TD]Left Aileron
[/TD]
[TD]Right Aileron
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Level fligh (no input) (centered)
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full right turn
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full left turn
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[TD]Up
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The point is the action is going on each side from full up to full down, instead of from center.

It’s really like we have only flap acting as aileron. The model also have ailerons, but in this case and in this particular flight mode I need the flap to be controlled (stabilized) by the gyro because for some reasons ailerons are going to be ineffective.

I’m sorry to not telling more for the moment, but I’m keeping the surprise for latter… lol… Or maybe I’m afraid you will laugh of me… ;-)

Max2011

My Feedback: (1)

O.K. I finally figured out the rudder problem I had posted back a few post ago....the one which I said the rudder would move over to one side and stay there if I went into the HH mode. It seems...and I think this is the problem.....the Cortex was programmed for digital servos. I had not realized the rudder servo was analog. The rudder servo would do this move to the far side every once in a while and could cause a crash. I removed the analog servo and replaced it with a digital .....to make sure it was the analog servo causing the problem I plugged in another analog servo and it did the same move. I had to turn the system on-off a couple times before the second analog would move over...sometime the servo worked fine. I have had no problem with the rudder servo since I changed it over to digital. Now all my servos are digital. So I would say be careful about programming the Cortex for digital servos if you are using analog/digital.

Maybe some of you experts can chime in here as I have no idea why the servo would act this way....but it seems the change out worked.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Digital mode sends the servo position update rate from 50 hz (Analog) to 220 hz and non-digital servos don't respond well to this. Guys were burning analog servos up in heli tail gyros when DS or Digital Servo mode first came out.

Max2011

My Feedback: (1)

So if you do have a mix of servos...analog and digital ...it is best to keep the Cortex set to analog.......

Bob_B

My Feedback: (11)

yes