Author Topic: New CC Software (Read 3103 times)

andreas johansson · « **on:** August 04, 2009, 05:19:16 AM »

Hi all

New CC link and Phoenix software is available.

Link:
* Added release version of firmware for Phoenix-ICE controllers
* Added release version of firmware for Mamba Max Pro controllers
* Many changes to the Graph-Viewer application used by data-logging controllers

Phoenix/Phoenix ICE:
* First public release of Phoenix ICE controllers
* Added 'Outrunner Mode' PWM Rate to Phoenix 35 and higher controllers
* Improved the performance of motor startup
* Changed governor mode behavior - the governor will no longer lock at low throttle outputs

Andreas

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2009, 07:40:46 AM »

Andreas,
Did you order an "Ice"

Alan

andreas johansson · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2009, 08:43:52 AM »

Hi Alan

Not yet, I did however received a Phoenix 35 ESC today. It was ordered before i knew about the ICE line. I will order an "ICE" for my Legacy project.

Andreas

andreas johansson · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2009, 09:42:29 AM »

Hi all!

I have updated two Phoenix controllers now. One thing worth noticing is that its no way back, you cant downgrade from this release. The upgrading of both the computer software and ESC firmware worked like a charm. I did notice that under the PWM menu there is now an entry called "Outrunner mode" I will test that, it does not say anything about the PWM-rate in O/R-mode. There is more things, but I havent hade the time to sit down and check it out.

Andreas

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:29:22 PM »

I flew the new software tonight. There are some issues that I found. The new software starts the motor very smoothly. That's about all the good that I can say. Now the disappointing:

1) On the first run up on the first flight at the field the motor screeched like a bearing went bad on takeoff. Then on the RWO it "burped" like I was going to loose the prop. Then on the triangles same thing. Then 1 other time during the flight. I could hear the motor again speed up during each burp. After landing the motor was noticably warmer, a bit warm to the touch. The battery was just a touch warmer but not as much as the motor.

The next flight I used the Eagle Tree and the flight was almost the same as the first, screeching on takeoff and burping during the flight. I downloaded the Eagle Tree and I was a bit surprised that I was using 200 mah more. 2450 to 2650. But looking at the RPM on the chart it looked like as the flight went on the width of the rpm on the chart went from fairly wide to normal. See the attached chart.

On the 3rd flight I set the CC45 from "Outrunner" to the 12khz setting for PWM like it was before the update. This time there was no screeching, or burping and the motor behaved just like before. It drew 2719mah! I flew the airplane yesterday in about 6-9mph winds and drew about 2450 average over the 4 flgihts. The only change from yesterday to today was the update to the CC45.

Frankly, I wish I can go back to the previous software version. The motor starting really didn't bother me. I now have to try different PWM combos to see what works best and doesn't heat up so much and use more mah.

The first Flight using the new software and the "Outrunner" mode in the PWM setting.
The second one is using 12khz in the PWM mode.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2009, 01:36:27 AM »

Hi

I flew the new software this morning and here are my findings:

I did use the Outrunner PWM setting.

1. the motor was definately warmer than usual.

2. the battery was also warmer than usual.

3. RPM occilations in low propload situations, like the dive part of the wing over.

4. the prop brake didnt work.

I did not have my computer with me to the field so I could not change any settings to compare.

I also wish I could reverse to the old software. I have changed the PWM setting to 12khz and I will try again tomorrow.

/Andreas

andreas johansson · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2009, 05:32:21 AM »

I did a test on the ground in my garden with the ESC at 12khz PWM rate and now the prop brake works. No screeching sound in either mode.

Andreas

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2009, 07:04:28 AM »

Crist & Andreas - Just so we are all clear, can you post the last "old" & successful versions of software & firmware you were using and what the new versions are?

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:09:09 AM »

Sure Dennis:
Old:
CastleLink v3.13
Phoenix v2.11

New:
CastleLink v3.16
Phoenix v2.16

I made the big mistake of updating all of my controllers at the same time...really dumb. I have 2 CC Phoenix 45 and should have updated only one then I would have a good test from one update to the other. I'm hoping I can get the old version loaded into one and then go out and do some more comparisons. In my MHO Castle didn't do me any favors in the latest update. Castle never really explains what "Outrunner" mode really is. A bit disappointing.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:28:55 AM »

Christ: I did the same mistake and updated all my controllers

The general advice right now must be to NOT upgrade to version 2.16!

I have changed my PWM to 12khz and set the timing advance to low. Will test tomorrow and report back.

Andreas

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:37:04 AM »

The "Outrunner" mode was one of the items I was confused about in their announcement. I wish CC would explain better what exactly is being "optimized".

Without boring everyone to tears, the two obvious things with these motors is the timing of the commutation switching and the PWM frequency.
As a tooth in the stator becomes aligned with the magnetic field of a permanent magnet, the torque drops off. At some point you want to turn off the current, and then switch it so the tooth now pushes away from the magnet. Where exactly you do this is what is called (I think) the timing. If you are trying to extract the last little bit f torque, then you hold off to the last microsecond, however if you are more interested in conserving energy, you might turn off somewhat earlier, and then holdoff a bit for the push segment. At least that's the way I visualize it.

With regards to PWM frequency, the natural way to go is to have the period of the pulse be short compared to the natural "L/R" time constant that a motor inductance (L) and resistance produce. This produces a nice proportional "DC" like voltage. If the period is too long (low PWM rate), it is more like hitting the motor with a series of on/off pulses. When I posted a plot of an oscilloscope trace of the current going into my Scorpion motor (with a PWM rate of ~12kHz), it appeared to be the on/off pulses where the actual description of what was going on. That's why I am running 24kHz right now. It may be making about ~5% better efficiency than before. However I doubt that would be contributing to the heating of the motor that Crist and Andreas are seeing.

So my guess is that it is the motor timing that is more aggressive (CC says that a higher timing will generate more motor heating). But that is just a guess. In my setup, I always choose the less aggressive timing. I figure my motor is already sized large enough that I don't need to stress it needlessly.

My 2 cents!

Also shows how useful it is to stay away from the bleeding edge!

andreas johansson · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2009, 11:44:56 AM »

Quote

Also shows how useful it is to stay away from the bleeding edge!

No @#$%! I have certainly learned it this time.

However, I'm certain that myself and Crist will find a way out of this firmware hell.

/Andreas

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2009, 12:25:33 PM »

Quote from: Andreas on August 06, 2009, 11:44:56 AM

No @#$%! I have certainly learned it this time.
However, I'm certain that myself and Crist will find a way out of this firmware hell.

/Andreas

I am sure too.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #13 on:** August 06, 2009, 03:10:05 PM »

CC released new software again, nothing new for Phoenix but for Phoenix HV. Also a new version of Castle Link is released.

Crist: if you find a way to downgrade to v. 2.11 please let me know.

/Andreas

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2009, 07:43:11 PM »

So now that the new release is out, I can let the cat out of the bag. I have been testing the ICE50 for 2 months. I have not uploaded this firmware version, but according to the beta testing site for castle, the release version was the same as the 3.15 that I have been using for a month with no issues. I know that testing has shown that the higher PWM rates are better. The Beta forum was full of guys testing outrunners and all tried the outrunner mode and all moved away from it because of screeching and poor run quality. I have mine set @ 18, and timing set @ high (15). This is running a 35-42-1000 Turnigy SK on 4S running a 9 x 7.5 prop @ 13,000 rpm @ 475 watts in the air. I have had no issues with it. My uncle Dennis came down here and flew before Brodak with the ICE50 in the Mythbuster and it worked just like the pheonix 35. The motor temps were in the low 90's. Battery temps were low as well.

I really don't know what to say about Crist's & Andreas findings, but I will send out a request to Patrick @ Castle to get some info on PWM rates and timing for outrunners. I know that the enhanced governor works only when you are between 70-92% throttle. You can see where you are in fixed rpm mode and click on the more info button next to each rpm. If your rpm is in red, and you have the note that the rpm can't be governed correctly, you need to select a different prop to increase or decrease rpm or select a different motor Kv.

Archie Adamisin
Muncie, Indiana

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:08:48 PM »

Thanks Archie I/we would appreciate if you can shed any light on improving our runs. I will try higher PWM and timing. I'm running "Normal" timing and 12khz. The settings for PWM are Outrunner, 8, 12, 16, 24. I'll report back as to what I find out.

andreas johansson · « **Reply #16 on:** August 07, 2009, 02:43:17 AM »

Hi boys!

Went to the field again this morning. At 12khz PWM rate the motor works as it is supposed to. The motor and battery is warmer than normal but the weather here is also warmer and I have never flown my E-Nobler in so warm weather as it has been the last couple of days, temp is around 82 degrees F and its normally around 70 F. When the temp goes down to normal I can get a definitely answer to wether (sp?) the motor/battery gets warmer or not.

/Andreas

John Witt · « **Reply #17 on:** August 07, 2009, 04:28:31 PM »

I was able to easily remove version 3.16 from my computer and reinstall version 3.13. The download simply wrote a new executable and did not erase the old one. I just used Control Panel to remove 3.16, then reinstalled 3.13.

However, I had not written anything from 3.16 to my ESC. I don't know what the result would be trying to reinstall the prior firmware to the ESC. It seems that it would be possible, since the software is just filling some registers with RO data, however, I don't know anything about how the programming of the ESC is handled.

I believe I will hold off on 3.16 for awhile until you guys out there on the bleeding edge say it's OK.

John

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #18 on:** August 07, 2009, 04:47:26 PM »

John,
Yeah, I still have 3.13 on my computer too. It's the ESC that can't go backwards.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #19 on:** August 11, 2009, 10:12:15 PM »

I flew some tonight and gathered some Eagle Tree data. More tomorrow when I go flying. Then I'll report on my findings.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #20 on:** August 12, 2009, 09:28:26 PM »

Here are the results on 4 flights trying different combinations. Flying after work I can only fly about 4 flights so I couldn't try all combos. That will have to wait till next weekend when I have the time.

The charts are in order and here are the sttings:

PWM Timing Batt Temp Motor Temp
16 Low 123 111
16 Normal 128 114
16 High 130 122
24 Normal 130 116

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #21 on:** August 13, 2009, 07:23:21 AM »

Interesting that there isn't much difference in the battery maHr usage (or in much of anything in the plots).

An observation is that the rpm plot looks less noisy in the last plot. No idea what that means!

Another comment from the plots is that the low timing as the lowest max wattage used, but that could be the way you flew that flight.

Refreshing my memory, are these plots way off what you were seeing before the new firmware??

I'll also note that when I last flew the Vector, it was pretty calm, and my battery usage went up (noticeably) over previous flights where there was some wind.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #22 on:** August 13, 2009, 08:14:45 AM »

Alan,
I'll post a previous Graph when I get home, just for a reference.

walterbro · « **Reply #23 on:** August 13, 2009, 09:59:24 AM »

Hi Guys - Your findings are very interesting to me as I have ordered a CC Phoenix ICE lite 50 25v ESC from TOWER. I wonder what S/W will be on the ESC as I receive
it . Has anyone bought one and checked the S/W?

Later
Walt

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #24 on:** August 13, 2009, 10:26:22 AM »

Walt,

The ICE will come with the new firmware installed. I just sent in my beta ICE50 for a component upgrade and have also ordered a new ICE50 as well. I ordered teh Heat sink version because it ran very cool in all of my high current and governing testing.

Still wondering what is up with Crists findings. His are done using the standard Phoenix though.

Archie Adamisin

Muncie, Indiana

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2009, 09:01:16 PM »

Well guys I have another Phoenix 45 ESC with v2.11 (old) firmware installed. I plan on flying the Resolve EP on Sunday using 2 P-45 with v2.11 and v2.16 (new) and compare the results such as mah used, battery temp, motor temp, and esc temp. I'll post my chart here late Sunday evening.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #26 on:** August 24, 2009, 07:29:25 PM »

Here are my numbers from flying Sunday. Temps were about 75 and wind was calm to 3 mph. I'll post the whole chart first then in the next 2 posts will be the chart sorted by Battery Mah, Battery Temp, Motor Temp, and ESC Temp. I didn't get all 24 flights in but I did get in 14. Let me know what you comments are. Please ignore the the lines that show the difference.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2009, 07:30:50 PM »

Here are the battery MAH and Battery Temp charts:

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2009, 07:32:13 PM »

Here are the final 2 charts. They are Motor Temp and ESC Temp.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #29 on:** August 25, 2009, 06:14:23 AM »

Crist:
First off this is a formidable test series you are doing - and I THANK YOU for sharing it! This should really lay the groundwork for us as far as the impact of selecting Timing & PWM rates.

Are you forming any prelim observations/conclusions (pending completion of the test series)?

From what you have posted I am not sure that there is a really significant difference in the Firmware/Software versions. To be sure, there appears to be a difference because several test series show a small but consistant trend, but (unless I am missing something) the differences as such do not appear to be all that substantial.

What about your observations from a qualitative view; I think you wrote that when you first changed over you had issues like motor screeching and prop brake trouble - have those gone away? Do you feel or sense any differences in performance (beyond the numbers) with different timing levels or PWM rates, or with one version of the software versus the other?

For my part I have upated all but one active Phx to the new s/w, the holdout will be updated the next time I change a setting, as I see no reason to update for updates sake. So far so good...

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #30 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:26:51 AM »

Crist,
I am impressed too! You put in the flights so we will know!

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only parameter that seems to make a significant difference is the Motor timing--with low being "better". PWM doesn't seem to be much (with 12kHz seemingly being fine if not the nominal best value).

It looked like the new software was giving you about an extra 100 mAHr more draw (if I recall correctly).

Now the comparison is between the absolute newest and the one released last spring (2009). I'm still running the release from summer of 2008 when they first released the CL option with brake and also the set rpm. I'm rather loath to change at all since with my current setups and hardware, it seems to work fine. Also the fact that one can't backtrack is a little scary---although I am guessing I am worrying about basically nothing.

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #31 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:43:32 AM »

Here are some of my observations. The higher the PWM the more "aggresive" the motor was. I didn't time my laps, but with a high PWM lap times were quicker by about .1 to .2 faster. V2.16 seemed a bit "edgy" overall while V2.11 seemed mellow, which is what I like. The motor start between the 2 versions wasn't all that noticable. If you are really unhappy on how your motor starts with v2.11 then perhaps v2.16 is for you. I purposely didn't do any analyzing because you will have to draw you own conclusions.

The average difference between the 2 are:

Battery mah: 80
Battery temp: 4.9
Motor temp: 2.7
ESC temp: 5.3

The high and low difference of each:

Battery mah: 162/66
Battery temp: 8/1
Motor temp:9/1
ESC temp: 17/1

I'll post any updates as testing continues in the next several weeks.

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #32 on:** August 25, 2009, 08:25:36 AM »

..and you are using the MEDIUM governor gain - holding that as a constant?

I am somewhat prone to leaping to conclusions, so here's a SWAG:
* I thought that from 3.12 to 3.13 CC made some changes to the Governor. If so maybe the gov gain setting under 3.12 (Alan's set-up?) MIGHT need to be slightly different under 3.13?

* I thought that since 3.13 the only changes CC made were those needed to accomodate the new ICE Data Logger. If that was true, you should not be seeing ANY differences in 3.16 versus 3.13.

* Higher PWM (faster control signals) COMBINED with high governor settings MIGHT both lead to a more assertive governor performance - the "aggressiveness" you are sensing? More assertive governor performance should show up as higher power usage. Power=heat, so everything else starts aligning. If that is all true than a slightly lower governor setting might let you take the edge of that aggressiveness.

In CC's set-up routine they "warn" that higher PWM rates will lead to higher ESC temperatures. Your tests seem to support that but there is not a lot happening there either - at least for the PWM settings you have tested.

BTW, starting with the Detroit contest I changed my Governor Gain settings from Low (#7) to Custom (#10). I think the Medium setting is a #14. Based on conversations & postings I have also advanced the PWM from 12 to 16. I like how it is working but really cannot point a smoky gun at WHY I like it! I have NOT pursued what CC recommended by advancing the governor until the motor starts spitting & sputtering. That would be UNDIGNIFIED behavior for an outrunner!

I guess changing things just gives me the illusion of being in control

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2009, 09:44:13 AM »

Crist,
If I understand your last comment about PWM being "more aggressive", I would assume that the rpm is somewhat higher. I am not sure I would have predicted that. However flying faster of course would cost you more energy. Note that PWM doesn't have much to do with the commutation, except that it should be faster than the commutation. For 8000-9000 rpm the ESC is commuting in the 2000Hz range for our 14 pole motors. Actually I am not sure if it is 1/2 or 2x 2000Hz, but it is somewhere in this range. I read on the CC Forum that the new "Out Runner mode" automatically adjusts the PWM up as the prop rpm goes up.

Naively, a higher PWM has two effects, one good and one not-so-good

The good concerns the motor. I would say "ideally" the PWM rate would be fast enough so that the motor "feels" like it is being driven by a nice continuous DC current (this is ignoring the commutations). A low PWM means that the motor is being driven by discrete pulses of full voltage--sort of like hitting it with a hammer (an exaggeration). For the motor, the former is more efficient, since the current is smoother (almost constant and equal to the average current) while in the latter case you get higher peak currents. But of course you get the same average current since we would be turning the prop at the same rpm. Since motor heating goes as the square of the peak current *the duty cycle, you make less heat (in the motor) with a higher PWM. Any heat you make is power not going to the prop.

The not-so-good concerns the ESC. In the analysis I use above, I normally assume the battery current is either full on (during the on part of the PWM drive) and full off in the off period. So if we are running 70% throttle, we are pulling current 70% of the time from the battery, and are off 30% of the time (so you have 70% duty cycle). Now the reality isn't like that. As the ESC turns on the FET's, they go from basically full off (infinite resistance) to full on (almost zero resistance), but for a short period during the transition,they have a finite resistance, and this is what heats up the ESC. A higher PWM rate means more transitions per second, so the FET's will be in this transitional phase more than at a lower rate. Again, more heat means power not going to the motor (plus ESC heating).

I seem to think that the "good" of high PWM tends to beat the "bad" of high PWM. It isn't a lot, and from some data Igor Burger gave a year or two ago, it looks like at most a 5% effect.

I don't think this is inconsistent with your results, if you were indeed flying faster. It goes to show you that there are a lot of variables in this business, and it is hard to really change only one thing at a time. At least we don't have to worry about the combustion process of an IC engine too!

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2009, 11:05:48 AM »

Dennis,
The only things I changed from one version to the other was PWM and Timing. If I can remember I have both versions of ESC's set to medium throttle response, govenor gain set to 21, Head Speed Change Rate set to High, Initial Spool up Rate set to High.

Archie Adamisin · « **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2009, 04:12:06 PM »

Crist,

What a great set of data sheets you have made here. I think it is official that you are the Castle setting guru!!!

Your findings about increasing the PWM rate increasing your lap time is very interesting. PWM rate is going to be a really important setting for us to fine tune our set-ups. With the increased governor function that Castle is promoting, I believe that the relationship between the governor gain, head speed change rate, motor timing, and PWM rate will need to be determined. I am building diligently to try to help get another set of tests on another completely different system to see if I can replicate your results. I would also be interested in seeing if the ICE controllers govern any different than the phoenix do. They have different internal components so it will be interesting if that has any effect.

Please keep us posted to the rest of your testing. I am hoping to have a testing session this weekend with Uncle Dennis weather permitting and will get some readings on the eagle tree to look over.

Thanks for all the hard work!!

Take Care,
Archie Adamisin
Muncie Indiana

Crist Rigotti · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2009, 07:10:20 PM »

Archie,
Sounds great. I just write down what I read off my temp gauge and what the charger puts back in. I'll try and get some more this weekend too. BTW I have an Eagle Tree chart for each flight too.

Author Topic: New CC Software (Read 3103 times)

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn

Alan Hahn