[Ovmsdev] OVMS v3

[Matt Beard]

Maybe the important thing to ask at the moment is: What features do we want
v3 to have?

I will start with a few from my wish-list:

* The ability to use 3G networks
* The ability to perform over-the air updates
* The ability to log trips or time-periods, ideally with a really easy way
to extract the data
* A web interface that allows me to configure the unit easily, this may be
via a common server that sends config to the device
* Fast turnaround of support for new vehicles of versions (this probably
means making life easier for developers)

As a developer:
* USB comms rather than RS232 for debug
* The ability to download test code via USB without needing to open the box
and use a proprietary programmer
* Ideally the ability to debug and program via the internet rather than
needing physical access to the device (security will be important - this
option should be disabled when shipped)
* The ability to use the device to do smart logging of the CAN bus - I
think this may really help development on new vehicles, especially if it
can be connected to a new vehicle and the data logged by a remote developer
(rather than needing to wait for a developer to buy a car before support
can be started)


Matt Beard


On Monday, June 16, 2014, Kevin Sharpe <kevin.sharpe at zerocarbonworld.org>
wrote:

> GEVCU 5 BOM is $200 using Mouser list prices but that excludes a GPS/GSM
> Modem.
>
> In production quantities I believe you could hit $200 for an assembled and
> tested unit that’s functionally compatible with the current OVMS but in
> waterproof case, with I/O, expanded memory, etc., etc. Adding BT and WiFi
> would probably add $50.
>
> Obviously these prices are only justifiable if it adds a lot to the
> functionality to the car… but given multiple CAN buses, lots memory, and
> CPU performance, I could imagine all sorts of navigation and control
> enhancements would be possible. The web server in the current GEVCU for
> example will revolutionise the way people customise the performance of
> their EV in future.
>
> Personally I think functionality is more important than price in this
> upgrade market and one of the things holding back OVMS is the lack of
> developers working on the project. That’s why I think GEVCU will be
> successful because its Arduino based hardware allows open hardware and
> software reuse.
>
> Kevin Sharpe | Founder & Chair Trustees | Zero Carbon World, a UK
> Registered Charity
>
>
> From: Matt Beard <matt at beard.tv
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matt at beard.tv');>>
> Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk');>>
> Date: Monday, 16 June 2014 18:38
> To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk');>>
> Subject: Re: [Ovmsdev] OVMS v3
>
> My biggest worry would be keeping the end user price similar to what it is
> now. Some routes would allow this, but some would put it out of the reach
> of lots of potential customers.
>
> What would the likely cost implications of each of the suggested routes be?
>
> Matt Beard
>
>
> On Monday, 16 June 2014, Kevin Sharpe <kevin.sharpe at zerocarbonworld.org>
> wrote:
>
> Take a look at GEVCU 5;
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gevcu-development/sukQFDW8yjc
>
> I’d like to produce a GEVCU 6 that adds GPS/GPRS and uses the CINCH
> waterproof enclosure giving us WiFi, BT, GPS, GPRS, isolated I/O, and 80MHz
> 32bit Arduino DUE compatible hardware.
>
> I’m prepared to finance the hardware development and even the cost of
> porting the OVMS software if the current developers are interested in this
> route forward.
>
> IMO we would all benefit from a single hardware platform and GEVCU already
> has some serious money behind it and some cool libraries that might help
> OVMS grow.
>
>
> Kevin Sharpe | Founder & Chair Trustees | Zero Carbon World, a UK
> Registered Charity
>
>
> From: Mastro Gippo <gipmad at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>
> Date: Monday, 16 June 2014 16:41
> To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>
> Subject: [Ovmsdev] OVMS v3
>
> Hi all, I'd like to resurrect an old conversation. As we know, the current
> PIC is quickly running out of resources and maybe it's time to switch to a
> better platform. Two CAN buses are now desirable too. A microSD slot and
> direct USB connectivity wouldn't hurt either.
> I will probably have to design a similar hardware for myself, so I'd like
> to contribute to the OVMS by sharing the HW platform if you want; no
> strings attached of course, if you decide that there's no need for the
> upgrade, I'll keep on working on my project by myself! :)
> That said, I'd like to throw a few ideas to the table.
>
>
> - MCU: I'd like to use an STM32 micro. They seem to be emerging as the
> standard choice for diy ARM projects, and this offers a few interesting
> opportunities:
>  -Programming it in c/c++ with the manufacturer CMSIS standard libraries
> (boring)
>  -Programming it with the mbed.org SDK. Unfortunately no dev boards are
> available with dual CAN bus, but it will be easy to move to the correct
> micro of the same series once most of the software is ironed out on a dev
> board like the https://mbed.org/platforms/ST-Nucleo-F302R8/
>  -Programming it with an RTOS. NuttX would be my choice, as it's the one
> used in the Ardupilot Pixhawk platform, and I'd like to learn it. This
> would mean a steeper starting curve, but a lot of flexibility later as a
> lot of stuff is handled on the OS level (network stacks, SD card &
> filesystems, multitasking...). FreeRTOS is a nice option too.
>
> I'd like to use the STM32F405RG as it's the most similar to the one found
> on the Pixhawk, but of course I'm biased because of that, and that micro is
> quite overkill for the task. We can of course use a lower specced part and
> lose some RTOS fuctionality as long as it has 2 CAN buses.
>
>
> - MODEM: I have no experience in this field; is the SIM908 still a good
> choice or does anyone think that we should try new platforms?
> I like this, but I don't know if the price puts it out of budget:
> http://www.telit.com/telit/Pulsar/en_US.Store.display.1001./ge864-
> <http://www.telit.com/telit/Pulsar/en_US.Store.display.1001./ge864-gps>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20140616/13ffb47f/attachment.htm>