RunRyder RC
WATCH
 4 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3      4     NEXT    >> ] 8846 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterAerobatic FAI F3C F3N Contest › mCCPM vs eCCPM for F3C
05-04-2005 06:32 PM  13 years agoPost 21
nighttrain

rrApprentice

Louisville KY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thanks
I'd like to thank Wayne for chiming in. It's not often we get a long time World Class competitor to shed light on this stuff. IMHO, Wayne is the father and author / originator of Delta, and perhaps the world authority on eCCPM. His research / testing may be unequaled, and when these guys talk, manufactures sit up and listen. These are the people manufactures take their problems and issues to. We don't see many post from guys like this because some ignorant folks don't even regognize their names, and want to argue. I've learned so much from listening to these guys, saved untold money ,time, and agony. It would be nice if Curtiss, Wayne, Cliff Hiatt, Dwight Shilling, Len Sabato...etc (I could go on and on, sorry to omit anybody) - it would be nice to give them a chance, and not take up all their time argueing. These are people who have probably burned 20,000 gallons of fuel through helo's in their lifetime!!!! Shut up and listen.............Doug trent

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2005 07:16 PM  13 years agoPost 22
nighttrain

rrApprentice

Louisville KY

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

sorry
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump on anyone. for those who don't know, Wayne has studied so much on how to make CCPM better, mechanically, radio, servo. He's studied how and why servos wear and don't hold neutral. He's isolated the cause in carbon wiper pots, probably looked for alternatives, replacements, discussed w/ the top executives at major radio, etc... He has flown helo's as a professional since...decades! Since wooden servo trays! Sometimes guys like this talk way over our heads, but it's nice of them to help us. At the recent Tallahassee clinic, Cliff Hiatt came to practice. But he dropped everything to help a guy and his son w a Caliber 30. It was so messed up,part CCPM / part mech, pushrods going the wrong places, backward travels. Took hours, all afternoon! Former World Champion helping the least of these! We need to seriously consider who's spaeking and have some respect for these guys. They forgot more than we'll ever know. They have the answers minus the Bull. What they don't have is time and patience. Thanks. I hope I didn't highjack the post but it seemed over. Doug

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2005 08:31 PM  13 years agoPost 23
KC

rrElite Veteran

WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

, Wayne is one of the few pros who comes around and risks sharing this info amongst a harsh mob.

His heart is good and his info is golden, it is a rare opportunity to speak with someone like this.

for anyone who hasnt seen f3c precision flying, Wayne and the other top f3c pilots are guys who can hover within a fraction of an inch in any kind of wind, 30 feet away from them. they can perform 4 second axial rolls that are so clean you'd never see the heli pitch or yaw....no small feats if you have tried to do it like how they make it look.

f3c maneuvers are so ****ing hard that you have to know setup very well and have a knack for experimenting, testing, and fly a lot too. in 3d just about anything goes and you can pick your style and call the shots, but these guys have to fly in a manner where everyone knows when its done right or done wrong...its a lot of work! As someone who tries to practice f3c schedules and invariably gives up to fly 3d after a few tanks, I got to admit, I cannot think of a more demanding set of flying tasks than f3c!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2005 08:37 PM  13 years agoPost 24
KC

rrElite Veteran

WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

gordie, I know what you mean about swapping radios and getting a big change.

you like the 14mz, is it so much the resolution or are there some other things that you feel are making an equally big difference?


please tell me you wont give up a pro 2k for that eccpm on the tempests, I thought you might have joined the ranks of the "see no evils" when you were contemplating eccpm.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-04-2005 09:31 PM  13 years agoPost 25
Jeff H

rrKey Veteran

Cincinnati, OH

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

JR's ECCPM compared to the 9Z was far superior for F3C contest type stuff where precision counts for almost everything.
I think you're saying that JR is better than the 9Z, do you have any details about this precision.


PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 01:25 AM  13 years agoPost 26
GM1

rrElite Veteran

Tallahassee, Florida US

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hmmm......
While the features of the 14MZ are amazing, the difference is in the "feel" of the radio. I feel more connected to the model. I think that is the extra resolution and the speed of the processor made a huge difference. The features are cool, no doubt and allow me to do some things easily that were much more difficult with the 9Z but that's not the main issue, at least for me.
I am still flying the mCCPM model, an XL Pro IIK-T but have a Stratus eCCPM on the board that will allow me to test eCCPM vs mCCPM on the same style setup. The jury's still out on this.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 01:38 AM  13 years agoPost 27
Wayne Mann

rrVeteran

United States of America

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Jeff the short answer is the 9Z is 1024 on all channels which slows down packet information. If you could reasign channels so that the pitch, aileron and elevator servos plug in next to each other in the receiver it would help ECCPM to track much better. That is one of the big improvements with the 14 MZ. A couple tried reasigning the channels like they are in the 9Z and they could tell a large decrease in performance with ECCPM.

The JR 10 is only 1024 on the primary channnels and if I'm not mistaken the pitch, aileron and elevator channels are grouped together which helps ECCPM a lot.


Wayne Mann

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 01:54 AM  13 years agoPost 28
Wayne Mann

rrVeteran

United States of America

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

IYKIST. I used to be a big fan of fixed or non sliding swash plates, but they hamper performance too much. With this system the washout unit has to rise and fall for collective input and the problem with this is the ratio's on the see saw arms. Basically the Bell or direct input to the rotorblades gets cut way down so you wind up having to use a lot more deflection in the flybar paddles to get the cyclic rates needed. The thing I loved most about the Kalt Zeus was the swash plate. It was actually a ball bearing gimbol. Half of the inner ring was screwed to the main shaft with ball bearing pivots and the second half of the inner ring was screwed to the other half with ball bearing pivots. There was absolutely no play in the system which allowed for very precise inputs. Too bad the auto clutch system sucked to high heaven. The auto clutch was on and part of the clutch bell and pinion gear.

I designed my own sliding swash plate system prior to getting the 14 MZ. It features push pull on everything, but there is no elevator yoke assembly below the swash plate that slides up and down the mainshaft. After about three weeks with the 14 MZ I decided that due to the tremendous improvements with ECCPM I have scraped my plans to convert my machines to MCCPM.


Wayne Mann

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 03:47 AM  13 years agoPost 29
vtolnut

rrNovice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Jeff H


To continue beating the dead horse… The 9Z variants all had different CCPM issues. The original 9Z was much better than the WC 1 (named WC) model in both stick latency and eccpm behavior. The WC 2 improved the concurrency of the update of the CCPM servos on the TX side but still was slow( relative to the 10X for instance) getting the sick inputs other Achilles heel of the 9Z was the latency of update from the time that you move the sticks until the servo position information actually began to be sent to the receiver. The 2048 near center stick added to the WC2 was an attempt to improve this further.


If you look at the screens of the original 9Z 9ZWC and 9ZWC2 with the contrast turned up you can see that the refresh of the screens are different. Why because the patch to add the mixture and GV-1 settings had a significant impact on the iteration speed of the 9Z processor. I cannot speak to whether the raw processor speed of the 9Z vs. 10X or the differences in architecture are the root cause, but I believe the huge number of parameters and separate free mixes for each flight mode took their toll on the 9Z.


The 14MZ as Wayne stated, has cleaned up a number of issues. One thing that we have seen from scoping the receiver is that the servo pulses for the 14 are far more precise than most any receiver (of course it has to be to generate twice the resolution.) and apparently far more resolution is available in the pulse generation than necessary to produce 2048. It is clear that all of the complaining about the deficiencies was heard by the software team

I know there has been some dissention on this fact but the truth is all of this is in the realm of human senses. A great number of pilots can feel the difference (not a JR plug). Maybe some people can't but I know that I can. Just like some people can tell 4-5 grams difference in weight of two otherwise identical pairs main rotor blades.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 12:23 PM  13 years agoPost 30
GM1

rrElite Veteran

Tallahassee, Florida US

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Side Note
It is interesting to talk to folks about their perception of the ability to discern subtle differences in performance. For several years, I was fortunate enough to have Wayne Mann and Cliff Hiatt around to help me set up my models for contest. I couldn't really tell why they felt they needed to do some of the things they did to my model but I did know it flew very well when I got it back and I was careful not to change too many things afterwards, less I screw up the karma of the model they had imparted.
As I got into flying FAI and spending a lot of time working on model set up, I found I could notice things the model did on a regular basis. Before that I had just assumed that I was pushing something in by accident and it was not until I had a great deal of time in practicing that I started to be able to actually "feel" the difference which is one of the neat things about flying a very precise model over a long period of time. There are many very subtle things that make a model fly better but are not quantum leaps forward. The 2048 resolution is not subtle. I have yet to talk to anyone with a moderate experience level that has flown the 14MZ with the G3 receiver that doesn't feel the same way. It's pretty amazing.
I have an eCCPM model on the way with the new rx and servos and I will be very interested in how it compares to my mCCPM model that I have flown for the last three years and know very well. As an aside, I put a Gen3 receiver in it and immediately noticed the difference in a model I had flown for a long time. I just replaced the receiver, no servos, no other changes. Model flies much more precisely. I hope I can actually show that to the judges at contest this year. I also hope Wayne can show it to the judges at the World Champ's in Zamora this year.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 02:46 PM  13 years agoPost 31
IYKIST

rrKey Veteran

London united kingdom

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hi Wayne thanks for the reply i have been going through the collective pitch system of the TSK kaiser which has a fixed swashplate and the mixing base is clamped to the main shaft but has a pitch slider between the rotorhead hub and the mixing base would this reduce the need for excessive inputs

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 04:55 PM  13 years agoPost 32
GM1

rrElite Veteran

Tallahassee, Florida US

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Rotary inputs and outputs
Part of the problem we have with eCCPM (or mCCPM for that matter) is all input motion we get is in an arc. Servos and bellcranks are rotary so the throw they give is not linear. We can minimize the effects by keeping all axes parallel and all linkages of uniform length but that solved some problems and created others. It would seem that a linear servo would solve many of the problems we have. Years ago, Kraft made servos with both rotary and linear outputs. I wonder why noone has updated that technology to the digital age. Thoughts?
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 05:33 PM  13 years agoPost 33
davehour

rrElite Veteran

Guayama, Puerto Rico 00785

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hi:

This has been one of the nicest threads I've ever read. I'm a 3D flyer, but do practice some "basic" FAI routines to improve my controlling and tracking skills. Since I begun doing them, I must say those routines could show anyone that a fantastic 3D flying means nothing in FAI flying. You just have to try to recognize how much control we used to lack when we rush in to 3D moves. I've learned the lesson and I'm glad I had a good friend of mine, Mr. Pete Niotis, to point me out where I needed much work.

Regarding eCCPM, I was wondering all the time why something like 140 degrees exist, and why it was any better than a simple and "symmetrical" 120 degree. Now I know .

Thanks Wayne and the others for such good information. Please, keep this thread going.

David

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 06:08 PM  13 years agoPost 34
Dr.Ben

rrMaster

Richmond, VA, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

As best I've been able to tell, Gordie, the biggest deal with a linear servo is the amount of potential slop that enters the picture in the conversion of the rotary output of the servo's motor into linear motion at the output shaft. I've seen multiple ideas posted here on how to do it, but in all cases the product was going to be pretty large. The other downside to the linear servos from the standpoint of marketing appeal for the mfg's is the inability of the user to mechanically adjust throw from the servo as can now be done with a wheel. eCCPM users could easily adapt to a given amount of range of throw from such a linear servo since we're already doing all manner of electronic compressing with the radio as it is, but an mCCPM user or someone desiring to use such a servo in a plank might not be so pleased.

They sure would make life easier with eCCPM with no differential travel BS.

You know; the thing that would really be the cat's ass would be some kind of integration system that linked all three servos in the eCCPM together such that each servo always "knew" where the other was relative to each other with appropriate adjustments being made in real time. One servo would be the baseline master to which the others matched tracking. I've always considered it a MIRACLE that we can get three completely separate servos to work in unison as closely as they do for as long as they do.

Ben Minor.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 06:46 PM  13 years agoPost 35
dnam

rrVeteran

Herndon, VA - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Very nice and interesting thread!

As long as we are talking a bit about the 14MZ I'd like to ask a question about this comment by Wayne:
The 14 MZ is matched to the S9255 servos for optimum performance.
So would this mean the 14MZ wouldn't give it's total and full potential if used for example with JR8311 servos? The S9255s can deal better with higher resolution?

Thanks!
Nam

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 07:19 PM  13 years agoPost 36
Dr.Ben

rrMaster

Richmond, VA, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Nam,

Most of the finest quality digital servos with reasonably fast transit times are up to extracting the the performance from the MZ in 2048. WRT the 9255's, it's more that these servos aren't really at their best unless they're being driven by an MZ in 2048.

Ben Minor

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 07:23 PM  13 years agoPost 37
GM1

rrElite Veteran

Tallahassee, Florida US

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

9255s
Dr. Ben,
In your opinion, is it worth switching 9252s for 9255s on an mCCPM model, ie, the XL Pro IIK-T? Where would you use them? I am planning on 9255s with G3 rx for the Stratus.
Gordie

On a dog sled team, if you're not the lead dog, the view never changes.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 08:12 PM  13 years agoPost 38
damaen

rrVeteran

Umeå, Sweden

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Wayne Mann wrote:
Also the 14 MZ has given me about 10 to 15% more cyclic roll rate with the same mechanical set up.
Huh?? How did that happend?

Henrik

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 08:53 PM  13 years agoPost 39
Wayne Mann

rrVeteran

United States of America

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Not likely IYKIST as the see-saw unit still has to be slid up and down for collective input.

Wayne

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-05-2005 08:59 PM  13 years agoPost 40
KC

rrElite Veteran

WA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gordie, thanks for the thoughts on the 14mz, I fly a jr 10, but have wanted to know more about the MZ, this thread is great!

regarding servos, the thing that gets me most about eccpm so far is the servo wear issue. rarely have I seen two servos that are exactly the same in speed or wear out at the same rate and I find mixing for "interactions" will change the transit times, maybe it is more of a problem in 3d as we use a lot of servo motion frequently and put a lot of twist on a frame, which wears the things out fast enough even if youre being kind to it.

what I would like to see in the future are designs where the servos can be physically moved into the "sweet spot" without modifying the trays...its a small thing, but an incredibly easy way to get symmetrical throws and speed out of a servo if you couldn't change anything else.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 4 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3      4     NEXT    >> ] 8846 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterAerobatic FAI F3C F3N Contest › mCCPM vs eCCPM for F3C
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 23  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, July 15 - 10:29 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online