Compatiable for DJI O3 #9384

xuhao1 · 2023-10-21T14:50:14Z

Better compatibility for DJI O3, including:

G force: for 3d g forces, use single 'G'
Transmitter power, use 'MW'
Roll and pitch, use PIT or ROL
Fly distance
Heading

Some is not perfect, but I believe they are better than '?'

Before

After

Performed fly test on DJI-O3 system with SpeedyBee F405Wing on BF 6.1.1, cherry pick to 7.0 and verified on ground.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:16:42Z

src/main/io/displayport_msp_bf_compat.c

    case SYM_PITCH_DOWN:
-        return BF_SYM_PITCH_DOWN;
+        return BF_SYM_PITCH;


This is ambiguous. DJI should fix the font support.

@mmosca Yes, but this patch should better than '?' since we can't push DJI to do this. May be I should add a minus here.

Not really. Ambiguity can be worse than a question mark.
You will never get full coverage of the OSD with O3, unless DJI implements support for INAV's font.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:20:40Z

src/main/io/displayport_msp_bf_compat.c

    case SYM_HEADING:
-        return BF_SYM_HEADING;
+        return BF_SYM_ARROW_NORTH;


This is trying a bit too hard. The inav icon represents a compass, this is picking an arrow pointing up.

@mmosca But BF do not have something looks like "Compass", so we may choose something like char 'C' or just arrow to represent following number is for heading.

@mmosca But BF do not have something looks like "Compass", so we may choose something like char 'C' or just arrow to represent following number is for heading.

There are a lot of symbols not included in BF. The goal for the BFCOMPAT modes is not to have 0 question marks, but to map the symbols that betaflight actually supports and make it clear when a symbol is not supported, without adding too much complexity to the code, or ambiguity to the OSD.

Unfortunatelly, only DJI can actually fix the overall situation. :(

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:26:19Z

src/main/io/osd.c

@@ -2385,7 +2385,12 @@ static bool osdDrawSingleElement(uint8_t item)
            if (!failsafeIsReceivingRxData())
                tfp_sprintf(buff, "%s%c", "    ", SYM_BLANK);
            else
-                tfp_sprintf(buff, "%4d%c", rxLinkStatistics.uplinkTXPower, SYM_MW);
+                if (isBfCompatibleVideoSystem(osdConfig())) {
+                    tfp_sprintf(buff, "%4dMW", rxLinkStatistics.uplinkTXPower);


We have not added units like this to avoid overcomplicating the osd code even more.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:31:42Z

src/main/io/displayport_msp_bf_compat.c

@@ -186,17 +186,17 @@ uint8_t getBfCharacter(uint8_t ch, uint8_t page)

    case SYM_ALT_M:
        return BF_SYM_M;
+
+    case SYM_TOTAL:


This is probably a valid suggestion.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:42:02Z

I think overall, SYM_TOTAL sugestion is valid and can be merged, but I am not sold on the other items.
As a general rule of thumb, the idea of the beta flight compatibility is to keep it simple and limited to direct 1:1 matches.
The ideal fix would be for DJI to implement support for INAV's font, so we can drop the compatibility option.

We certainly don't want to change units to be fully spelled out, as that opens a can of worms and will add even more complexity to the main osd code, and not only on the bf_compat file.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:45:31Z

Also, some of the proposed introduce ambiguity(pitch up/down sharing the same symbol, for example), which is not good.
The '?' makes it clear that the osd element is not fully supported with O3/DJI.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T15:53:09Z

src/main/io/displayport_msp_bf_compat.c


    case SYM_GFORCE:
-        return BF_SYM_GFORCE;
+        return 'G';


I am on the fence on this one. @MrD-RC, @DzikuVx ?

I’ve left my thoughts below. I don’t think it will surprise you much 😉

I am obviously a bit more accommodating there. Using G for the icon is a simple enough change, and since it did not change the symbol for the other axii, I am leaving towards it being ok to change.

MrD-RC · 2023-10-21T15:55:24Z

Honestly, I think there have been enough changes for DJI. It’s about time they supported their customers. Instead of spending time and money trying to push competitors out of the market.

mmosca · 2023-10-21T16:05:10Z

@xuhao1 if you update the pull request to have only the SYM_TOTAL change and perhaps the G force one it will be more likely to be merged.

Otherwise, if not, I can probably submit a pull request for the SYM_TOTAL on your behalf.

xuhao1 · 2023-10-21T16:08:24Z

@xuhao1 if you update the pull request to have only the SYM_TOTAL change and perhaps the G force one it will be more likely to be merged.

Otherwise, if not, I can probably submit a pull request for the SYM_TOTAL on your behalf.

OK, I will do so. And I think this one is also OK.

 case SYM_ALT_KM:
        return BF_SYM_KM;

In
https://github.com/iNavFlight/inav/pull/9384/files#diff-6ea472db54a67d4190a0add45a955755c7968aa1816046b3699d1bf490d9e564R198

mmosca · 2023-10-21T16:14:03Z

@xuhao1 if you update the pull request to have only the SYM_TOTAL change and perhaps the G force one it will be more likely to be merged.
Otherwise, if not, I can probably submit a pull request for the SYM_TOTAL on your behalf.

OK, I will do so. And I think this one is also OK.
 case SYM_ALT_KM:
        return BF_SYM_KM;
In https://github.com/iNavFlight/inav/pull/9384/files#diff-6ea472db54a67d4190a0add45a955755c7968aa1816046b3699d1bf490d9e564R198

Please don't. This is likely to fall into the ambiguity criteria and even if accepted, would be an incomplete fix, as we have other units as well.

mmosca · 2023-10-22T17:36:54Z

I merged the changes to SYM_TOTAL and GFORCE in a different pull request.

Thanks for the pull request. :)

Compatiable for DJI O3

3eb2173

xuhao1 force-pushed the better-osd-7 branch from 278aad0 to 3eb2173 Compare October 21, 2023 15:10

mmosca reviewed Oct 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

mmosca mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2023

Add SYM_TOTAL and SYM_GFORCE to BFCOMPAT #9385

Merged

mmosca closed this Oct 22, 2023

DzikuVx added this to the 7.0 milestone Oct 23, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Compatiable for DJI O3 #9384

Compatiable for DJI O3 #9384

xuhao1 commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

xuhao1 Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

xuhao1 Oct 21, 2023

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

MrD-RC Oct 21, 2023

mmosca Oct 21, 2023

MrD-RC commented Oct 21, 2023

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023

xuhao1 commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mmosca commented Oct 22, 2023

Compatiable for DJI O3 #9384

Compatiable for DJI O3 #9384

Conversation

xuhao1 commented Oct 21, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuhao1 Oct 21, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MrD-RC commented Oct 21, 2023

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023

xuhao1 commented Oct 21, 2023 • edited Loading

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023 • edited Loading

mmosca commented Oct 22, 2023

xuhao1 commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

xuhao1 Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

xuhao1 commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mmosca commented Oct 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading