If you enjoy our forum, why not join us? :) Login removes all the ads too! Click here to register in a few simple steps

Login to remove this ad | Register Here
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
VR Race F7 FC - first ever F7 Flight controller?
#1
Saw this image from Robert Navoni in the Raceflight group on FB.

From the prototype image we can see the FC has an H shape and appear similar to the KISS FC and LUX F3 FC.

It allegedly uses the STM32 F7 processor which is even better than the F4 !

It has two LED on both sides which I believe are the IR transponder for racing.

However we haven't even used up the resource on a F4 chip, not sure how much better our quads would fly with the F7...


Norbert Tóth:

dual core 226MHz if I remember right, I don't think racing could benefit from it but projects like iNav definitely. It opens up for many new features to add.
don't forget that managing dual cores and parallel tasks handling needs special programming. So it's a whole new story to use the full potential of these boards.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Don't be a LOS'er, be an FPV'er :) -- Blog - Facebook - Instagram - Twitter - Google Plus
[-] The following 1 user Likes Oscar's post:
  • Ahmad Ilyas
#2
Good news actually - remember, that a year ago we havent used F3 or even F1 chip resources fully - and firmware wasn't very optimised then Smile

That leaves a lot of space for developers to try new things.
Find me on Youtube and Instagram. I currently fly: NOX5, NOX5RAirblade Assault 130 and drive a scrap RC car
Reply
#3
This will be nice when you can get a stable GPS setup on a mini quad. Sonar and 360° obstacle avoidance. No more mid air crashes at races with other pilots. Be able to program the course into the FC software, hit a switch and set the tx down and enjoy the ride Smile
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bandook's post:
  • fftunes
Reply
Login to remove this ad | Register Here
#4
Hello,

From what Roberto Navoni said on FB I believe it has even two F7 chips... anyway lacks SD card if low flash but will be interesting for sure anyway!

I long for a F7+high-end ARM on one board, to really allow computation-intensive tasks. And connection for the companion computer as in the Dronecode scheme...
Racers are gonna get smart Big Grin
Reply
#5
what is capability ???
at what peak Khz can it run ???
Reply
#6
216MHz
http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/prod...tId=SC1169
Reply
Login to remove this ad | Register Here
#7
Is it even worth it? IMO it would be overkill for racing/acro purpose.
DIY my way through as I allways do!
Reply
#8
(28-Jul-2016, 10:53 PM)FrankCZE Wrote: Is it even worth it? IMO it would be overkill for racing/acro purpose.

Nowadays even for navigation people try to leverage heavy tasks to dedicated processor running Linux (RTOS integration) instead of packing everything into limited MCU. People realized MCU should be only used for very simple/clean/efficient code for timing critical tasks such as stabilization.

Talks about F7 you hear amongs people asking about shorter loop times, so their quads can finally be locked-in, that will never happen. They never get enouch lock-ed in, never the less every few Mhz feels amazing for them. This just shows how naive and stupid this field becomes.

The F7 or Cortex-M7 have been around now for a quite a bit even in small pin packages, still new flight-controllers of known brands use F3 or F4 and there is a VERY good reason for that. There reason that no one designed such a board yet, is because it's stupid idea and nothing to be proud of.
Reply
#9
(27-Jan-2017, 10:48 AM)OneSploit Wrote: Nowadays even for navigation people try to leverage heavy tasks to dedicated processor running Linux (RTOS integration) instead of packing everything into limited MCU. People realized MCU should be only used for very simple/clean/efficient code for timing critical tasks such as stabilization.

Talks about F7 you hear amongs people asking about shorter loop times, so their quads can finally be locked-in, that will never happen. They never get enouch lock-ed in, never the less every few Mhz feels amazing for them. This just shows how naive and stupid this field becomes.

The F7 or Cortex-M7 have been around now for a quite a bit even in small pin packages, still new flight-controllers of known brands use F3 or F4 and there is a VERY good reason for that. There reason that no one designed such a board yet, is because it's stupid idea and nothing to be proud of.

Tell us how you really feel! Lol
The Obsession IS Real!
My Youtube channel. My Threads
Reply
Login to remove this ad | Register Here
#10
(27-Jan-2017, 10:48 AM)OneSploit Wrote: Nowadays even for navigation people try to leverage heavy tasks to dedicated processor running Linux (RTOS integration) instead of packing everything into limited MCU. People realized MCU should be only used for very simple/clean/efficient code for timing critical tasks such as stabilization.

Talks about F7 you hear amongs people asking about shorter loop times, so their quads can finally be locked-in, that will never happen. They never get enouch lock-ed in, never the less every few Mhz feels amazing for them. This just shows how naive and stupid this field becomes.

The F7 or Cortex-M7 have been around now for a quite a bit even in small pin packages, still new flight-controllers of known brands use F3 or F4 and there is a VERY good reason for that. There reason that no one designed such a board yet, is because it's stupid idea and nothing to be proud of.

That's a lot of hate for a first post bro... With that kind of thinking we would still be running baseflight on F1 boards. This is how innovation works, one person takes a leap which may seem foolish in the beginning but that may open up for new ideas that could be truly revolutionary.
[-] The following 1 user Likes tozes's post:
  • Drone0fPrey
Reply
#11
(27-Jan-2017, 04:23 PM)...tozes Wrote: That's a lot of hate for a first post bro... With that kind of thinking we would still be running baseflight on F1 boards. This is how innovation works, one person takes a leap which may seem foolish in the beginning but that may open up for new ideas that could be truly revolutionary.

I am just rational, we don't even yet fully utilize F4 targets RAM and clock, and therefore what stops you from "taking a leap" with those, before stepping into F7 ? Unless you decide to oversample just for the sake of eating up CPU cycles, but then any CPU clock won't be enough for you, I don't really see any advantage of F7 for a racer and it's not that F7 is cheaper.

It's not gonna fly faster, it's not going to be more locked in, though I really hope some day they will finally get. It's definitly not going to make you a better pilot.

Without critical thinking we might get soon 64kHz loop times, TrulyTheBestShot and gyro in the center of each ESC to reduce latency and vibrations, who knows what not. Yet how that matters ? People try to improve on scales which are irrelevant.

How about getting attention of community by spending all that energy and effort into something more challanging which is actually software that improves flight experience, instead of going just for bumping up specs and clock speeds ?
Reply
#12
I guess I can sort of see both sides of this.  On the one hand, my piloting skills don't yet take advantage of nearly everything even my F1 boards provide Big Grin . And yet, I've already got a couple of F3 boards (and one F4 still unmounted).

On the other hand,  I am possibly benefitting from a couple of things my F3 boards provide that my F1 doesn't (I couldn't tell you what yet).

I'm not too worried about it.  Some people are driven to tinker with the software side of these things,  while others are driven to tinker with the hardware itself.  I think that at the rate this sport/hobby is growing,  there will be enough community energy to do both.  I am grateful for the guys (gals) out there who do this stuff and I'm content to let them focus their energy where it leads them.  If the hardware products produced don't attract the software gurus (and the ordinary pilots), they will die a natural death anyway.

And BTW, what happened to F5 and F6 (and Windows 9)?  Tongue
Reply
Login to remove this ad | Register Here
#13
(28-Jan-2017, 11:13 AM)sloscotty Wrote: I guess I can sort of see both sides of this.  On the one hand, my piloting skills don't yet take advantage of nearly everything even my F1 boards provide Big Grin . And yet, I've already got a couple of F3 boards (and one F4 still unmounted).

On the other hand,  I am possibly benefitting from a couple of things my F3 boards provide that my F1 doesn't (I couldn't tell you what yet).

I'm not too worried about it.  Some people are driven to tinker with the software side of these things,  while others are driven to tinker with the hardware itself.  I think that at the rate this sport/hobby is growing,  there will be enough community energy to do both.  I am grateful for the guys (gals) out there who do this stuff and I'm content to let them focus their energy where it leads them.  If the hardware products produced don't attract the software gurus (and the ordinary pilots), they will die a natural death anyway.

And BTW, what happened to F5 and F6 (and Windows 9)?  Tongue

This happened to them:




They don't really exist...
[-] The following 2 users Like varkokonyi's post:
  • KonradS, sloscotty
Reply
#14
I like to have more UART connections.
You use one for the usb connection, one for the RX input and one for the telemetry, sometimes you like to run blackbox or GPS and then you have to be creative with UART connections.
If you are using soft serial then you lose the LED function and that kind of stuff.
Reply
#15
An F7 board showed up in Banggod,
Check this out http://www.banggood.com/STM32F745-100lqf...mywishlist
I wish it would come up with an integrated PDB
Reply
Login to remove this ad | Register Here


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  FC Leak: Flyduino F7 flight controller - KISS FC V2 Oscar 7 316 14-Nov-2017, 11:23 PM
Last Post: unseen
  RTF Emax NightHawk PRO 200, enter the race Pimousse 1 169 01-Sep-2017, 11:34 AM
Last Post: unseen
  Frame Versus Quad One, built for race Pimousse 0 219 15-Aug-2017, 07:02 AM
Last Post: Pimousse
  FC Mini acro F4 flight controller KonradS 3 690 07-Jul-2017, 02:20 AM
Last Post: dukevah
  FC KIWI.F4 Flight Controller + KIWI PDB from FlyingLemon tozes 37 5,062 29-May-2017, 12:33 PM
Last Post: tozes