From:  Christoph Niemann 
Subject:  [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:51:16 +0200 
User-agent:  Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0 

Hi community,


having a look at the wiki-site of the Lisa/M I was a little bit confused. Is 
the only possible RC Spektrum (and JR and Hobbyking)? Or is it also possible 
to use classic PPM and JETI 2.4Ghz? 
The other thing, that would matter in the process of deciding, whether to 
purchase it or not is, will it be OpenSource or not? 

Thanks for your answers

Christoph

From:  Rui Costa 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:53:03 +0000 

Hello,
 
I would like also to know if it will be OpenSource because if yes I should 
buy for now 3 units.
 
 
Best regards
Rui Costa

 
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Christoph Niemann < address@hidden> wrote:

Hi community,

having a look at the wiki-site of the Lisa/M I was a little bit confused. Is 
the only possible RC Spektrum (and JR and Hobbyking)? Or is it also possible 
to use classic PPM and JETI 2.4Ghz? 
The other thing, that would matter in the process of deciding, whether to 
purchase it or not is, will it be OpenSource or not? 

Thanks for your answers

Christoph

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel




-- 
Rui Costa

From:  Chris Gough 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:27:45 +1000 

I emailed Jobey this question, Piotr replied that only the Spectrum RC
is currently implemented (not PPM). He hinted it would be possible
port the PPM stuff to Lisa/M. I suppose if you aren't using a pair of
spectrum satelites there would be two UARTs going spare, no idea if
some of that IO could be re-purposed for PPM input though.

I didn't ask about open source hardware, but I did wonder :)

Chris Gough

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Christoph Niemann
< address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi community,
>
> having a look at the wiki-site of the Lisa/M I was a little bit confused. Is
> the only possible RC Spektrum (and JR and Hobbyking)? Or is it also possible
> to use classic PPM and JETI 2.4Ghz?
> The other thing, that would matter in the process of deciding, whether to
> purchase it or not is, will it be OpenSource or not?
>
> Thanks for your answers
>
> Christoph
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

From:  Eric Parsonage 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:27:00 +0930 

Hi Chris 


> I emailed Jobey this question, Piotr replied that only the Spectrum RC
> is currently implemented (not PPM). He hinted it would be possible
> port the PPM stuff to Lisa/M. I suppose if you aren't using a pair of
> spectrum satelites there would be two UARTs going spare, no idea if
> some of that IO could be re-purposed for PPM input though.

I wrote the spektrum parser so can give you a definite answer on this. YES the 
UART pins can be used as general purpose i/o and could be used for ppm input. I 
don’t think it would take that much effort to re-map to use one of those pins.

Why would you want to though ? The Spektrum satellites can be purchased 
individually for less than $35 for a genuine Spektrum satellite receiver and 
the clone receivers can be had for $15

Quality PPM receivers are not any cheaper than this and hacking a receiver to 
get ppm out adds risk whereas the Spektrums  satellites need no modification. 
If you where not thinking of hacking a PPM receiver but instead using an 
encoder board then you end up with the ugliest wiring ever.

I am really interested in hearing why it is better for you to use PPM it might 
hep with future development.

Eric


> 
> I didn't ask about open source hardware, but I did wonder :)
> 
> Chris Gough
> 
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Christoph Niemann
> < address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi community,
>> 
>> having a look at the wiki-site of the Lisa/M I was a little bit confused. Is
>> the only possible RC Spektrum (and JR and Hobbyking)? Or is it also possible
>> to use classic PPM and JETI 2.4Ghz?
>> The other thing, that would matter in the process of deciding, whether to
>> purchase it or not is, will it be OpenSource or not?
>> 
>> Thanks for your answers
>> 
>> Christoph
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> .
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

From:  antoine drouin 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:45 +0200 

ppm on lisa/M works, and so does it on lisa/L

Regards

Poine

ps: on lisa/M, PPM is at the moment sharing a line with servo6 (
because it's the way it was wired on lisa/L ). It would be trivial to
adapt the driver to use another line. look at
sw/airborne/arch/stm32/subsystems/radio_control/ppm_arch.c

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Eric Parsonage < address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
>
>> I emailed Jobey this question, Piotr replied that only the Spectrum RC
>> is currently implemented (not PPM). He hinted it would be possible
>> port the PPM stuff to Lisa/M. I suppose if you aren't using a pair of
>> spectrum satelites there would be two UARTs going spare, no idea if
>> some of that IO could be re-purposed for PPM input though.
>
> I wrote the spektrum parser so can give you a definite answer on this. YES 
> the UART pins can be used as general purpose i/o and could be used for ppm 
> input. I don’t think it would take that much effort to re-map to use one of 
> those pins.
>
> Why would you want to though ? The Spektrum satellites can be purchased 
> individually for less than $35 for a genuine Spektrum satellite receiver and 
> the clone receivers can be had for $15
>
> Quality PPM receivers are not any cheaper than this and hacking a receiver to 
> get ppm out adds risk whereas the Spektrums  satellites need no modification. 
> If you where not thinking of hacking a PPM receiver but instead using an 
> encoder board then you end up with the ugliest wiring ever.
>
> I am really interested in hearing why it is better for you to use PPM it 
> might hep with future development.
>
> Eric
>
>
>>
>> I didn't ask about open source hardware, but I did wonder :)
>>
>> Chris Gough
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Christoph Niemann
>> < address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Hi community,
>>>
>>> having a look at the wiki-site of the Lisa/M I was a little bit confused. Is
>>> the only possible RC Spektrum (and JR and Hobbyking)? Or is it also possible
>>> to use classic PPM and JETI 2.4Ghz?
>>> The other thing, that would matter in the process of deciding, whether to
>>> purchase it or not is, will it be OpenSource or not?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your answers
>>>
>>> Christoph
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> .
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

From:  Christoph Niemann 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:01:26 +0200 

Hi,

thank you very much for your replies.

@Eric: The reason why not to use Spektrum is the following:
I have 2.4Ghz video-gear, so if I'm using it, I have to use 35Mhz. My 2.4Ghz 
stuff is JETI-equipment, so I'm using a receiver, that has been modified to 
output the PPM-Signal.

So the first question is solved, PPM should work. What remains is the question 
of the license. Will the shematics (perhaps the eagle-files) be available, like 
at the old APs, or are the Lisa-APs the beginning of closedsource-only APs in 
paparazzi? Please don't get me wrong, but this is really important to me for 
making some strategic descisions and might be for some more guys too.

Cheers 

Christoph



> Datum: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:45 +0200
> Von: antoine drouin < address@hidden>
> An: address@hidden
> Betreff: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions

> ppm on lisa/M works, and so does it on lisa/L
> 
> Regards
> 
> Poine
> 
> ps: on lisa/M, PPM is at the moment sharing a line with servo6 (
> because it's the way it was wired on lisa/L ). It would be trivial to
> adapt the driver to use another line. look at
> sw/airborne/arch/stm32/subsystems/radio_control/ppm_arch.c

From:  antoine drouin 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:25:47 +0200 

Hi Christophe

Schematics will be released ASAP, CAD files will come later. When ? I
don't know.... Worst case would be when Joby Robotics releases a new
version of the board, but I hope it will be sooner than that.
Now, why do I have the feeling that we get attacked all the time on
that choice ? The "beginning of closedsource-only APs in paparazzi"
does not sound very neutral to me. Maybe I'm just overreacting, but
you seem to be implying that there would be some evil hidden
motivations behind that choice. For you information, Lisa/L CAD files
have been released (
http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/paparazzi-hardware/trunk/lisa/v1.1/?root=paparazzi
) 3 month ago.
I had already written a mail to the mailing list to explain the
motivations behind not releasing CAD file together with new boards
when all the fuss about about lisa/L happened but renounced to send it
in order to avoid fueling the flameware.
I've started this project together with Pascal 8 years ago and since
then I have dedicated my time to try and make it successful. I'm
utterly convinced of the benefits of open source, but observing how
Paparazzi grew over time, I came to the conclusion that hardware is a
bit different than software... "gcc tiny.brd" is not going to make a
board magically appear on your desktop. I'll list here some of my
arguments in favor of releasing CAD files after the board is mature.

1- Unlike software, where an unskilled user can type make and get a
piece of complex software to successfully build, assembling hardware
requires tools and skills. Providing gerbers and BOM have lured a
bunch of new users into believing otherwise and has created tons of
frustration. I've myself fixed a number of badly assembled boards and
I even recall that while helping debugging a board ( so after
assembly), discovering that the person had manufactured two layers
PCBs instead of four layers. As the technology of the autopilot
increases, this problem becomes more and more important.

2- The success of the project depends on the availability of
affordable hardware. The price of hardware is directly and
exponentially dependent on the number of manufactured units. If ten
persons manufacture 10 boards each, the cost will be much higher than
if one person manufactures 100.

3- Last and not least, the quality of assembly also depends very much
on the number of manufactured units. Good quality can only be achieved
through the use of automated placing and soldering, and those
processes can only be used if the number of units reach a certain
amount.

 You may think that my arguments are wrong and I'm ready to debate
them with you, but questioning my ethics hurts. I, as well as all the
Paparazzi developers, only have one goal in mind, the success of this
project.

Best regards

Poine




On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Christoph Niemann
< address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thank you very much for your replies.
>
> @Eric: The reason why not to use Spektrum is the following:
> I have 2.4Ghz video-gear, so if I'm using it, I have to use 35Mhz. My 2.4Ghz 
> stuff is JETI-equipment, so I'm using a receiver, that has been modified to 
> output the PPM-Signal.
>
> So the first question is solved, PPM should work. What remains is the 
> question of the license. Will the shematics (perhaps the eagle-files) be 
> available, like at the old APs, or are the Lisa-APs the beginning of 
> closedsource-only APs in paparazzi? Please don't get me wrong, but this is 
> really important to me for making some strategic descisions and might be for 
> some more guys too.
>
> Cheers
>
> Christoph
>
>
>
>> Datum: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:45 +0200
>> Von: antoine drouin < address@hidden>
>> An: address@hidden
>> Betreff: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions
>
>> ppm on lisa/M works, and so does it on lisa/L
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Poine
>>
>> ps: on lisa/M, PPM is at the moment sharing a line with servo6 (
>> because it's the way it was wired on lisa/L ). It would be trivial to
>> adapt the driver to use another line. look at
>> sw/airborne/arch/stm32/subsystems/radio_control/ppm_arch.c
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

From:  Christoph Niemann 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:06:44 +0200 

Hi Antoine,

thank you for your reply and the effort that you put into Paparazzi. My 
intention was not to provocate or annoy you, but to figure out, whether 
the eagle files would be released and be usable or not. So I can say, 
that I agree your reply. For me, the point is, that even the adoption of 
a readily designed Hardware means some effort. If someday Joby Robotics 
won't sell the HW anymore, it would be nice to be able to reproduce it. 
If there are no CAD-files, all the work that the user puts into paparazzi 
is lost, since there is no hardware to use it. So before ordering a unit 
and putting work into getting it to run, I just wanted to know it and 
since you say, the files will come like for Lisa/L I'm satisfied and take 
Lisa/M into account.

Cheers 

Christoph

Am 08.06.2011 14:41 schrieb "antoine drouin" < address@hidden>:
> congratulations !
> 
> Why not make a "records" section on the wiki ? maybe next to the
> "competitions" and "applications" ones
> 
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Reto BŁttner < address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi Poine,
>>
>> I can only thank you for all your great work for the spectacular
>> project. I am sure you are making the right decisions concerning
>> hardware development.
>>
>> Did you know that my eHawk 1500 equipped with a TWOG perfectely
>> overflew two 4000m peaks in Switzerland:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m8ZR9XWuQ4
>>
>> Cheers, Reto
>>
>> 2011/6/8 antoine drouin < address@hidden>:
>>> Hi Christophe
>>>
>>> Schematics will be released ASAP, CAD files will come later. When ? I
>>> don't know.... Worst case would be when Joby Robotics releases a new
>>> version of the board, but I hope it will be sooner than that.
>>> Now, why do I have the feeling that we get attacked all the time on
>>> that choice ? The "beginning of closedsource-only APs in paparazzi"
>>> does not sound very neutral to me. Maybe I'm just overreacting, but
>>> you seem to be implying that there would be some evil hidden
>>> motivations behind that choice. For you information, Lisa/L CAD files
>>> have been released (
>>> http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/paparazzi-hardware/trunk/lisa/v1.1/?root=paparazzi
>>> ) 3 month ago.
>>> I had already written a mail to the mailing list to explain the
>>> motivations behind not releasing CAD file together with new boards
>>> when all the fuss about about lisa/L happened but renounced to send it
>>> in order to avoid fueling the flameware.
>>> I've started this project together with Pascal 8 years ago and since
>>> then I have dedicated my time to try and make it successful. I'm
>>> utterly convinced of the benefits of open source, but observing how
>>> Paparazzi grew over time, I came to the conclusion that hardware is a
>>> bit different than software... "gcc tiny.brd" is not going to make a
>>> board magically appear on your desktop. I'll list here some of my
>>> arguments in favor of releasing CAD files after the board is mature.
>>>
>>> 1- Unlike software, where an unskilled user can type make and get a
>>> piece of complex software to successfully build, assembling hardware
>>> requires tools and skills. Providing gerbers and BOM have lured a
>>> bunch of new users into believing otherwise and has created tons of
>>> frustration. I've myself fixed a number of badly assembled boards and
>>> I even recall that while helping debugging a board ( so after
>>> assembly), discovering that the person had manufactured two layers
>>> PCBs instead of four layers. As the technology of the autopilot
>>> increases, this problem becomes more and more important.
>>>
>>> 2- The success of the project depends on the availability of
>>> affordable hardware. The price of hardware is directly and
>>> exponentially dependent on the number of manufactured units. If ten
>>> persons manufacture 10 boards each, the cost will be much higher than
>>> if one person manufactures 100.
>>>
>>> 3- Last and not least, the quality of assembly also depends very much
>>> on the number of manufactured units. Good quality can only be achieved
>>> through the use of automated placing and soldering, and those
>>> processes can only be used if the number of units reach a certain
>>> amount.
>>>
>>>  You may think that my arguments are wrong and I'm ready to debate
>>> them with you, but questioning my ethics hurts. I, as well as all the
>>> Paparazzi developers, only have one goal in mind, the success of this
>>> project.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Poine
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Christoph Niemann
>>> < address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> tthank you very much for your replies.
>>>>
>>>> @Eric: The reason why not to use Spektrum is the following:
>>>> I have 2.4Ghz video-gear, so if I'm using it, I have to use 35Mhz. My 2.4Ghz 
>>>> stuff is JETI-equipment, so I'm using a receiver, that has been modified to 
>>>> output the PPM-Signal.
>>>>
>>>> So the first question is solved, PPM should work. What remains is the question 
>>>> of the license. Will the shematics (perhaps the eagle-files) be available, like 
>>>> at the old APs, or are the Lisa-APs the beginning of closedsource-only APs in 
>>>> paparazzi? Please don't get me wrong, but this is really important to me for 
>>>> making some strategic descisions and might be for some more guys too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers 
>>>>
>>>> Christoph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Datum: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:45 +0200
>>>>> Von: antoine drouin < address@hidden>
>>>>> An: address@hidden
>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions
>>>>
>>>>> ppm on lisa/M works, and so does it on lisa/L
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Poine
>>>>>
>>>>> ps: on lisa/M, PPM is at the moment sharing a line with servo6 (
>>>>> because it's the way it was wired on lisa/L ). It would be trivial to
>>>>> adapt the driver to use another line. look at
>>>>> sw/airborne/arch/stm32/subsystems/radio_control/ppm_arch.c
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>>> address@hidden
>>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

From:  Chris Gough 
Subject:  Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions 
Date:  Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:59:35 +1000 

Hi Poine,

Thank you for clearing that up.

I really did want to know if Lisa/M hardware was going to be open
sourced, and am very glad that your intention is to release it when
it's ready. I didn't ask directly because I have no right to be
demanding, every new release is a gift for which I am grateful.

> Now, why do I have the feeling that we get attacked all the time on
> that choice ? The "beginning of closedsource-only APs in paparazzi"
> does not sound very neutral to me. Maybe I'm just overreacting, but
> you seem to be implying that there would be some evil hidden
> motivations behind that choice.

Because you _were_ attacked. I believe a PR savvy individual with
vested interests deliberately manufactured the perception (out of
nothing) that there are risks with choosing Paparazzi over one of the
alternative open source autopilot platforms. Even though I formed that
opinion when this first flared up, and am pretty confident it's right,
I was still worried. FUD is a dirty trick but it works.

Chris Gough


On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:25 PM, antoine drouin < address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Christophe
>
> Schematics will be released ASAP, CAD files will come later. When ? I
> don't know.... Worst case would be when Joby Robotics releases a new
> version of the board, but I hope it will be sooner than that.
> Now, why do I have the feeling that we get attacked all the time on
> that choice ? The "beginning of closedsource-only APs in paparazzi"
> does not sound very neutral to me. Maybe I'm just overreacting, but
> you seem to be implying that there would be some evil hidden
> motivations behind that choice. For you information, Lisa/L CAD files
> have been released (
> http://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/viewvc/paparazzi-hardware/trunk/lisa/v1.1/?root=paparazzi
> ) 3 month ago.
> I had already written a mail to the mailing list to explain the
> motivations behind not releasing CAD file together with new boards
> when all the fuss about about lisa/L happened but renounced to send it
> in order to avoid fueling the flameware.
> I've started this project together with Pascal 8 years ago and since
> then I have dedicated my time to try and make it successful. I'm
> utterly convinced of the benefits of open source, but observing how
> Paparazzi grew over time, I came to the conclusion that hardware is a
> bit different than software... "gcc tiny.brd" is not going to make a
> board magically appear on your desktop. I'll list here some of my
> arguments in favor of releasing CAD files after the board is mature.
>
> 1- Unlike software, where an unskilled user can type make and get a
> piece of complex software to successfully build, assembling hardware
> requires tools and skills. Providing gerbers and BOM have lured a
> bunch of new users into believing otherwise and has created tons of
> frustration. I've myself fixed a number of badly assembled boards and
> I even recall that while helping debugging a board ( so after
> assembly), discovering that the person had manufactured two layers
> PCBs instead of four layers. As the technology of the autopilot
> increases, this problem becomes more and more important.
>
> 2- The success of the project depends on the availability of
> affordable hardware. The price of hardware is directly and
> exponentially dependent on the number of manufactured units. If ten
> persons manufacture 10 boards each, the cost will be much higher than
> if one person manufactures 100.
>
> 3- Last and not least, the quality of assembly also depends very much
> on the number of manufactured units. Good quality can only be achieved
> through the use of automated placing and soldering, and those
> processes can only be used if the number of units reach a certain
> amount.
>
>  You may think that my arguments are wrong and I'm ready to debate
> them with you, but questioning my ethics hurts. I, as well as all the
> Paparazzi developers, only have one goal in mind, the success of this
> project.
>
> Best regards
>
> Poine
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Christoph Niemann
> < address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> thank you very much for your replies.
>>
>> @Eric: The reason why not to use Spektrum is the following:
>> I have 2.4Ghz video-gear, so if I'm using it, I have to use 35Mhz. My 2.4Ghz 
>> stuff is JETI-equipment, so I'm using a receiver, that has been modified to 
>> output the PPM-Signal.
>>
>> So the first question is solved, PPM should work. What remains is the 
>> question of the license. Will the shematics (perhaps the eagle-files) be 
>> available, like at the old APs, or are the Lisa-APs the beginning of 
>> closedsource-only APs in paparazzi? Please don't get me wrong, but this is 
>> really important to me for making some strategic descisions and might be for 
>> some more guys too.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Christoph
>>
>>
>>
>>> Datum: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:58:45 +0200
>>> Von: antoine drouin < address@hidden>
>>> An: address@hidden
>>> Betreff: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Lisa/M questions
>>
>>> ppm on lisa/M works, and so does it on lisa/L
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Poine
>>>
>>> ps: on lisa/M, PPM is at the moment sharing a line with servo6 (
>>> because it's the way it was wired on lisa/L ). It would be trivial to
>>> adapt the driver to use another line. look at
>>> sw/airborne/arch/stm32/subsystems/radio_control/ppm_arch.c
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

Copyright 2011 http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel