Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I'm trying to set up the RX-based mixing on my 10-20R. I want to select 2 output channels for ail, 2 for elev, etc. For some reason, the prog will NOT allow me to assign 2 output channels to a single input channel if those output channels are exactly 8 apart. So, for instance I can assign 4 & 11, or 4 & 13 etc for elevator, but not 4 & 12. Similarly for any other combination of outputs - any spacing apart other than 8 seems to be allowed.

I really, REALLY, want 8 apart, because then that allows me to have a much 'cleaner' installation by having a 'row' on the RX per function - the 2 elev servos plugging in right next to each other on their own row, the 2 TE flap next to each other, 2 LE flaps next to each other, 2 ailerons next to each other ...

Am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug, or is this an intentional restriction ?

If it's an intentional restriction, then I have to ask : why on earth would anyone with even half a brain code in such a stupid restriction as this ? It's dumb, dumb, dumb. I simply hate seeing a potentially great product being crippled by incredibly poor and unnecessary limitations.

Gordon

gerhardp

Hi Gordon,
It is fairly simple. It is a design restriction guarded by a philosophy. There are 4 Voltage regulators dedicated to power the servos in the unit. They are arranged in rows. VR1 supplies rows 1 and 5, VR2 sullies rows 2 and 6, VR3 supplies rows 3 and 7 and VR4 supplies rows 4 and 8. The design is made to spread the load between the 4 voltage controllers. It makes sure that all outlets are used to spread the load. If a servo dies and restricts the one VR, all other servos powered by the other VR's will keep working as before. The load limit of the VR will allow only 7Amps continuous, so that you have enough time to land safely without having the whole system being shortened out as it is with the systems having either no or only one regulator.
In the servo settings page you want to ideally be looking at a step down from the left going down to the right as you see in the default setup

I hope this satisfies your questions,

Thanks you,

Gerhard

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Hi Gerhard,

Thanks for the explanation, but :

(A) Personally, I don't believe anyone should force their 'philosophy' down user's throats, when doing so can make the product less usable. If you want to suggest particular layouts as being better than others, that's fine - but FORCING it on us ... ?? Big brother is apparently alive & well [] and I find that rather unfortunate.

(B) Based on your explanation above, it seems I should not be able to set RX outputs 1 and 5 to work off the same input channel since they share VR 1... but your prog allows this just fine. Something doesn't add up here.

This is my first Weatronic unit. Based on all the marketing hype I had been holding off on converting to 2.4 for all of my aircraft until the Weatronic 2.4 system was available, because the much vaunted flexibility of the Weatronic RXs led me to believe that waiting for the 2.4 Weatronic would be much better than using e.g Spektrum etc. That wonderful flexibility seems decidedly missing in even my first experiments with Weatronic though, and I have to say that so far I am quite disappointed in what all those extra dollars got me. A regular JR receiver with some matchboxes would have been not only cheaper, but also much more flexible than the Weatronic has proven to be thusfar. [&o]

Appologies if my honest feedback offends anyone.

Gordon

RogerParrett

Dear GordonMc,

Maybe its the meds I'm on right now for allergies, but your initial request and follow-up response has prompted me to call you on your rude behaviour.

It seems to me that your desire for a "clean look" should override sound engineering and safety practices. Ever hear of the saying "form follows function"? You might want to look it up.

Second, your statement regarding "Big Brother" was pointless. Please sit down and actually READ the book "1984" (it's by George Orwell, by the way). Then if you STILL believe you made the correct reference, I'm sure most readers here would be glad to hear your rationale.

And no, you didn't offend me with your "honest" feedback. However you DID embarrass yourself. Think about that the next time you post.

I, for one, feel that you owe the moderator an apology - not for being "honest", but for being rude. I hope you were taught the difference.

Safe flying... Roger

Selleri

Have you seen what two 12 channel JR Rx's cost!? I think you are still well ahead Gordon

Frankly I don't see how this makes the Weatronic any less valuable for it's role!

Edgar Perez

My Feedback: (13)

I think the value obtained by the 'limitation' far outweighs the cosmetic impact claimed, particularly for something that can't be observed when the plane is being used

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Sverrir – apologies for the fact that I now see my post was unclear – I was comparing the price to that of ONE JR 10 channel RX + matchboxes because that's all I've ever needed with JR (and my jets have flow in some pretty demanding scenarios, including being used by Horizon for RX testing). I bought the Weatronic NOT for its dual RX, but for its claimed flexibility in assigning and tying together O/P channels etc. Although I failed to make it clear, I was comparing the price based on what JR equipment I would need in order to achieve what I need, and not to exactly replicate additional Weatronic functionality that I don't need.

Roger - right back at ya since I don't see your post being any less 'rude' than mine, especially since I already pointed out that: (a) my comments were intended to be read as honest feedback and not meant to offend ; (b) any such unintentional offence was already appologised for long before your rant. So, you might want to get off your high horse long enough to look up the saying about the pot calling the kettle black. BTW, yes I have read 1984 thank you. If you are unable to comprehend that Big Brother is the quintessential embodiment of over-control then you are welcome to find someone else to explain it to you, as it isn't my job to try to educate you and fill in any areas that your teachers may have left blank.

Edgar – from my understanding of the issue so far, it seems to me that the 'value' obtained by the limitation is effectively non-existent given the way it appears to have been implemented. If it were implemented as a warning that requires an over-ride from the user, it could have value in averting certain specific situations. Implemented in the current highly restrictive manner however, in my opinion it loses its value since
[ul][*] there is no software limit on e.g. a combo of o/p 1 & o/p 5 so that the claimed safety gained by this mechanism doesn't seem to have even been implemented properly based on my understanding of Gerhard's explanation of the rationale behind the limit; If I've got that wrong, please feel free to explain further if you wish.[*] Weatronic doesn't know what purpose each output channel will be assigned by the user, so their completely arbitrary restrictions cause roll-on effects that are absolutely unnecessary. I went back and reassigned output channels in order to split ailerons, elevators, leading edge flaps, trailing edge flaps etc to avoid the +8 limit ; then I found that juggling all of that stuff around meant that my ability to drive my aircraft's landing lights and airbrakes together no longer worked since they were now 8 O/P channels apart after the reshuffle !! What sane reason is there to explain why Weatronic's seemingly misguided philosophy should prevent that scenario, and instead require me to e.g. install a Y-harness or matchbox and leave an RX o/p channel unused ? (Or juggle channels yet again to try and find some combo that the head honcho in Germany has deemed acceptable ?) In such a case, what value is added by this restriction in order to redeem the flexibility that is lost ?

I am a software developer by trade, and at work I see people introduce such unnecessary limitations periodically just because they didn't have the forethought to consider the fact that not everyone will use the tool in exactly the same way the developer himself wants to. It bugs me when such lack of foresight affects users unnecessarily, so I spend a non-trivial amount of time removing such unnecessary restrictions for MY users. I don't see why Weatronic should not do the same, if they would like to live up to the hype of flexibility etc. that has been generated about their products. That's obviously their choice, but one thing seems clear – if no-one complains about the issues, they are unlikely to be resolved - per George Bernard Shaw : "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. All progress, therefore, depends upon the unreasonable man."
[/ul]
Gordon

Selleri

Roger that Gordon

gerhardp

Hi Gordon,
Thank you for your elaborate thoughts on restrictions about software limitations.
Once again, there are several things to consider, when developing a farly complex dual receiver as the Weatronic units. I do not understand why you are so upset of the fact that Weatronic went down a path of experiences that have led to the setup that is provided with the Dual Receiver units.

SAFETY IS FIRST!!

If there are 4 Voltage regulators and you want to utilize them all equally, and at the same time be SAFE, there is no other option than to do what the Weatronic system did.
let me explain it with an analogy, so that you can maybe understand where Weatronic is coming from:

Lets say you have an aircraft with 4 engines. How would you set up the fuel system? Each engine has its own fuel pump. You also have four Fuel valves and 4 Fuel lines leading to the fuel pumps. Yet you are asking as an operator to be able to run all four engines through one fuel valve. It might work on idle, but as soon as you need to use full power, the system will fail. You are restricted in the amount of fuel that you can feed through one valve. It is not enough fuel to feed all 4 engines, but yet you are asking to allow to come up with a distribution system that allows to run the fuel through one fuel valve only. That just makes the whole system a lot more complicated and from a liability standpoint, I would consider it dumb to allow that to happen. Especially in times where most people do not even read the manuals - and getting your feedback I have doubts weather you read the manual or not.

Relating it to "big brother is watching you" just made me laugh out loud. In a country, where common sense gets ruled out by the legal system, you have to think for the others, else you will be always drawing the short straw. The art here is to be flexible by finding the right balance between restrictions and flexibility and yet to be at the forefront of technology. You should know that better than anyone, if you are a software programmer.

I hope you might get a different view of why the Weatronic systems are designed the way they are.

Thanks,

Gerhard

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

Hi Gerhard,

Thanks for trying to explain, rather than giving up on me ;-)

However, you seem to have missed some of the points I have brought up a couple of times, since they don't fit at all with your response. From my prior posts:


So, perhaps you could try addressing these this time please ?
[ul][*] why having ouputs 1 & 9 tied to the same input channel is unsafe and needs to be programmatically prohibited, yet having 1 & 5 tied to the same input channel is not. Based on my understanding of your descriptions, 1, 5 and 9 are on on the same voltage reg, correct ? If so, restricting one and not the other shows that the restrictions have been done haphazzardly.[*] why it's unsafe for me to have 2 dissimilar and non-flight critical functions (airbrakes & lights) be 8 o/p channels apart just because they are both activated by the same input channel.
[/ul]
I'd really appreciate a logical answer to the above, so that I can try to understand your system.

Regards,
Gordon

gerhardp

Hi Gordon,
There are two outlets limited to every channel per regulator. two outlets per regulator times four regulators makes eight outlets available per channel That is intentional by design from Weatronic. This way the distribution of all eight servos is guaranteed to utilize the best from the voltage controllers.

Regard,

Gerhard