My apologies, I understand that to be the opposite.
Mike, I love you bud. But this isnāt good for the community.
I understand that Frank rubs you the wrong way with his manner of posting, but heās not resorting to personal attacks.
Youāre bias against Frank is pretty apparent, and as a moderator and community leader I would hope that you could resolve this in a more direct manner.
Furthermore, I find some of the unverified claims youāre making here to be somewhat inappropriate. Benjamin Vedder & TRAMPAās business is not your own.
The article was great.
The comments:
It makes me sad that you are so blind to the misinformation and marketing ploys that being used by Trampa, I really wish you would go back and read this and the SPlit-PPM thread with an open mind.
Edit: we are all a bunch of skaters, right? If Frank canāt take a couple of jabs in good humor then maybe heās in the wrong business.
Also, I noticed you didnāt actually prove any of my arguments wrong.
To be fair to Ben , the same way you dislike his forum , can be the same way he dislike this forum as opposed to his own. With how much he can be working on his own stuff , he probably prefers a community heās familiar with and can navigate with his own moderating abilities as opposed to a technically now fragmented community that he would have to keep up with in addition to his own forum. If thereās one thing I wouldnāt fault Ben on, its coming on here and answering a brigade of questions. Thatās Franks Job.
And before anyone attacks me of being some sort of Ben advocate or Trampa advocates, please see my previous interactions on the old forums with Frank & the backward compt incident.
What evidence am I looking for in the split PPM thread?
Heās objectively correct in what heās saying. Youāll notice other EEās backing that up.
A poor CAN bus hardware design & implementation on other ESCs is not a valid argument against CAN bus, which is a very robust and widely adopted industrial comms used successfully in numerous applications.
Splitting PPM can cause ground loops, itās not the correct way of implementing that control configuration.
Those are facts.
He said split PPM āWILLā kill your voltage regulators. It will not in most cases. I in fact have a board that uses split PPM and the voltage regulators are fine. It has thousands of miles.
It is also a fact that on older VESC variants if 2 units are connected through can and only one unit was powered the second unpowered unit would ground itself through the bus and blow all the can ICs. There are a number of reasons why this could happen. Using split-PPM is at a minimum safer for new users who are not going fast enough or taking turns at a high enough rate to make use of traction control.
All of the above info was in the split PPM thread and had you read it objectively would have understood why Frankās statement was misinformation.
He qualified it with ādepending on the ESCā. Heās correct. Ground loops can kill your vregs.
What you are describing is a failure due to incorrect CAN bus implementation. Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I read the thread objectively, and as someone with a good number of years of EE & Embedded Control Systems engineering background. I agree with what was being stated there by @Trampa & @linsus.
On the NRF topic, You could say that the switch to NRF modules is akin to the OSRR using Xbee modules. Weāre both switching to uart because of the additional featureset it allows, not to make anything more difficult or lock people out.
I never said it wasnāt an incorrect CAN bus implementation. I said split PPM has been use successfully by hundreds of people in order to avoid possible CAN issues.
Misdirecting the conversation does price your penises, it only means you donāt understand the argument itās are deliberately detailing the topic.
I donāt, but itās obvious no matter what logical Irvine I choose your going to side with Frank. Iām curious if thereās some motivation for that?
In a year when you canāt by an inexpensive ESC because the VESC firmware doesnāt support them come back and re-read this thread.
Haha, itās a open source software and ton of forks exist. There is no way of undoing it. We will always have awesome cheap ESC because of Benās hard work. The worst what might happen is that future hardware/software is not opensource. So what? We canāt expect the same hand to feed us all our life without getting anything back? BTW, whatās gotten into you Mike, whatās up with these prophecies?
As for your āseverely downgradedā comment, you pointed me to Frankās comment and not any actual change log. To clarify, he was talking about a future feature, different stuff. With how it is right now, it has not been downgraded in any way in the context of being able to go reverse with ppm. I even checked with latest firmware.
Thatās an opinion, not one I share.
I told you he said it, I proved he said it, thatās still not enough. Iām done.
Unless youāre willing to brazenly break the law, like enertion, you canāt do that.
The license on the software says it must stay open-source and any forks or changes must be published as open-source. If anyone doesnāt like that, they are free to just make their own software instead of using Benās.
Thanks for stating the facts in my support. That means cheap ESCās will always be available, unlike Mikeās prophecy.
Thanks for the link, I will do a bit more reading. But I have seen the original author(of a lidar mapping application:loam) close source his code and starting a company. Forks existed so a lot of us started using and maintaining that. So you are saying Ben canāt close source future software( derivative of his current code) that would be used in a new ESC(again closed) ? What about if someone is the sole author?
You can keep breaking my balls all you want, it doesnāt change the facts. Frank has a history of using lawyers to enforce his desires.
Also, @Trampa Iām curious why they only reported motor and battery ābad valuesā from the latest version of the VESC-Tool Wizard are ALL from competitor products?
There are different kinds of open-source licenses.
Some āpermissiveā licenses, like the ISC License, allow you to closed-source a fork or derivative.
Some ācopyleftā licenses, like the GPL License, do NOT allow you to closed-source a fork or derivative.
The VESC firmware is copylefted under the GPL.
Of course, if youāre Jason Potter, you just break the law. Thereās always the crime option.
As I see it, Frank is always stating that he protected the Trademark VESC in the good for the community and Benjamin Vedder. But as someone new to e-skate and VESCāS you will likely relate VESC more to Trampa then to Ben. I have the impression that this whole protecting thing is more to boost the brand Trampa then doing good for Benjamin or the VESC project.
Frank was the person who introduced the new 2019 VESCtool to the community and several people raised their concerns about the battery amp values suggested by the VESCtool wizard. His reply was a rant against all moderately powered boards and the failure of the builder.
I was hoping as the person who sees himself as the voice of the VESC project in this community that he would pass our concerns on to Benjamin. Instead of saying go and reach him yourself.\
@mmaner thank you for the clear and understandable walk through which was much needed.
I personally use Ackmaniac 's software for nearly two years now and love it.
You are more than welcome. Happy to help.
Here we have set the Motor Max to 50a as that is the ESCās limit and motor amps should always be of a higher value than battery amps.
@mmaner Could you expound on this for me?
We have defined the Battery Current Max Regen at -12a because that is low-speed breaks
I was under the impression that Max Battery Regen is high speed brakes and Max Motor Regen is low speed brakes. Could you clarify?
Thanks for the write up, it will be invaluable if I get something other than a Unity!
Hi!
As promised Iāve updated the vesc tool, and the FW. Vedder/@trampa, seems eager to accept my PR!
Iāve built a macOS binary here: https://github.com/DAddYE/vesc_tool/releases/tag/1.14-beta
However please note that I havenāt tested it yet since Iām on UART.
Rember to update the firmware as well, so it can understand the new control type.
Here some screens:
If you test it, please let me know how it works.
Thanks!
Edit: yeah, Iāve to fix the description, and Iām looking for a better name
That was very cool of you and I want you to know that I personally appreciate you putting in the time to do this.
I will test it this weekend and let you now the result.