Back
[00:33:32] <Blecha> Hey anyone online.
[00:35:43] <Blecha> specing : I'm out of internet but at a friends, got my chips in this morning so ive been programming and playing around. Changed my fuse for an external clock, but didn't mess with the clock division register.
[00:36:08] <Blecha> So my serial has been garbled all day, hopefully that should get it working properly
[04:41:35] <opx> Hello
[04:42:05] <opx> http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/library.html talks about 'object modules', are these the .o files your compiler generates?
[04:42:46] <Xark> opx: Yes
[04:45:02] <opx> So, if you build a lib(multiple modules/source files) and you dont use all of it, then not your whole lib is included in your program?
[04:45:03] <Xark> Hmm, however I am not sure it is entirely accurate. I believe the GNU linker supports function level linking (where each function is in a separate section), so it is not always true AFAIK that it "links in THE ENTRE OBJECT MODULE...".
[04:45:25] <Xark> opx: Well, a lib is just a whole bunch of .o files tacked together.
[04:45:53] <Xark> opx: So even when .o files were the smallest unit, if you broke your lib up into lots of .o flles then it would have small granularity.\
[04:46:09] <opx> Xark: I see, I thought it would generate one big .o file
[04:46:14] <opx> Xark: thanks :)
[04:47:04] <Xark> opx: No a library is also called an archive because it is literally a bunch of .o files appended together with a symbol index added (so the linker can quickly determine if the lib has the needed symbol).
[04:47:26] <specing> opx: put a bunch of static functions into a header file
[04:47:39] <specing> that way gcc can inline them
[04:48:05] <specing> and allocate registers more wisely
[04:48:16] <opx> do they have to be static?
[04:48:40] <specing> yes, otherwise they are likely to be call-ed
[04:49:03] <specing> and calling usually involves a ret and if you are not lucky, a lot of push/pops
[04:49:43] <Xark> opx: If they aren't static and you include the header more than once you will get duplicate definition link errors. Using static inline is similar in effect to a #define macro (but normal function syntax).
[04:50:22] <specing> using a library is better if you use the functions in more than one .c file
[04:50:48] <specing> but my current coding goes the path of one .c main file and a bunch of included header files
[04:51:39] <specing> And if you have your functions in .h files, you can also #define customize them before including
[04:51:51] <opx> why do you prefer included header files instead of a lib that can be shared among other projects?
[04:52:05] <specing> or include them multiple times, reconfiguring them each time
[04:52:11] <Xark> specing: For small functions inline can be a huge win (where calling code can be smaller than a few inline ops).
[04:52:23] <specing> opx: a header can also be shared among other projects
[04:52:55] <specing> opx: I have my own include tree that I -I/path on each projects' command-line
[04:53:06] <opx> specing: yes, but why not use a lib? because you cant use #define macros?
[04:53:18] <specing> *in each projects' SConstruct file
[04:53:21] <specing> opx: indeed
[04:53:34] <Xark> opx: Depends if you want a compile time "library" (header) or link time library (normal linker lib).
[04:53:46] <opx> I see
[04:54:33] <specing> consider if you had two serial ports
[04:55:23] <specing> Would it be better to have two puts_P functions for each of them or a single puts_P that takes a pointer to putchar as a second parameter?
[04:55:30] <Xark> opx: If you have a large function you will call from multiple places (and projects), then a linker library still is probably want you want.
[04:56:37] <specing> Xark: no
[04:56:41] <opx> specing: one function with a parameter ofcourse
[04:56:48] <opx> Xark: think ill go with that then
[04:57:01] <specing> opx: Now that you have said that, look at the disassembly of it
[04:57:45] <specing> the two macro-instantiated functions from a header file would occupy less flash space and be much faster than the one taking a parameter to putchar
[04:57:47] <opx> specing: how to do that? .lss file?
[04:57:52] * Xark thinks specing has an excellent example of when inline is a great choice (especially if you need an efficient puts).
[04:57:53] <specing> objdump -S
[04:58:08] <specing> Xark: no, inline is always a bad choice
[04:58:21] <specing> statis is always a good choice
[04:58:24] <specing> static*
[04:59:27] <specing> The point is, the putchar-param function (atleast in my test) uses 2 push and 2 pop in it, along with a couple of mov and movw
[04:59:54] <specing> and both icall and lpm work only with the Z pointer
[05:00:05] <Xark> specing: Well, for putc, static inline. :) For puts, probably not (but I would have to see calling code vs inline code). I would never say "always" for any of the above (it depends...).
[05:00:09] <specing> so it has to change the pointer in each iteration *twice*
[05:00:27] <specing> Xark: NEVER USE INLINE
[05:00:31] <specing> EVER
[05:00:35] <Xark> specing: Get lost.
[05:00:38] <specing> No
[05:00:50] <Xark> specing: It is critical for good code (at least certain types of code).
[05:00:56] <specing> Go see your .s files if you don't believe me
[05:01:03] <Xark> specing: I have.
[05:01:14] <specing> I have probably spent more times in the generated .s files than in the actual C code
[05:01:58] <specing> static is the best keyword as it lets the compiler decide when to inline and when not to
[05:01:59] <Xark> specing: I am no newbie to asm and compilers (although somewhat new to AVR). I have looked fairly carefully.
[05:02:56] <Xark> specing: OK, well that is somewhat true. You do rarely need to explicitly use the inline keywoard.
[05:03:23] <Xark> specing: Not all compilers are as smart as GCC for that though. :)
[05:04:15] <Xark> If you said NEVER USE INLINE KEYWORD, I probably wouldn't have objected. :)
[05:05:31] <opx> what if your library has multiple functions that has various sizes?
[05:06:14] <Xark> opx: What of it? You can put them in multiple .c (and hence .o) files if you are concerned you may not use them all.
[05:07:23] <opx> Xark: but you said if I had large functions I'd be better of with a linker lib
[05:08:23] <Xark> opx: Well what I was talking mostly about was if you have them in a header file and you call the large function multiple places then it will be forced to include the function at least once per module (inline or not).
[05:08:56] <opx> I see
[05:08:57] <Xark> opx: Whereas with the linker, you are assured of 0 or 1 copy of the function (etc.).
[05:09:18] <Xark> (no matter how many files call the function)
[05:09:48] <specing> opx: if your programming methods include multiple .c files, use a .a library, else put everything into a header file
[05:10:28] <opx> I see, gonna try that
[05:10:34] <opx> Thanks both, very helpful
[05:10:58] <Xark> opx: I do agree specing's method does work very well for smaller MCU projects (where you don't need/want multiple "app" modules).
[05:11:45] <specing> I was thinking of creating a bootloader that shares functions with main code
[05:12:18] <Xark> specing: So the app can reuse some of the bootloader code space?
[05:12:43] <specing> -Wl,--defsym=puts_P=0x400
[05:12:47] <specing> Xark: yes
[05:12:50] <specing> :)
[05:13:19] <specing> not some, but the whole of it
[05:13:35] <specing> the app could trigger the bootloader itself
[05:13:37] <Xark> specing: That sounds pretty handy. At least has routines for writing to flash and the serial routines that would seem useful to share.
[05:14:42] <specing> Xark: try the above
[05:14:50] <specing> And see disasm :D
[05:16:28] <Xark> Yeah, I am familiar with that option. Interesting way of doing it (and presumably have a jump table or other "well known" address).
[05:16:51] <specing> Jump table? no, that is slow and huge
[05:17:28] <Xark> specing: Well, you just don't want the next version of the booloader to be 0x404 or something (hence "well known address").
[05:19:25] <specing> Xark: readelf -Ss firmware.elf gives you all the addresses
[05:19:49] <Xark> specing: OK, as long as "make" magically gets the right address and defines it, then I'm cool. :)
[05:19:52] <specing> -s gives you function addresses, -S gives you data space sizes (for linker offsets)
[05:20:08] <specing> Fuck make, Im going to do it for Scons
[05:20:12] <Xark> specing: I would just hate to have to manually keep them in sync.
[05:20:25] <specing> autotools are horribletools
[05:20:58] <Xark> I am not a big fan of those (although they are the lesser evil for highly portable source, I suppose).
[05:21:22] <Xark> I am fine with make (perhaps calling a few custom "crunch" tools if things get hairy).
[05:21:25] <specing> readelf -s ../firmware.elf | grep FUNC
[05:22:04] <specing> the great thing about Scons is that you can use python to parse the readelf calls for defsyms
[05:22:37] <specing> whereas you would have to make up some magic with Make or even call another script to do it for you
[05:22:45] <Xark> specing: Yeah, that can be nice. You pay a lot in speed though.
[05:23:07] <specing> Im a big fan of turing complete configuration languages
[05:23:23] <specing> I use lua in my host programs
[05:23:43] <specing> Xark: You pay what in speed?
[05:24:21] <Xark> Scons is not great on very large projects. We tried to use it, but ended up with a custom solution.
[05:24:21] <specing> python parsing is way faster than piping readelf -s to 10 subshells with awk/grep/sed
[05:24:37] <specing> and you can very likely import elf
[05:25:06] <specing> Xark: MCU projects usually aren't large
[05:25:13] <Xark> specing: Yes, shell scripting sucks. Most of our tools can take a bunch of targets per invocation (and we don't use awk etc.).
[05:25:18] <Xark> specing: Agreed.
[05:25:30] <specing> And as I said, Scons offers you a real programming language to do whatever you want
[05:25:31] <Xark> MCUs are just my hobby.
[05:26:44] <Xark> I usually don't need any scripting or anything, so make is pretty easy for many MCU projects.
[05:28:15] <Xark> But I agree Scons is cool (and make is far from ideal). :)
[06:04:26] <specing> -Wl,--defsym=some_random_func=0x600 :
[06:04:27] <specing> some_random_func();
[06:04:28] <specing> 176: 44 d2 rcall .+1160 ; 0x600 <some_random_func>
[06:04:30] <specing> :D
[06:08:17] <OndraSter> specing, what is funny about that?
[06:25:25] <specing> OndraSter_: you can call bootloader routines like this ;P
[06:41:44] <opx> Hi. When your using the header files of a linked library, does stuff have to be 'extern' in the header files?
[06:47:56] <CapnKernel> It depends on the "stuff"
[06:48:05] <CapnKernel> If it's a function or type declaration, no.
[06:48:42] <CapnKernel> If it's a variable, and that variable is in the library, yes, otherwise that variable will end up in the output, rather than coming from the linked library.
[06:49:10] <buhman> do people generally assemble avr assembly with avra; avr-as, or something else?
[06:49:10] <opx> I see
[06:49:10] <CapnKernel> Will end up in the .o file of the .c file you're compiling.
[06:50:05] <specing> buhman: I think those creatures use avr studio
[06:50:29] <buhman> "creatures"? :P
[06:50:44] <buhman> so atmel has their own assembler I gather?
[06:51:02] <CapnKernel> Where do you "gather" that from?
[06:51:04] <R0b0t1> Yeah and the thing is
[06:51:20] <R0b0t1> using just assembly with avr-gcc or that build chain is just... such a fucking hassle
[06:51:22] * R0b0t1 didn't figure it out
[06:51:52] <buhman> CapnKernel: this channel
[06:52:34] <buhman> so what I'm wondering is 1) how to get some form of assembly into intel hex format 2) some sort of guide that gets me halfway knowing how to write that particular dialect of assembly
[07:43:03] <Amadiro> buhman, 1) just use the usual process, going through gcc, 2) avrfreaks.net (as in the channel topic) has a few tutorials, other than that, refer to the AVR instruction datasheet
[07:44:00] <specing> so does avr-libc
[09:58:40] <nickoe> http://dpaste.com/786161/ what am I doing wrong?
[09:58:59] <nickoe> I am trying to see if I can get the id of a ATmega644-20pu
[10:03:23] <specing> you probably got MISO and MOSI the wrong way around
[10:13:52] <nickoe> specing, I now got it working with a avr910 programmer instead
[10:19:59] <specing> yep, avrdude messages are very unhelpfull
[10:29:25] <Essobi> I still use my parallel port to program. :D
[10:29:51] <OndraSter_> heh
[12:02:39] <PlastyGrove> Guessing a lot of folks interested in programming here, coursera.org just started the Algorithms I course this week
[12:02:50] <PlastyGrove> https://www.coursera.org/course/algs4partI
[12:03:27] <PlastyGrove> 6 week course, free of charge by stanford profs :D
[12:06:09] <jadew> are the courses recorded? or do I have to be there when they're streaming?
[12:08:21] <PlastyGrove> jadew: they're recorded, you can download the videos and watch them at your leisure
[12:08:53] <PlastyGrove> they've got some really tough assignments and exercises, so it's a full-time course, be warned
[12:09:20] <jadew> neat, it's always good to refresh your algorithm knowledge
[12:11:06] <jadew> thanks for the link
[12:12:01] <PlastyGrove> jadew: np, I spent 2 days trying to complete the first assignment :)
[12:12:21] <jadew> heh, how tough could it be?
[12:13:02] <PlastyGrove> jadew: My initial thoughts exactly! And I've actually worked in Java professionally for close to 4 years :|
[12:13:35] <asteve> java
[12:13:41] <asteve> javaj
[12:14:09] <jadew> the language doesn't matter that much, but when it comes to algorithms, most programmers suck, including myself
[12:14:22] <asteve> i'm going to make a new coffee script-esque language that uses java to compile java script
[12:14:22] <jadew> you're only good with those in highschool and in college
[12:14:24] <asteve> i will call it javaj
[12:14:41] <jadew> after that you only need to know what can be done and which library does it :)
[12:15:34] <PlastyGrove> jadew: Well, I don't have a CS background, so everything is from ground 0
[12:15:45] <asteve> ground 0 is everything
[12:15:59] <PlastyGrove> Never learnt algos systematically, it's quite interesting
[12:16:23] <jadew> I always found them a bore, altho I've been programming for 20 years now
[12:16:42] <PlastyGrove> asteve: in algos you mean?
[12:16:49] <asteve> how many cats are in the hat that has the cats without hats?
[12:17:21] <asteve> PlastyGrove: hopefully you know about recursion?
[12:17:37] <PlastyGrove> jadew: Well, I've been programming for 12 years myself, but I'm on this new Algo kick :)
[12:17:41] <asteve> Fibonacci sequence is usually taught early in algorithms
[12:18:09] <asteve> i
[12:18:17] <PlastyGrove> asteve: yup, I do
[12:18:34] <asteve> i'm going to Big(O) all over Fibonacci's sequence
[12:19:43] <jadew> I don't think you learn about that in CS classes
[12:19:52] <jadew> more likely in math classes
[12:20:19] <PlastyGrove> Big(O) is an algo thing right? I got it in the MIT algo lectures
[12:20:30] <jadew> and you get to learn about it in CS if you get into fractals and crap like taht
[12:20:44] <jadew> Big(O) is a way of measuring code complexity
[12:21:21] <jadew> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
[12:21:24] <asteve> when you develop algorithms you give them Big(O) rating; if your algorithm has n^n then your algorithm sucks
[12:21:35] <jadew> yeah :)
[12:22:09] <asteve> n^2 is ok, n is cool
[12:22:39] <PlastyGrove> well, then it's an algo thing :). Any case, will be interesting to learn, I'm unemployed and got nothing better to do anyways :D
[12:22:39] <asteve> stay away from the n^n's; we have one here that i spent a few days tackling
[12:22:50] <asteve> PlastyGrove: have you considered getting a job?
[12:23:18] <PlastyGrove> asteve: Yea, but people aren't considering giving me one :)
[12:23:19] <jadew> be smart, don't get a job if you can afford to stay at home
[12:23:30] <asteve> haha
[12:24:00] <jadew> unless you find something in research
[12:24:01] <PlastyGrove> last 2 months - a bazillion interviews, one offer that's too far and pays too less
[12:24:11] <jadew> or something that involves a tropical island
[12:24:57] <PlastyGrove> jadew: Hence the algos and the avrs, maybe I'll learn something to make a business out of :)
[12:25:08] <atmega8> O(n)
[12:25:12] <asteve> PlastyGrove: what are you looking for and where are you located?
[12:25:54] <PlastyGrove> asteve: India, looking for a product management role
[12:26:21] <asteve> best of luck
[12:27:23] <PlastyGrove> thanks, I'll need it :)
[13:50:40] <specing> PlastyGrove: "... He is a member of the board of directors of Adobe Systems."
[13:50:58] <specing> PlastyGrove: ABORT! ABORT! ABANDON SHIP!
[13:51:38] * PlastyGrove stares at specing with a blank expression
[13:52:21] <PlastyGrove> specing: Who's a member of adobe?
[13:52:37] <specing> the professor having that algo course
[13:53:18] <specing> Looks like he is just another ass kisser
[13:53:52] <PlastyGrove> specing: does it matter? he knows his algos
[13:54:15] <PlastyGrove> besides, board members need not necessarily have any active role in the company :)
[13:54:59] <Steffanx> Ignore specing phobias, PlastyGrove :P
[13:55:05] <Steffanx> *specing's
[13:55:43] <specing> Just look at the amount of security holes in e.g. flash
[13:55:56] <specing> clearly he knows his algos
[13:56:08] <karlp> what?
[13:56:15] <karlp> what on earth do the two have in common?
[13:56:25] <specing> uhm flash is an adobe thing
[13:56:29] * PlastyGrove waits for specing to go - "Once upon a time, there was an evil photo manipulation software ... "
[13:56:45] <specing> they make that too?
[13:58:52] <PlastyGrove> specing: again, why care about flash or adobe? it's not like sedgewick designed flash or founded adobe
[14:03:02] <specing> PlastyGrove: you shall be judged as the group you are a member of
[18:02:52] <jadew> any idea of a free logic analyzer software with easy to implement hardware interface?
[18:04:03] <Tom_itx> yeah lemme think
[18:14:29] <jadew> this one looks nice:
http://www.lxtreme.nl/ols/
[20:28:51] <w|zzy> jadew: got the hardware to work with it?
[20:29:02] <w|zzy> Ive used that with the Open Logic analyzer. its good
[20:29:34] <jadew> no, I was thinking of building something that would emulate the hardware
[20:31:03] <jadew> decided to roll my own analyzer, software and hardware, should be a fun project
[20:31:12] <w|zzy> Twould be interesting.
[20:31:19] <w|zzy> May aswell use a common protocol :D
[20:31:30] <Tom_itx> http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/open-workbench-logic-sniffer-p-612.html
[20:31:32] <w|zzy> using an avr8?
[20:31:37] <jadew> yeah
[20:31:40] <Tom_itx> the software for that is open iirc
[20:31:49] <w|zzy> thats the one i have Tom_itx
[20:31:59] <w|zzy> the bandwidth will be low. but im sure you understand that. jadew
[20:32:08] <Tom_itx> i have a saelae
[20:32:08] <jadew> yeah, I know
[20:32:29] <w|zzy> the saelae looks nice
[20:32:37] <Tom_itx> i like it
[20:32:43] <Tom_itx> it's a nice compact package too
[20:32:49] <Tom_itx> professionally done
[20:33:10] <jadew> looks nice, yeah
[20:33:11] <Tom_itx> plenty good enough for me
[20:33:14] <w|zzy> Indeed..
[20:33:28] <Tom_itx> you can test drive their software
[20:33:41] <Tom_itx> and read files saved by someone
[20:33:47] <w|zzy> The Open logic one you linked has higher specs and a lower price
[20:33:53] <w|zzy> but the saelea one is way prettier
[20:34:07] <Tom_itx> the open logic wasn't done when i got it
[20:34:18] <Tom_itx> i would probably still get the saelae
[20:35:20] <w|zzy> The price difference was what did it for me. Also quite fond of the dangerous prototypes gear..
[20:35:24] <w|zzy> Have you used the bus pirate/
[20:35:25] <w|zzy> ?
[20:36:07] <jadew> bus pirate is what I'm trying to do with my little project here
[20:36:19] <jadew> it doesn't have all the bells and whistles tho
[20:36:40] <w|zzy> oh.. logic analyser and bus pirate are different things..
[20:36:50] <jadew> well, I want them both in the same package
[20:37:31] <jadew> it can already do i2c, 1wire and spi, making it act like a logic analyzer shouldn't be that big of a deal
[20:37:39] <jadew> the only problem is the bandwidth, as you mentioned
[20:39:07] <jadew> I don't think I'll be able to sample above 50khz
[20:40:21] <jadew> which really sucks
[20:41:14] <w|zzy> yeah.
[20:41:18] <w|zzy> ohwell..
[20:41:19] <jadew> now that I think about it, I don't think it's even worth the trouble
[20:41:29] <jadew> it won't be able to even decode 1wire properly
[20:41:59] <jadew> 1wire goes at about 15k and it has really precise timing
[20:42:00] <kiloprom> arm ;)
[20:42:21] <w|zzy> fpga
[20:42:29] <jadew> so if it fails to get enough samples, it's useless
[20:42:31] <w|zzy> is what the pro's are doing
[20:45:14] <kiloprom> i haven't even finished engineering school yet, i hope that we will do fpga's the next year
[20:46:49] <w|zzy> why wait?
[20:48:34] <kiloprom> what do you mean ?
[20:48:45] <kiloprom> study myself ?
[20:59:25] <w|zzy> Yeah
[20:59:52] <rue_shop3> why dont we have the avr-libc guy here?
[21:00:14] <Tom_itx> he's got a day job now
[21:00:23] <rue_shop3> lets get some duct tape, abduct him, ...
[21:00:55] <rue_shop3> configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object files: cannot compile
[21:00:57] <rue_shop3> !?!?!
[21:01:32] <Casper> rue_shop3: use more duct tape, you obiviously didn'T used enought
[21:02:13] <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> svn co svn://svn.savannah.nongnu.org/avr-libc/trunk
[21:02:14] <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> ./bootstrap
[21:02:14] <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> ./configure --build=`./config.guess` --host=avr --prefix=/usr/lib/ --program-prefix=avr-
[21:02:14] <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> make
[21:02:14] <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> <rue_shop3> make install
[21:02:46] <Tom_itx> that kinda makes me not want to read it
[21:03:17] <rue_shop3> its getting old
[21:03:48] <rue_shop3> so stared avrbegginers.net?
[21:06:51] <rue_shop3> I can only guess the gcc version dosn't match the libc version
[21:07:02] <rue_shop3> so I have to compile the whole toolchain
[21:07:28] <rue_shop3> this explains why ardionu packages their own avrlib in their program
[21:08:24] <w|zzy> probably.
[21:11:21] <kiloprom> is a osd like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECowNqPyQOM managable with an avr or do i have to get an arm?
[21:12:18] <Casper> kiloprom: you could IF you don't care much about the resolution
[21:12:27] <Casper> but look doable I think with avr
[21:13:41] <kiloprom> pal would be nice
[21:14:15] <kiloprom> my video googles have 640x480 so 320x240 would still be ok
[21:15:07] <Casper> they do color video game at that res with PIC
[21:15:13] <Casper> and avr have more power
[21:16:28] <Casper> but I saw a longer range one
[21:16:50] <kiloprom> how long ?
[21:17:11] <Casper> 35km
[21:17:19] <kiloprom> the current range record is 100km ;)
[21:17:42] <kiloprom> with a glider, 5,5h flight time
[21:17:51] <kiloprom> no power used
[21:19:00] <kiloprom> the max range the dude from the above video did was 87km on his 1,4m plane
[21:19:24] <kiloprom> thats how he travels ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpDf3QJdUZk
[21:23:41] <Casper> you know, those that do aerial photography must be currently be very affraid, if not looking for another job
[21:24:28] <kiloprom> he flyes for fun only, and me too
[21:24:43] <kiloprom> he is from swiss
[21:25:05] <Casper> yeah but I mean
[21:25:20] <Casper> they used to charge a fortune since they had to rent an airplane or an heli
[21:25:49] <Casper> now you can do the same with <2000$ in equipment
[21:26:25] <kiloprom> that dude is a CRAZY mother fucker he flew in berlin over the trafic, look at this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCPKpqkGpDs
[21:26:34] <w|zzy> Casper: There will always be someone willing to pay.
[21:26:36] <kiloprom> $800 and you are fine
[21:26:49] <Casper> w|zzy: that's not what I mean
[21:27:35] <Casper> w|zzy: in the past, the only way to get an aerial shot of anything was to pay someone to fly an airplane or an heli over the place... which is very expensive
[21:27:37] <kiloprom> i know that you mean
[21:27:54] <kiloprom> its nice for someon like me :)
[21:27:58] <w|zzy> True... There will still probably be people willing to pay for that
[21:27:58] <Casper> today, you can buy an RC heli for not that much, and do more
[21:28:01] <kiloprom> that know rc :)
[21:28:38] <Casper> w|zzy: what I mean is that those who used to charge an arm and a leg for the shot, now can't compete with the RC one
[21:28:49] <kiloprom> helis are out, multirotors are the deal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1-bFZ0TOQ
[21:29:53] <Casper> get there, fly the rc heli, take shot, pack up... "fuel" cost: 0.0001$, labor cost: 15 mins
[21:30:01] <w|zzy> Fair
[21:30:02] <Casper> ideally a 2 men crew however
[21:30:11] <Casper> or 3 men...
[21:30:37] <Casper> kiloprom: I've seen one that was really nice, too bad I lost the link (I think the guy closed his yt account)
[21:30:52] <Casper> man... that thing was just too WOW
[21:31:06] <Casper> octocopter or whatever...
[21:31:35] <Casper> GPS navigation, "perfect" gyro stabilisation and correction and all...
[21:31:51] <kiloprom> octocopters are damn stable but you cant do that: (1:22)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ1-bFZ0TOQ
[21:31:55] <Casper> he tested it with 80km gusts... barelly moved 6"
[21:32:45] <Casper> the camera barelly shaked
[21:33:16] <kiloprom> probalby software
[21:33:20] <Casper> no
[21:33:24] <kiloprom> stabilisation
[21:33:27] <kiloprom> no ?
[21:33:33] <Casper> hardware stabilisation
[21:33:43] <kiloprom> well thats impressive then !
[21:33:55] <Casper> the guy was doing professional video
[21:34:03] <Casper> the camera itself was like 5k$
[21:34:07] <Casper> plus the lense
[21:34:23] <Casper> so it wasn't cheap stuff
[21:34:26] <kiloprom> talking about costs, thats my plane (about $700 without radio)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoEEdKxTNGw
[21:35:28] <kiloprom> 1:52 for view :)
[21:35:33] <kiloprom> of my home town
[21:36:23] <Casper> I wish I had the money for that
[21:36:49] <kiloprom> it is the fucking best hobby ever :)
[21:37:01] <Casper> you know, it would be nice to have stereoscopic camera
[21:37:28] <kiloprom> easy two gopros, ~180g
[21:39:02] <kiloprom> thats freedome :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G__WvTWeAGw
[21:39:23] <Casper> here's what I would have liked: 40km range, 2+ hours battery, HD stereoscopic camera, 100+km/h speed
[21:40:11] <Casper> and able to stand still :D
[21:40:13] <kiloprom> gas or electric ?
[21:40:20] <Casper> electric, of course!
[21:40:24] <kiloprom> ;)
[21:40:32] <kiloprom> why did i asked ;)
[21:41:01] <kiloprom> 40km, 2h battery 3D and ~60km/h is possible
[21:41:21] <kiloprom> with a plane <4kg
[21:42:30] <Casper> but $$
[21:43:06] <kiloprom> from zero ? without remote ?
[21:43:08] <kiloprom> $5000
[21:43:35] <kiloprom> and you need a radio licence!!!
[21:43:39] <Casper> yeah, that's too much :(
[21:43:57] <Casper> and there is nothing nice to see around here, so...
[21:44:00] <kiloprom> but a machine that big wouldnt be fun to fly
[21:44:16] <Casper> btw, nice pit stop
[21:44:51] <kiloprom> not my video ;)
[21:45:11] <kiloprom> but that swiss guy is crazy
[21:45:11] <Casper> k
[21:45:17] <kiloprom> ;)
[21:45:29] <Casper> but still, nice pit stop :D
[21:46:52] <kiloprom> the scenery in swiss is amazing,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUGvlMDRC98
[21:53:16] <Casper> but can you do radio link for HD video?
[21:53:52] <kiloprom> sure on the 60ghz band but only for approx. 45feet ;)
[21:54:15] <kiloprom> analog up to 300km with 1W and the right antennas
[21:54:51] <Casper> thing is, I know that once I'ld have made a few flights I'ld move on
[21:55:04] <Casper> so not worth investing that much in that
[21:56:17] <kiloprom> the fun thing in the flying ;) its just a hobby for me
[21:56:57] <kiloprom> i am 17, and a am not rich, i am just saving money and upgrade my system over the years
[21:57:31] <Casper> yeah
[21:57:43] <Casper> but I have a bad habbit of losing interrest quite fast
[21:58:13] <kiloprom> trust me fpv never gets boring !
[22:00:02] <kiloprom> this multirotor is about 500bux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPxHurG9I8
[22:00:29] <kiloprom> the problem ist the police doesent like in city flying at all ;)
[22:04:55] <Casper> yeah
[22:05:14] <Casper> my cousin's bf have a trex 700E
[22:05:29] <Casper> he couln't fly it this year, lack of proper place for it
[22:05:38] <Casper> that thing is literally deadly
[22:06:09] <kiloprom> yep a 700 kills
[22:06:32] <kiloprom> thaty why multirotors are "safer"
[22:06:39] <kiloprom> but whatever you do i would not recoment you fly to NY while hinding behind bushed in new jersy ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78
[22:06:45] <Casper> he replaced the motor too
[22:07:13] <Casper> the new motor peaked over 8kW
[22:07:39] <Casper> that's more powerfull than the snow blower!
[22:07:46] <kiloprom> 8kW o.o
[22:07:55] <kiloprom> thats what i call power :D
[22:07:58] <Casper> ya
[22:08:13] <Casper> it's funny to watch... it's a case of now you see now you don't
[22:08:13] <kiloprom> electric!?
[22:08:16] <Casper> ya
[22:08:25] <kiloprom> i would like to see his battery
[22:08:52] <kiloprom> must be at least a 65C lipo
[22:08:58] <Casper> he have 2 packs
[22:09:10] <Casper> in series I think... not fully sure
[22:09:36] <kiloprom> 8kW thats some pretty serious current flow :)
[22:10:15] <Casper> yup
[22:10:21] <Casper> and yet, those motors are tiny
[22:10:28] <Casper> but DON'T TOUCH IT!
[22:10:37] <kiloprom> why ?
[22:10:58] <Casper> after a flight or 2 the motor reach like 130C
[22:13:19] <kiloprom> $333 8kW motor
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19964__Turnigy_RotoMax_100cc_Size_Brushless_Outrunner_Motor.html
[22:14:17] <kiloprom> 2kg really isn’t much for a 8kW engine
[22:16:06] <kiloprom> sudo halt
[23:25:47] <btcbuy314> how do i program an arduino with avr and not using any arduino ide stuff
[23:28:09] <theBear> same way you program a regular avr, maybe with avr-gcc and avrdude
[23:42:54] <R0b0t1> btcbuy314: You can use avrdude with the -c arduino option to use the arduino bootloader