Smart Hand Controller Old and New version Questions #esp32


 

Hello everyone.

Now I working on my G8 mount with Bluepill STM32 board V1.8 with successful Upload latest Firmware 4.2x thanks everyone that helping my build.

Questions on SHC:
1. SHC old version v1.03 board with ESP32s have any difference then latest SHC version v1.12 with Tessy 3.2 ?

2. On SHC v1.03 have two ST4 output , bottom one is plug in to bluepill board ST4 , so it can power up 
together with SHC. What if I need use ST4 for guiding together with SHC? 
Can I use the 2nd ST4 slot on the SHC board on the right side for guiding?

3. Is their anyway get the old version v1.03 board file for manufacturer? Or now all go v1.12 ?


Dave Schwartz
 

1. These are two different hardware implementations of the SHC - one based on the ESP32 processor and the other based on a Teensy processor - but both are current. The current version of the ESP32 PCB is 1.3 and the current version of the Teensy PCB is 1.12. Both run the same software (compiled for the appropriate processor) so there is no difference in the features. The functional differences are a) the ESP32 uses a 5-way, joystick-style switch in the center of the rosette so you can do manual guiding in all four directions (or menu navigation) without having to move your finger from that one switch and b) because the Teensy has less flash memory than the ESP32, the object catalogs have to be reduced in size so there are fewer objects and less data.

2.Yes, the port on the side is called the auxiliary, or 'pass-through' port and is intended to let you plug in a traditional autoguider there and its movement signals are translated to digital commands to the controller. I test it occasionally on the ESP32 but do not use it. I don't know anyone who actually does use it. Given the more complicated connections, the signal delays that could be introduced by the extra stages and the loss of freedom of movement, it is probably better to let the guide software control OnStep directly via a USB or WiFi connection rather than to send the corrections back up to the guider, where it is sent to the SHC and then back to the controller.

3. For either, just follow the links to where their designs reside at EasyEDA, open them in the editor, click 'Fabrication', select 'PCB Fabrication File(Gerber)', select either 'yes' or 'no' about design rule checking (it makes no difference with either board) and a) select 'Order at JLCPCB' to have JLCPCB create them for you or b) select 'Generate Gerber' to get a zip of the control files which you can upload to the fabrication shop of your choice to have them made. There was a problem recently that the editor did not rebuild the copper area when it loaded a design saved by an older version (and thus produced shorted boards) but I rebuilt and resaved the ESP32 design and it is working properly when checked this morning.

George Cushing also has complete ESP32 SHC kits available from https://www.stmbluepillkits.com/


Roman Hujer
 

Dear Howard

It is planned at some time to add support for Auxiliary devices in SHC eg. Dew Heater, Intervalometer, etc ..?

Thanks you

Roman


Dave Schwartz
 

That's pretty much the reason the ESP32 version was developed.

On 2021-06-01 2:50 a.m., Kokoro San wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:23 PM, Dave Schwartz wrote:

Latest SHC using TEENSY_3.2_BASIC

I wonder why latest version of SHC board use this expansive TEENSY_3.2_BASIC rather then cheaper ESP32 ?


Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️
 

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 09:15 AM, Dave Schwartz wrote:
That's pretty much the reason the ESP32 version was developed.
Unless I am mistaken the teensy version has no advantage over the ESP32. Kind of makes me think that it may be time to "obsolete" the Teensy version like several of the other old boards. Of course, we would keep it's Wiki and a link for archival purposes.


Chad Gray
 

Just my input i had boards made for both and my ESP32 boards i dont think were made right.  Maybe because it was my first time having boards made and I messed something up.  I loaded up the design in the editor.  Went to fabrication > Generate PCB File > then there is s button on the bottom to "order at JLCPCB".  I used all the default settings.

My Teensy boards worked great!  So if you want to drop Teensy if there are any special instructions to make the PCB for the ESP32 please document it.

Chad

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:34 AM Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ <drewbolce@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 09:15 AM, Dave Schwartz wrote:
That's pretty much the reason the ESP32 version was developed.
Unless I am mistaken the teensy version has no advantage over the ESP32. Kind of makes me think that it may be time to "obsolete" the Teensy version like several of the other old boards. Of course, we would keep it's Wiki and a link for archival purposes.


tnut55
 

The problem with the ESP32 SHC is that the current pcb listed (V1.03) does not include either the utility light or the reset for 2.42 displays.  You are either forced to run jumper wires or layout a new board.  Neither problem is insurmountable but these features would be nice if native on the board.

I just finished making my own boards to support these features and are testing them.  I do like the thru-hole switches and the 5 way.  Thru-hole just makes it easier for me to get the switches properly aligned.  The 5 way makes N,S,E,W switches unnecessary.  I provided for them but never installed them.  I'm thinking about creating yet another version that drops them entirely and free up a bit of real estate.

I also changed the board to mount the esp underneath.  The plan was to use the 4 pin 12c only version of the 2.42 display but that must be on the slow boat from China...have not received it yet.

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, 8:55:04 AM CDT, Chad Gray <rchadgray@...> wrote:


Just my input i had boards made for both and my ESP32 boards i dont think were made right.  Maybe because it was my first time having boards made and I messed something up.  I loaded up the design in the editor.  Went to fabrication > Generate PCB File > then there is s button on the bottom to "order at JLCPCB".  I used all the default settings.

My Teensy boards worked great!  So if you want to drop Teensy if there are any special instructions to make the PCB for the ESP32 please document it.

Chad

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:34 AM Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ <drewbolce@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 09:15 AM, Dave Schwartz wrote:
That's pretty much the reason the ESP32 version was developed.
Unless I am mistaken the teensy version has no advantage over the ESP32. Kind of makes me think that it may be time to "obsolete" the Teensy version like several of the other old boards. Of course, we would keep it's Wiki and a link for archival purposes.


George Cushing
 

Chad, I'm very familiar with the ESP32 board. Glad to look at what they sent you if it will help.


Chad Gray
 

I built my SHC with the teensy.  So i have a working SHC now.

I tried three of the five ESP32 PCB boards and every one of them the ESP32 once soldered would not boot up.  

I got tired of wasting parts so I tried the Teensy board and it worked for me the first time.  I am 90% sure it was not my soldering... i must have messed something up on the order.  I think it had something to do with the ground plane if i remember right.

Chad

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 3:29 PM George Cushing <stm32bluepill@...> wrote:
Chad, I'm very familiar with the ESP32 board. Glad to look at what they sent you if it will help.


George Cushing
 

Ouch! After having that happen I pulled the ESP32 and mounted female headers. Now I use the board to test every ESP32 board before I solder it to anything.


Chad Gray
 

Yeah I did that also on my third board and still nothing worked.  So I gave up.


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 8:01 AM George Cushing <stm32bluepill@...> wrote:
Ouch! After having that happen I pulled the ESP32 and mounted female headers. Now I use the board to test every ESP32 board before I solder it to anything.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

The OnStep Wiki as it stands today has the SHC as the Teensy only with a passing link to the ESP32.

I think it is time to move the full ESP32, page that is currently on my web site, to the OnStep Wiki.

It is the recommended version, cheaper overall, and has more accurate and extensive catalogs.


On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 09:15 AM, Dave Schwartz wrote:
That's pretty much the reason the ESP32 version was developed.

On 2021-06-01 2:50 a.m., Kokoro San wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:23 PM, Dave Schwartz wrote:

Latest SHC using TEENSY_3.2_BASIC

I wonder why latest version of SHC board use this expansive TEENSY_3.2_BASIC rather then cheaper ESP32 ?


George Cushing
 

Well, I love the Teensys for everything except their price. A kit would have to be about $45 to break even. 


Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:33 AM, George Cushing wrote:
I love the Teensys for everything except their price.
Can you identify any actual advantage the Teensy has over the ESP32 for the SHC? You have experience with both.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:36 AM, Drew 🔭📷🚴‍♂️ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:33 AM, George Cushing wrote:
I love the Teensys for everything except their price.
Can you identify any actual advantage the Teensy has over the ESP32 for the SHC? You have experience with both.
The ESP32 beats the Teensy when it comes to SHC.
The SHC code has more accurate and more extensive catalogs for the ESP32, than for the Teensy.

So in addition to being cheaper, the ESP32 has more features when it comes to the SHC.

In summary, there is no point in building a Teensy SHC if you are just starting out.
ESP32 is the only practical and recommended platform.


John Petterson
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:32 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
The SHC code has more accurate and more extensive catalogs for the ESP32, than for the Teensy.

Which Teensy catalogs are *less accurate* than their ESP32 counterparts?

I have both Teensy 4.0 and ESP32 based SHCs now, and there are a few little differences.  I will try to summarize my experience.

The biggest advantage for the ESP is the more extensive catalogs on the ESP compilation.  But with a little work to access the catalogs from the eprom instead of real memory, the Teensy could be put on a par with the ESP.  I might still try this some time, unless Howard moves the catalogues to the OnStep box as he has threatened to do.

The Teensy is much less affected by voltage supply fluctuations.  It was specifically designed to be able to operate at marginally lower supply voltages, and in the usage as a SHC I found the ESP freezes up in circumstances that the Teensy just powers through.  Shorter cables help the ESP to hide this shortcoming.   That is the reason that there has been so much discussion about using short cables on the SHC.

Then there is the advantage of a joystick on the ESP, but that is really a 5-way switch and it should be easy to design into the Teensy board if desired.

John


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:41 PM, John Petterson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:32 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
The SHC code has more accurate and more extensive catalogs for the ESP32, than for the Teensy.

Which Teensy catalogs are *less accurate* than their ESP32 counterparts?

I have both Teensy 4.0 and ESP32 based SHCs now, and there are a few little differences.

Look at the code.

The NGC and IC catalogs for the ESP32 are more extensive than the Teensy 4.0.
May not be important for some, but when the cheaper board is more capable, then it is a no brainer.


John Petterson
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:41 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:41 PM, John Petterson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:32 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
The SHC code has more accurate and more extensive catalogs for the ESP32, than for the Teensy.

Which Teensy catalogs are *less accurate* than their ESP32 counterparts?

I have both Teensy 4.0 and ESP32 based SHCs now, and there are a few little differences.

Look at the code.

The NGC and IC catalogs for the ESP32 are more extensive than the Teensy 4.0.

Khalid,   I was asking which entries are less accurate.  Accuracy in this case should indicate that the name, RA and Dec are correct and will point to that target.  I understand the ESP32 listing is more complete.  But are there existing entries in the Teensy listing that do not find the desired point in the sky where that target is?

Since the source for all of these tables should be the same initial listings, I do not understand the original statement.


Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 01:50 PM, John Petterson wrote:

I was asking which entries are less accurate.  Accuracy in this case should indicate that the name, RA and Dec are correct and will point to that target.  I understand the ESP32 listing is more complete.  But are there existing entries in the Teensy listing that do not find the desired point in the sky where that target is?

Since the source for all of these tables should be the same initial listings, I do not understand the original statement.

The pointing will work, but the intrinsic accuracy is better for the ESP32.

Again, look at the code, for example, compare the first entry in both catalogs:

$ grep NGC0001 catalogs/ngc_vc.h catalogs/ngc.h
Teensy 4.0
{ 0, 61,  0, 0,   255,   331,   10088},                        // NGC0001,     G, 00:07:15.84, +27:42:29.1, Peg,       
ESP32
{ 0, 61,  0, 0,       1,  9990,   0.12107,  27.70808}, // NGC0001,     G, 00:07:15.84, +27:42:29.1, Peg,

Compare other entries and see how the code gets the coordinates.

Maybe the difference is practically indiscernible, but it is there ...


Howard Dutton
 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:59 AM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
{ 0, 61,  0, 0,   255,   331,   10088},                        // NGC0001,     G, 00:07:15.84, +27:42:29.1, Peg,       
ESP32
{ 0, 61,  0, 0,       1,  9990,   0.12107,  27.70808}, // NGC0001,     G, 00:07:15.84, +27:42:29.1, Peg,
This is a compact Declination value for example... instead of using a float (4 bytes) use an 16bit int (2 bytes.)

10088/32767 = 0.3078707 (such that the full 16 bit range being +/- 32767 maps to +/- 90 degrees.)
0.3078707 * 90 = 27.70837 (error in this case was about 0.00029 degrees so 1 arc-second.)
,