olnico

Do you really need triple redundancy?

patf

My Feedback: (4)

I have a lemons race down there next month. will try to coordinate a side trip by the shop.

thanks again Oli

olnico

Sure! You'll be welcome!

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Oli would you need both the taranis and the Weatronics to get both of the telemetry data streams (if you need both)?

olnico

You are right, but why would you need dual telemetry return?

sidgates

My Feedback: (2)

================================================== ===========
No I don't feel I need triple redundancy. I want air speed and RSSI telemtry and I have the Taranis with the Air Speed Sensor and have been flyiing it. I would use the Weatronic for the primary 8ch and the Taranis for more channels and telemetry.

I and 2 freinds have replaced the plastic centering arms with metal ones in the Taranis and now the sticks have a very positive click feel at center. We also replace the centering springs with stiffer ones. While typing this I wondered if it is possible to to get telemetry back from the X8R receiver and have the Taranis transmitter RF turned off. Probably not, if the outgoing RF is off the Tx receiver is probably off too. .

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Special Taranis sensors and software that are already working, I am sure the Weatronics is fine.

2 different sets of software, believe it or not I am more worried about a software failure in these new systems than a hardware failure

sidgates

My Feedback: (2)

===========================================
I did a quick test be placing the Taranis and 9C(with DV4) back to back. That places the Taranis Tx antenna 3-4" from the Weatronics RF module. Both receivers responded normally at about 10ft range from the Transmitters.

I opened GigaSoft and monitored the RSSI reading and there was no change whether both transmitters were on or just the Weatronics RF on. I also place a 1ft square carbon panel between the two Tx's and no difference in RSSI.

Next I will test how close the receivers can be to each other with out interaction.

olnico

You need to test at the end of the range. My findings is that telemetry return was significantly affected as well as overall range on the FRSky link.

sidgates

My Feedback: (2)

================================================== =
I will do that. Thanks for the suggestion.

FliteMetal

Oli,

Here we are down stream another 6 months within your transmitter configuration evaluation.

It is implied, not stated literally, that the Gizmo can be used with two other receivers, not the
same Gizmo, as if it were a serial bus, in this case a wireless virtual bus. This to permit me
place receivers...one in each wing and one just ahead of the vertical fin with multiple gyros
functioning.

With the above possible, can pair of Micro 12 provide the same config with two other 12's
in the place of three Gizmo (which Gizmo?)...or two 12's and one Gizmo?




I read a technical statement relative to the two antennas. It made no reference to a diversity configuration. With intelligent hops I
would imagine the diversity scheme would be utilized with toggling back and forth between the two transceivers.

If antenna diversity is utilized at what angle should the pair be arranged for optimum efficiency? In my data applications we were
always parallel vs. the Futaba scheme in which the two are at optimum at 90 degrees to each other.

Thanks,

Ed

olnico

Hi Ed.

Any type of receiver can be configured as main/ sub 1/ sub 2.
So you can use 3 Micro 12 gyro III, but I would say that in the case of placing the receivers in different parts of the plane, 3 Smart 8 Gyro I oriented on each axis would be enough and a lot cheaper.
This is the configuration that Goetz Vogelsang is using on his CARF Spitfires.

olnico

I need to get confirmation from Germany about this.

olnico

I hope to get an answer on Monday.

FliteMetal

Oli,

This is in the B-47 where I have inboard and outboard flap differential with the outboard functioning as an aileron
through the first 25% of travel, "10%" up aileron.

Am using a copper foil power buss down each wing and to receiver in rear. This permits batteries to reside within
fuselage just ahead of CG in bomb bay.

Will 3 Smart 8 Gyro 1 yield a 20 to 22 channel config?Oli,

This is in the B-47 where I have inboard and outboard flap differential with the outboard functioning as an aileron
through the first 25% of flap travel, "10%" up aileron.

Am using a copper foil power buss down each wing and to receiver in rear. This permits batteries to reside within
fuselage just ahead of CG in bomb bay.

Will 3 Smart 8 Gyro 1 yield a 20 to 22 channel config? Are you here or there?

I found the answer to the diversity or not, Yes, each antenna should be 90 degrees to the other. Thank heavens
for coffee stir sticks at McDonalds.

Ed

olnico

Yes, without any problem.
The transmitter will map each receiver output separately as if you had one receiver with 24 outputs.
You will be able to assign one servo for each of the 24 outputs in the servo configuration page of the transmitter.

Even though the 3 receivers will not be connected to each other, they will all 3 listen to the radio signal and get the servo order assigned to each of their individual output.
The signal from the transmitter is coded for output 1.1, 1.2, ...till 1.8 then 2.1, 2.2, ... till 2.8, then 3.1, 3.1... till 3.8 where "1" refers to main, "2" refers to sub 1, "3" refers to sub 3.
There is no priority sequence between main, sub 1 and sub 2 output. The only restriction is that telemetry data is only broadcasted back by Main. So you need to connect the sensors to this receiver.

If you do this with 3 micro 12 receivers, you will be able to get 36 channels and servo outputs.
If you do this with 3 Gizmo 30, you will be able to get 90 outputs. However the bandwidth restrains to 62 servo assignments at once. So the remaining 28 channels are virtual functions.

roger.alli

Oli,

This is very cool..

Up until now I have not given a lot of thought to the Master/sub capabilities of the Wea Rxs. From what you have described above, I can now see how you can build almost a virtual “bus” system. Instead of a decoder, you just use an Rx, which could be as small as a Smart 8. All you need to connect to it is a power supply.

So, for fitting out my BVM F-100, I could install;
Fuselage; A micro 12 (gyro I) driving five flight servos and four ancillary functions.
Left wing; A smart 8 (gyro I) driving 3 flight servos.
Right wing; A smart 8 (gyro I) driving 3 flight servos.
All receivers could be powered from a fuse mounted regulated power supply. Total connections in each wing is just the 2 core power supply.

I guess the down side is that I would now be relying on 3 receivers. Have I just increased the probability of a failure x 3. ??

I will give it some more thought..

olnico

Exactly!
This is a virtual bus system with exa redundancy!
Compared to a serial bus line, you get several advantages:

1.Quadruple RF redundancy by flight control if properly installed
2. Minimum weight as the harness is significantly reduced
3. Triple or exa power supply redundancy and shorter power supply lines.

I do not like serial bus systems as implemented in the hobby world, as a contact interruption at the beginning of the loop will shut down the whole line and servos connected to it.

4. Nothing to connect when assembling your model ( one Rx per wing, one Rx in the tail ).

The only down side is switching the power supply: you need to switch 3 times ON and check 3 systems working before flying.

olnico

This is the essence of redundancy:

One system is fitted with a probability x to fail, and the result is catastrophic.
Now you fit 3 systems in PARALLEL. The probability to have one system failing is still x, but the result is transparent. The probability to have all 3 systems failing at the same time is x/3. The probabilities divide.
Now you fit 3 systems in SERIES. The probability to have the system series failing is now 3x ( one failure at x on any of the 3 systems ) but the result is catastrophic. The probabilities add up.

So it all depends how you install your receivers.

roger.alli

Thanks Oli,

I'm still undecided as to purchasing a Bat 60... This may tip me..

Roger

olnico

I have updated the programming guide to rev 3.1 to include parallel receiver guidance and considerations.
You will find this in chapter 11.4 below.

http://www.geohei.lu/olin/data/model...0rev%203.1.pdf

CraigG

My Feedback: (40)

Hi Oli,

We got a good look at the BAT 60 transmitter at Miss Jets this week...wow! Woody and Orlando were very helpful, so much so that I'm reconsidering my vow to never go back to Weatronics because of the previous terrible support.

One question I have, can the 3 axis gyro rx versions be programmed to produce Cortex/iGyro 3e type results an if so, how difficult is it to program?

I understand one of the German Weatronic reps will be at Joe Nall in a couple of weeks. I am looking forward to meeting him there and maybe pulling the trigger on the BAT 60 and a few rx's, including a replacement to the 6 year old R12-22 in my A-10.

Thanks,

Craig

olnico

Hello Craig.

Woody and Orlando will be delighted to hear that you enjoyed their support.
The Weatronic gyros are the same MEMS type used on the iGyro 3e.
They can be used in 4 modes:
Fixed gain,
Adjustable gain
Dynamic gain
Heading lock
This is pretty much what the iGyro and Cortex units offer as well.

Programming the gyro on the older Gigacontrol system is pretty easy.
I wrote a specific user manual for the USA market and the gyro programming is cover from page 90:

http://www.geohei.lu/olin/data/model...%20rev%203.pdf

As you can see, no big deal. And the graphic presentation of the gain makes things a lot easier to understand.

However the gyro functionality is not available in the current version of the BAT 60 firmware. We are expecting the release next week.

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

Oli, on your post #44, "The probability to have all 3 systems failing at the same time is x/3. The probabilities divide."...

I don't think this is quite true. It is much better than you think if you have true triple redundancy. Say your probability to fail is 1% (a high number, but let's use for an example ). A triple simultaneous failure would be 1% X 1% X 1% = 0.0001%... Even just a dual simultaneous failure would be .001%

I am not a user of the single line databus systems (yet?), but this is one reason why - I'm waiting to be able to integrate redundancy on that single signal line. Maybe your system is there already.

Gordon_Dickens

My Feedback: (1)

Hi Oli,

That manual is very good! I wish that I'd had it when I setup all of my current Weatronics gear... If I am understanding your manual correctly on pages 92-93, it appears straight forward to setup the gyro gain with stick priority whereby the gain is decreased as the stick goes away from neutral using "Alt. Sensitivity". Is that the case?

Thanks,

Gordon