v3 EEPROM EXPO/DR conversion error

[GoogleCodeExporter]

As at r1094, converting v3 EEPROM data fails in EXPO/DR screen

Example ...

Model: Groovy (from r569 attached file)
==============================
EXPO/DR
     exp    wt    sw1 sw2
RUD   50   50% -  AIL --- M
ELE   26   45% -> AIL --- M
THR    0  100% <- AIL --- M
AIL   20   60% -> AIL --- M

... and with AIL switched off ...

EXPO/DR
     exp    wt    sw1 sw2
RUD   60  100% -  AIL --- H
ELE   60  105% -> AIL --- H
THR    0  100% <- AIL --- H
AIL   60  100% -> AIL --- H
==============================

... gets translated to ...

==============================
EXPO/DR
RUD   0 100  ---
     60 100  AIL
ELE   0 100  ---
     60 100  AIL
THR
AIL   0 100  ---
     60 100  AIL
==============================

As you can see, "AIL" is on the wrong lines (all should move up one on screen) 
and the AIL_SW=ON (1st, 3rd & 6ty) lines do not have their correct 
corresponding values:50, 26, 20 for expo or their values: 50, 45, 60 for weight.

- - -

Pretty sure this is the last bug, as far as converting from v3 goes. :D

Original issue reported on code.google.com by gru...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 8:10

Attachments:

• eeprom-r569-stock-groovy.hex

[GoogleCodeExporter]

ERRATA: The line ...

ELE   60  105% -> AIL --- H

... should be ...

ELE   60  100% -> AIL --- H

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 8:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There's another problem ...

To get this to work right at all, I have to specify a negative switch for the 
full rate lines. This should not be necessary. Here's what I have to do to make 
it work the same as the old r569 system ...

==============================
EXPO/DR
RUD  50  50  AIL
     60 100 !AIL
ELE  26  45  AIL
     60 100 !AIL
THR
AIL  20  60  AIL
     60 100 !AIL
==============================

This is incorrect, in my view. It should be that the lines with no switch 
assigned should be active (like the default setting) if none of the other lines 
for that channel are active.

I this could be taken care of using flight modes instead. But without flight 
modes being used, it should still work as just a simple EXPO/DR switch, as I 
have described.

No?

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 8:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yes, you are right.

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 9:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Same bug in companion9x as well.

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 2:26

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It was more complex. Previously the expos were ALL applied in the order they 
came. Therefore it was needed to have the default at first and the specific to 
a switch, flight phase next.

I have to say that this logic is a report from th9x. It doesn't correspond to 
my (and your) logic. I prefer when specific is first and general (default) is 
at the end.

Moreover, it should save some us: only one expo will be calculated for a stick. 
There could be many before.

More tests needed (should I say ... as for each of my commits)!

Bertrand.

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 7:40

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Tested and verified. Well done, again!

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 10 Oct 2011 at 9:51

• Changed state: Verified