Not so much of an issue, but... #19

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-05-21T09:23:56Z

Have you had any joy interfacing your code with LXNav Nano3? I'm struggling with the way that the Nano might detect that a Legacy device is present. The Nano doesn't present any enquiry strings on the serial port & thus doesn't enable the Flarm menu.

lyusupov · 2018-05-21T09:48:27Z

Make sure you've met #15
As well as baud rate, symbol/parity/stop bits, voltage levels.

kinnonk · 2018-05-21T15:20:56Z

Hi Pete,

I originally opened issue #15 which Linar refers to - and when I tried with other aircraft around me I could see the PFL* NMEA sentences. Coincidentally I also have a LXNav Nano3 and have tried to get it to see the SoftRF unit via USB connected to the Nano - no joy so far I’m afraid !

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-05-21T15:30:36Z

Hi Kinnonk, I too was able to see aircraft via Bluetooth/LK8000. I’m able to communicate with Nano via FT232 & a PC. I can read NMEA/TARG strings that the Nano bleats out, but by sending dummy FLARM messages to the Nano I cannot get it to unlock the Flarm menu which leads me to believe that there is a handshake preamble that we’re both missing. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

…

________________________________ From: kinnonk <notifications@github.com> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:20:59 PM To: lyusupov/SoftRF Cc: Pete Milligan; Author Subject: Re: [lyusupov/SoftRF] Not so much of an issue, but... (#19) Hi Pete, I originally opened issue #15<#15> which Linar refers to - and when I tried with other aircraft around me I could see the PFL* NMEA sentences. Coincidentally I also have a LXNav Nano3 and have tried to get it to see the SoftRF unit via USB connected to the Nano - no joy so far I’m afraid ! — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#19 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AleniH3CHPiG9pjuZ6Brl-2IASrd_wVaks5t0ttbgaJpZM4UGsII>.

kinnonk · 2018-05-21T15:40:01Z

Hi

Same here - FLARM menu is always greyed out. Like you say - probably a proprietary startup/handshake that the Nano is expecting :-(

lyusupov · 2018-05-22T07:46:39Z

Gentlemen, I use my trusty old CAI302 vario/logger for years and pretty much happy with it.
And I don't have neither FLARM nor Nano3 readily available here. Thus I have no need (nor wish) for myself to make SoftRF more friendly to the Nano.
On the other side, I consider that this feature could be useful for some SoftRF builders in the future.

So my suggestion for you is to either:

take part and responsibility of developing this feature on yourself. Fork a copy of my repository and do your stuff there. When (if) the feature will be ready to integrate into mainstream - we will dicsuss on how to do it in the best way, or ;
if you are unable - please, close this ticket.

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-05-23T04:17:34Z

This makes sense to close. I’ll have access to ‘sniff’ the serial data next week. If anything becomes clearer then I’ll be happy to take option 1 along with anyone else that might be interested. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

…

________________________________ From: Linar Yusupov <notifications@github.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:46:40 AM To: lyusupov/SoftRF Cc: Pete Milligan; Author Subject: Re: [lyusupov/SoftRF] Not so much of an issue, but... (#19) Gentlemen, I use my trusty old CAI302 vario/logger for years and pretty much happy with it. And I don't have neither FLARM nor Nano3 readily available here. Thus I have no need (and wish) for myself to make SoftRF more friendly to the Nano. On the other side, I consider that this feature could be useful for some SoftRF builders in the future. So my suggestion for you is to either: * take part and resposibility of developing this feature on yourself. Fork a copy of my repository and do your stuff there. When (if) the feature will be ready to integrate into mainstream - we will dicsuss on how to do this in the best way, or; * if you are unable - please, close this ticket. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#19 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AleniJ-QrARJi6f-2D22RzB7HEXPcL45ks5t08JggaJpZM4UGsII>.

lyusupov · 2018-05-23T06:12:59Z

Ok, let me know if you will succeed - I will reopen and assign this ticket to you.

Resolution: unable to reproduce.

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-07-28T16:20:22Z

Checksum issue #24 remedied this. The SoftRF now enables the Flarm menu in the Nano. I'll spend some time looking at setting the parameters appropriately & report back.

kinnonk · 2018-07-28T19:33:01Z

Hi
Pete how are you physically connecting your SoftRF to the Nano 3 - I’m interested in trying to get this going. Have you spliced a micro USB to a mini USB to facilitate the connection?

Cheers

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-07-28T20:25:24Z

Hi, The nano ‘USB’ port also acts as a serial port too. RX & TX @ 3.3v. I’m sure you’re aware that there are four wires. + & - are obvious. I soldered the mini to the physical Rx & Tx of the ESP32 I’m using. Would be good to collaborate here. Pete Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

…

________________________________ From: kinnonk <notifications@github.com> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 8:33:02 PM To: lyusupov/SoftRF Cc: Pete Milligan; Author Subject: Re: [lyusupov/SoftRF] Not so much of an issue, but... (#19) Hi Pete how are you physically connecting your SoftRT to the Nano 3 - I’m interested in trying to get this going. Have you spliced a micro USB to a mini USB to facilitate the connection? Cheers — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#19 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AleniKxV4zLpM8re6pUOzH5RQmHrXKREks5uLLxugaJpZM4UGsII>.

lyusupov · 2018-07-28T22:08:34Z

Checksum issue #24 remedied this. The SoftRF now enables the Flarm menu in the Nano.

I suppose that this could be an accumulated effect of 84668a7 and #24.

kinnonk · 2018-07-29T12:26:39Z

Hi Pete

OK - will take a look and get an esp32 rigged up in a breakout for testing

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-07-29T12:31:27Z

Hi Kinnonk, Linar has done a brilliant job to allow more devices than ESP32 (via SoC helper). ESP32 isn’t essential, ESP8266 will be fine. Pete Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

…

________________________________ From: kinnonk <notifications@github.com> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2018 1:26:41 PM To: lyusupov/SoftRF Cc: Pete Milligan; Assign Subject: Re: [lyusupov/SoftRF] Not so much of an issue, but... (#19) Hi Pete OK - will take a look and get an esp32 rigged up in a breakout for testing — You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#19 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AleniJurDU4BasXoPpPYBDxO1YIh0XCtks5uLaoBgaJpZM4UGsII>.

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-07-29T18:41:42Z

Hi Linar, The only suggested additions to the D1090helper might be;

        snprintf((char *) &Serial_Load, 21, "$PFLAC,A,ID,%x*", ThisAircraft.addr & 0xFFFFFF ); 
        Flarm_Export(); //Append checksum and print
        snprintf((char *) &Serial_Load, 21, "$PFLAC,A,ACFT,%d*", ThisAircraft.aircraft_type); 
        Flarm_Export(); //Append checksum and print

Apologies if my code frustrates, I'm a little new to this.

Pete

lyusupov · 2018-07-29T19:27:59Z

Pete,
it does not work this way.

At first, you should create a fork of the SoftRF repository on GitHub. Like all these guys did:
https://github.com/lyusupov/SoftRF/network/members

At second, you should alter the code in your repo as long as you want and commit changes into it with appropriate comments.
Build the code from your repo and test it on your hardware until you think it is in perfect state.

Then go back into this thread and I'll tell you what to do next.

lyusupov · 2018-07-30T16:39:21Z

$PFLAC is a part of 2-way configuration mechanism. Nano sends $PFLAC,R,.. request and expects to receive $PFLAC,A,... "answer" (FLARM FTD-12 PDF, Section 7.15).

SoftRF is using WebUI for configuration - there is no need to have an old-style UART-based control port.
"NMEA channel" is one-way only. From SoftRF to target device. No reverse direction.
In ESP8266-based SoftRF there are no spare pins to implement this back channel.
In ESP32-based SoftRF there are some, but no any firmware support for this. And no any plans to add it.

If your Nano needs to get a response on it's $PFLAC,R,.. request - you may consider to
put a separate 3.3V friendly Arduino board in the middle. You can program it to do a mix:

give appropriate $PFLAC,A responses on the $PFLAC,R requests ;
transparently forward all NMEA traffic from SoftRF to your Nano.

Pros:

the sketch for the Arduino-in-the-middle should be pretty much simple ;
with this approach, there is no need to change anything in the SoftRF hardware and firmware.

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-07-30T19:45:57Z

Thanks Linar, That looks very practical. I noticed the 2-way mechanism, so opted for periodic $PFLAC,A... messages. Not ideal, but works very well. Your solution is a little more appropriate Mind if I ask... The Nano also outputs the same NMEA messages (Both GPS & Baro). Connecting Nano TX to SOC_GPIO_PIN_GNSS_RX & connecting Nano RX to Hardware Serial, thereby piping the messages back to the NANO @38400 would give the same outcome & have the advantage of discarding the BMP / GPS modules. The devil is in the detail mind you e.g. turning off GPV, VTG etc. Messages would be black-holed in this configuration. Making sense, or ? Looking to make the minimum adjustment of SoftRF, yet make the solution applicable. Pete Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

…

________________________________ From: Linar Yusupov <notifications@github.com> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 5:39:23 PM To: lyusupov/SoftRF Cc: Pete Milligan; Assign Subject: Re: [lyusupov/SoftRF] Not so much of an issue, but... (#19) $PFLAC is a part of 2-way configuration mechanism. Nano sends $PFLAC,R,.. request and expects to receive $PFLAC,A,... "answer" (FLARM FTD-12 PDF, Section 7.15). SoftRF is using WebUI for configuration - there is no need to have an old-style UART-based control port. "NMEA channel" is one-way only. From SoftRF to target device. No reverse direction. In ESP8266-based SoftRF there are no spare pins to implement this back channel. In ESP32-based SoftRF there are some, but no any firmware support for this. And no any plans to add it. If your Nano needs to get a response on it's $PFLAC,R,.. request - you may consider to put a separate 3.3V friendly Arduino board in the middle. You can program it to do a mix: * give appropriate $PFLAC,A responses on the $PFLAC,R requests ; * transparently forward all NMEA traffic from SoftRF to your Nano. Pros: * the sketch for the Arduino-in-the-middle should be pretty much simple ; * with this approach, there is no need to change anything in SoftRF hardware and firmware. — You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#19 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AleniHrju3DoVr_9CHlz_3lH4Y6IAXsdks5uLza7gaJpZM4UGsII>.

PeteMilligan99 · 2018-07-30T19:53:17Z

You were right. It was 84668a7<84668a7>. Pete Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

…

________________________________ From: Linar Yusupov <notifications@github.com> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 11:08:35 PM To: lyusupov/SoftRF Cc: Pete Milligan; Author Subject: Re: [lyusupov/SoftRF] Not so much of an issue, but... (#19) I suppose that it could be an accumulated effect of 84668a7<84668a7> and #24<#24>. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#19 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AleniMqKLfJftVvXx1ODCPOJ6V850OIBks5uLODjgaJpZM4UGsII>.

lyusupov · 2018-08-03T17:01:19Z

SoftRF uses 9600 baud rate for input (BN-880 , T-Beam and many other module's factory default) and 38400 baud rate for output (maximum of that HC-05 can handle).

SoftRF on ESP8266 has support for 2 sources on GNSS NMEA data input:

SOC_GPIO_PIN_SWSER_RX (9600 baud)
NodeMCU's RXD0 pin (38400 baud)

SoftRF on ESP32 has support for 3 sources on GNSS NMEA data input:

SOC_GPIO_PIN_GNSS_RX (9600 baud)
ESP32's U0RXD pin (38400 baud)
built-in Bluetooth

2nd source (in both cases) has a h/w conflict with built-in CP210X chip. For details, read this.
It is known to work Ok, but applies stress load on all electrical components involved.
That is why it is not recommended for general use.
(2nd source is mostly designed to receive NMEA GNSS feed from external, "USB host" capable equipment, such as PC, Raspberry Pi, Kobo, Android smartphone/tablet).

SoftRF does not apply any filters (except checksum) while forwarding of GNSS NMEA sentences from input to output.
GxRMC and GxGGA sentencies are in use for internal SoftRF firmware operation. All others are just transparently being forwarded with no effect on SoftRF's firmware behavior.

d0d0 · 2019-05-30T06:10:54Z

Hi, The nano ‘USB’ port also acts as a serial port too. RX & TX @ 3.3v. I’m sure you’re aware that there are four wires. + & - are obvious. I soldered the mini to the physical Rx & Tx of the ESP32 I’m using. Would be good to collaborate here.

Sorry for offtopic, but I could not find another thread.

@PeteMilligan99 do you have any pinout sketch how you connect your Nano to PC using FT232, I do not want to burn out my nano 4 :)

lyusupov · 2019-05-30T13:47:38Z

https://gitter.im/lyusupov/SoftRF

lyusupov added the question label May 21, 2018

lyusupov changed the title ~~No so much of an issue, but...~~ Not so much of an issue, but... May 21, 2018

lyusupov closed this as completed May 23, 2018

lyusupov reopened this Jul 29, 2018

lyusupov assigned PeteMilligan99 Jul 29, 2018

lyusupov closed this as completed Aug 9, 2018

lyusupov mentioned this issue Sep 10, 2018

AirConnect protocol #30

Closed

Repository owner locked as off-topic and limited conversation to collaborators May 30, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Not so much of an issue, but... #19

Not so much of an issue, but... #19

PeteMilligan99 commented May 21, 2018

lyusupov commented May 21, 2018

kinnonk commented May 21, 2018

PeteMilligan99 commented May 21, 2018 via email

kinnonk commented May 21, 2018

lyusupov commented May 22, 2018 •

edited

Loading

PeteMilligan99 commented May 23, 2018 via email

lyusupov commented May 23, 2018

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 28, 2018

kinnonk commented Jul 28, 2018 •

edited by lyusupov

Loading

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 28, 2018 via email

lyusupov commented Jul 28, 2018 •

edited

Loading

kinnonk commented Jul 29, 2018

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 29, 2018 via email

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 29, 2018

lyusupov commented Jul 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

lyusupov commented Jul 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 30, 2018 via email

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 30, 2018 via email

lyusupov commented Aug 3, 2018 •

edited

Loading

d0d0 commented May 30, 2019 •

edited

Loading

lyusupov commented May 30, 2019

Not so much of an issue, but... #19

Not so much of an issue, but... #19

Comments

PeteMilligan99 commented May 21, 2018

lyusupov commented May 21, 2018

kinnonk commented May 21, 2018

PeteMilligan99 commented May 21, 2018 via email

kinnonk commented May 21, 2018

lyusupov commented May 22, 2018 • edited Loading

PeteMilligan99 commented May 23, 2018 via email

lyusupov commented May 23, 2018

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 28, 2018

kinnonk commented Jul 28, 2018 • edited by lyusupov Loading

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 28, 2018 via email

lyusupov commented Jul 28, 2018 • edited Loading

kinnonk commented Jul 29, 2018

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 29, 2018 via email

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 29, 2018

lyusupov commented Jul 29, 2018 • edited Loading

lyusupov commented Jul 30, 2018 • edited Loading

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 30, 2018 via email

PeteMilligan99 commented Jul 30, 2018 via email

lyusupov commented Aug 3, 2018 • edited Loading

d0d0 commented May 30, 2019 • edited Loading

lyusupov commented May 30, 2019

lyusupov commented May 22, 2018 •

edited

Loading

kinnonk commented Jul 28, 2018 •

edited by lyusupov

Loading

lyusupov commented Jul 28, 2018 •

edited

Loading

lyusupov commented Jul 29, 2018 •

edited

Loading

lyusupov commented Jul 30, 2018 •

edited

Loading

lyusupov commented Aug 3, 2018 •

edited

Loading

d0d0 commented May 30, 2019 •

edited

Loading