Suggestion for enhancement for trims

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Currently the trim value for a particular flight mode depends solely on the 
trim lever position and the flight mode group.

Trim_value (fm) = Trim_lever_position (fm_group)

In many applications e.g. F3X gliders one wants trims to have both global and 
fm-related components. So the suggestino is to add a 'trim modifier' field to 
the flight mode menu so the user can specify a flight mode specific offset:

Trim_value (fm) = Trim_lever_position (fm_group) + trim_modifier (fm)

This scheme would provide additional functionality rather (i.e. it would not 
replace) the current trim mechanism whereby trim values are shared within a 
group of related flight modes.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by m.shel...@gmail.com on 29 Jul 2013 at 10:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 30 Jul 2013 at 10:13

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You can already do this in Mixer.
To my opinion, that's very complicated for a poor value as you can already 
differenciate each trim in each flight mode regardless of what you choose for 
other trims. And it is easier to set offset by the stick's trim rather then 
static value.

Original comment by f.ague...@wanadoo.fr on 31 Jul 2013 at 6:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> You can already do this in Mixer

With an offset? For dual ailerons you'd need two equal offset entries :-( 
Better  place for this offset would be in the Expo/DR level, but offset 
parameter is not supported.  Expanding Expo/DR to have Offset property would be 
very useful.

Original comment by m.shel...@gmail.com on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There will be an offset in Expo/DR level in next MAJOR release.

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That should solve it - thanks :)

Original comment by m.shel...@gmail.com on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Question, when should this offset be applied in expos? After weight / curve, or 
before?

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2013 at 6:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

IMO the effect of the new offset should be the same as trim-lever offsets, 
since I think this is how they will be used. Typically a flyer might start with 
independent trims, then program the deltas as Offsets per flight mode, then 
reconfigure global trims.

It should also work like Offsets in mixers... for consistency!

Hopefully these two conditions can be reconciled?

Original comment by m.shel...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2013 at 9:26

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There will be a huge change. Trim option will not be handled at Mixer level, 
but at DR/Expos level. 

I propose to have trims and offsets at the very end of DR/Expos calculation. It 
means that the dual rates that the user will configure let's say on ailerons 
won't change the offset and trim, I think this is mandatory!

Now, once that done, it means that the offset at the end of DR/Expos is 
redundant with offset at the beginning of Mixes. Then I propose to move the 
offset in Mixes to the end of Mixes calculation.

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2013 at 9:43

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> It means that the dual rates that the user will configure 
> let's say on ailerons won't change the offset and trim, I think this is 
mandatory!

Verified on my 4000, altering DR does not affect trim. 

> Now, once that done, it means that the offset at the end of DR/Expos 
> is redundant with offset at the beginning of Mixes. 

I think that changing the order of offsets at the mixer level might have a 
restrictive effect which will not be compensated by having 'output offsets' at 
the DR/Expo line. 

Example: when setting 'no trim' and 'no DR/Expo' in the mixer line, you bypass 
the DR/Expo definition and the Offset value represents a % displacement of the 
control. This can be very useful for some mixers. But if processing of Offset 
is moved to the end of the chain, offset is no longer synomymous with stick 
position. 

Also, the current method allows different 'input' offsets for different mixer 
lines. Unless DR/Expo was enhanced to allow multiple definitions per control 
(as well as 'output' offsets), I think you would lose this flexibility? 

Original comment by m.shel...@gmail.com on 2 Aug 2013 at 1:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Done in LUA branch (offset added to expos)

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 5 Aug 2013 at 7:53

• Changed state: Fixed