CANbus Communication

[zrparker]

With the increase in automotive engine conversions, sport engine conversions, and what I believe is essentially CANbus on Garmin products, would there be any chance of integrating CAN communications via a common interface like this: https://www.beyondlogic.org/adding-can-controller-area-network-to-the-raspberry-pi/

[saabnut]

Great idea john

…

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, 21:42 Jazz ***@***.***> wrote: With the increase in automotive engine conversions, sport engine conversions, and what I believe is essentially CANbus on Garmin products, would there be any chance of integrating CAN communications via a common interface like this: https://www.beyondlogic.org/adding-can-controller-area-network-to-the-raspberry-pi/ — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHAT66BWQV4I3SZWJFXEE4LSJPBRVANCNFSM4SGYJYPQ> .

[erikj180]

Isn't Dynon also using some implementation of CANBus? Sent with thumbs and autocorrect

________________________________ From: John Schreiber <notifications@github.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 4:01:01 PM To: JohnMarzulli/StratuxHud <StratuxHud@noreply.github.com> Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [JohnMarzulli/StratuxHud] CANbus Communication (#67) Great idea john

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, 21:42 Jazz ***@***.***> wrote: With the increase in automotive engine conversions, sport engine conversions, and what I believe is essentially CANbus on Garmin products, would there be any chance of integrating CAN communications via a common interface like this: https://www.beyondlogic.org/adding-can-controller-area-network-to-the-raspberry-pi/ — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHAT66BWQV4I3SZWJFXEE4LSJPBRVANCNFSM4SGYJYPQ> .

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#67 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF2Q3KXMCQVVMX5C6RQYOUDSJTXK3ANCNFSM4SGYJYPQ>.

[JohnMarzulli]

Thanks for the heads up and the background info.

I will be contacting Dynon soon.

If the current avionics do use a variant of CanBus, then this could be very useful.

As far as integration with automotive conversions, given how varied they are, the best approach may be to support the most popular avionics as the intermediary.

[zrparker]

I was thinking more along the lines of general CANbus support, with the ability to have common avionics as a drop-down option.

In regards to auto conversion standards, while the generic configurable CAN would definitely take care of it, there are (at least in the US) OBD2 standards that could be used to define a majority of what would be desired.

[saabnut]

I currently work in the mass transit sector. Our CAN protocol is J1939. A reasonable overview is here: https://www.csselectronics.com/screen/page/simple-intro-j1939-explained/language/en https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/05/01/can-bus-in-aviation/ https://experimentalavionics.com/can-bus/

…

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 2:49 AM John Marzulli ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for the heads up and the background info. I will be contacting Dynon soon. If the current avionics do use a variant of CanBus, then this could be very useful. As far as integration with automotive conversions, given how varied they are, the best approach may be to support the most popular avionics as the intermediary. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHAT66GMX7623T2Z2S6QYDDSJ77ZDANCNFSM4SGYJYPQ> .