[Ovmsdev] OVMS v3

[Matt Beard]

A couple of comments.

Firstly, adding a directly connected display means that the OVMS unit has
to be mounted in clear view, not behind the dash.

Secondly, as more EVs get released there needs to be a solution to the
problem that at the moment an OVMS developer needs to buy an EV of a
particular model before there is any real hope of getting support for that
type. Alternatively an owner of such an EV needs to be converted to being a
developer. I think it would significantly help to a) lower the bar to
becoming an OVMS developer (such as removing the need to buy lots of extra
kit and spend much time installing/removing hardware from the car, or
driving with laptop attached the car) and b) allow an OVMS developer to
easily co-operate with an EV owner that may not be physically close by to
read CAN data and try new code (so log CAN data and download details over
GSM or 3G and load firmware remotely)

Matt Beard


On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Mark Webb-Johnson <mark at webb-johnson.net> wrote:

>
> What I'm wondering is how valuable it would be to have a device in the car
> capable of:
>
>
>    - logging can bus traffic to SD card
>    - logging can bus traffic remotely (over wifi, etc)
>    - Issuing CAN bus requests remotely
>    - Receiving firmware updates remotely
>
>
> And, what if that device was OVMS itself?
>
> I know that when I am developing for OVMS, I spend a tremendous amount of
> time switching between OVMS and a CAN bus logger. Also, removing OVMS to
> program it, and plugging it back in again. My lousy cellular reception at
> home doesn't help (although has probably helped OVMS deal with lousy
> cellular reception situations quite well). My ideal device would be in the
> car always. It would allow me to log all traffic (or selected traffic with
> an easy start/stop/trigger), and remotely download those logs. It would
> allow me to make a change to the firmware, remotely, and see the impact.
> The issue would be doing all that while keeping security high as well as
> power consumption and price low.
>
> Regarding the display, could this be bluetooth to an Android/iPhone? Or,
> do we need a physical display? With most of the device nowadays, adding a
> directly attached display is not too hard (and not too expensive) so long
> as it is on ribbon cable less than perhaps 6" away. But, if a remote
> display is required, that tends to drive up the price dramatically. It
> seems that the CPUs nowadays can directly control a display. But, if you
> want to run a remote display than you have to use UART (or something like
> that) and then run a separate CPU in the display itself.
>
> Regards, Mark.
>
> On 17 Jun, 2014, at 1:20 pm, Tom Saxton <tom at idleloop.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tom at idleloop.com');>> wrote:
>
> I think it's incredibly valuable to keep the $100 price point.
>
> It seems to me that the hard part of adding support for other vehicles is
> figuring out the CAN bus codes. That's ideally done with hardware
> optimized for that task, which is probably not the OVMS device. There's so
> much framework already in place that once you know how to read values and
> issue commands, getting that into OVMS isn't that hard.
>
> Making OVMS more expensive to better serve the developer community will
> make it a harder buying decision for end users. Hopefully, we'll
> eventually have thousands of users for every developer.
>
> It would, of course, be an improvement to make firmware updates easier for
> end users, that is an important issue.
>
> I would like to see some sort of display, either on the box or remote, so
> I can see SOC in the car without using a phone.
>
>   Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Howard <lee.howard at mainpine.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lee.howard at mainpine.com');>>
> Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk');>>
> Date: Monday, June 16, 2014 at 11:55 AM
> To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk');>>
> Subject: Re: [Ovmsdev] OVMS v3
>
> I want to say "amen" to both Kevin's and Matt's comments.
>
> Right now it's really only fully useful for Roadster (and Model S)
> owners.  Volt/Ampera owners (and Leaf and Twizzy?) can remotely get a
> limited amount of incredibly useful information (like SOC), but the
> degree of control that the Roaster owners have isn't there (locking,
> unlocking, pre-heating/cooling, etc.).
>
> I intend to develop-in some of these features over time - at least for
> Volt/Ampera, and the only thing that has me not yet doing that is my
> need to get up-to-speed on the development environment and methods.
>
> However, even if all of the features available to Roadster owners were
> there for everyone, there is still so much more potential, as Kevin and
> Matt have said.
>
> If something isn't done to enable the expanded use then OVMS will
> continually only cater to a limited audience: one that wants access to
> various remote-control and remote-tracking features, but with limited
> local (in-car) usability and limited developer appeal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee.
>
> --
> *Lee Howard*
> *Mainpine, Inc. Chief Technology Officer*
> Tel: +1 866 363 6680 | Fax: +1 360 462 8160
> lee.howard at mainpine.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lee.howard at mainpine.com');> |
> www.mainpine.com
> _______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk');>
> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk');>
> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20140617/b537c4b5/attachment.htm>