RTD Explorer Feature Requests (Cougar Controller Interface Software)

[roflwaffle]

Ewww, Java! It's probably fine, but IIRC it's kinda processor intensive compared to other languages

[dcb]

I know the controller doesn't put speed out there, that doesn't mean it should be ignored just because it isn't conveniently on the rs232 port.

but gps is expensive overkill, and not reliable in many situations (relies on radio signals, valleys, buildings, tunnels, etc.) when a wheel sensor probably already exists and can be read with a tiny bit of hardware and will work far more reliably.

And yes it will need calibrating, but you are going to add $50 to the pricetag for info that the vehicle already has otherwise.

I would suggest that you ask the controller folks to incorporate a speed signal onto the rs232 line, or make a simple proxy device that adds that info, i.e.

software -requestinfo-> speedmonitor -requestinfo-> cougar

cougar -response-> speedmonitor (adds current velocity to rs232 stream) -response+-> software

then compute distance based on last query, or have it somehow report actual distance.
Anyway, I wouldn't add gps expense and flakiness just for speed (the things take like 30 seconds to boot up?), it is simple and cheap and reliable to use what the car already has. And it is a critical piece of information when measuring vehicle efficiency.

[dcb]

for this java is fine, and will run on everything from a mac to a pc to linux, it is what the arduino ide is written in and most other things that aren't trying to pander to PCs.

[bobert5064]

Originally Posted by dcb

I know the controller doesn't put speed out there, that doesn't mean it should be ignored just because it isn't conveniently on the rs232 port.

Actually it does matter because our program is primarily an interface to the controller, hence the decision to go with a plugin architecture after the core program is finished. There is a big difference between developing software and developing hardware.

Originally Posted by dcb

I would suggest that you ask the controller folks to incorporate a speed signal onto the rs232 line, or make a simple proxy device that adds that info, i.e.

At this point there isn't even a way to get the speed information into the controller it's not as simple as just outputting it.

Originally Posted by dcb

Anyway, I wouldn't add gps expense and flakiness just for speed (the things take like 30 seconds to boot up?), it is simple and cheap and reliable to use what the car already has. And it is a critical piece of information when measuring vehicle efficiency.

Again, this is why we are developing plugins, we want to do the GPS, not just to calculate speed, but because it also allows us to calculate a more accurate distance as well. It will also allow us to calculate elevation changes so that you will be able to see how the vehicle reacts to inclines. We are not forcing anyone to use GPS and if someone develops a speed sensor that will interface with a computer, we will be happy to add a plugin for that as well... or someone else can as the plugin architecture will be open.

Originally Posted by Adamj12b

if your posting mention that I will start designing a simple rs232 speed interface circuit

Sounds like Adam might work on one, but it is not high on our priority list right now.

[bobert5064]

Originally Posted by dcb

for this java is fine, and will run on everything from a mac to a pc to linux, it is what the arduino ide is written in and most other things that aren't trying to pander to PCs.

We have written the program in .net and plan to keep it that way. A complete port to another language at this point would be a ridiculous waste of time. There are also .net components that we depend on to make this work and it would also be a waste of time to port those. We have had very few (in fact none, until today) request for this to even be available on Linux and many people are running it under Windows. So, up until this point it has been in the very back of our minds. If/when we decide to port we will be using Mono because it will be an easy transition and will allow us to update them concurrently.

[dcb]

this is a trivial visual basic application that only needs com port access. to add layers of "net components" to accomplish it then to add more layers is NOT something this architect of many many years can endorse, nor do I concur that software people should wash their hands of hardware at this level, you are trying to convey to the user what the hardware is doing. As well I don't agree with many of the assertions made so far, i.e. "waste of time".

Is this open source? Where is the source?

[bobert5064]

Originally Posted by dcb

this is a trivial visual basic application that only needs com port access. to add layers of "net components" to accomplish it then to add more layers is NOT something this architect of many many years can endorse, nor do I concur that software people should wash their hands of hardware at this level, you are trying to convey to the user what the hardware is doing. As well I don't agree with many of the assertions made so far, i.e. "waste of time".

If you believe that this is a "trivial" application then I welcome you to write a similar application in whatever language you choose. Honestly I really don't care what you recommend, I know how the application works and that it is architected correctly to suit it's purposes. I am not going to go in depth about it here. Clearly I am not "watching my hands of hardware" since I am writing software that interfaces with a hardware device, but I am not about to go out and develop my own hardware, that would be way outside of my scope. I would say that I am the only one qualified to determine what is a waste of time in developing my software. If you would like to do it another way, it's your time and you can use it as you like.

Originally Posted by dcb

Is this open source? Where is the source?

No, this program is not Open Source.

Anyway, I am through arguing about this, it is not the point of the thread. To answer your feature request; We may port to linux at a later date using Mono.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by bobert5064

No, this program is not Open Source.

I have nothing else to discuss, thanks for your time.

[jackbauer]

How difficult would it be to get it to run on say win95 / 98? Just asking cos i have an old laptop that could be used in the car permanently?

[bobert5064]

That's a pretty good question. The program requires the .net framework which is available for Windows 98, but the only reference I can find for it is 1.1, which is not high enough to run RTD Explorer. So at this point I would say that it is likely not possible. As I said in some of the other posts we do plan on porting it to Mono at some point so that it can be run on Linux which should run really well on older hardware. If that is an option for you then I would highly suggest that when we make the change!

Good luck!