[Ovmsdev] OVMS v3

Tue Jun 17 20:04:08 HKT 2014

One way of doing this that I was thinking of:

We already have a protocol for talking apps<->server<->car. On the car side, at the moment it uses that protocol in just one place (calling car->server).

In the v3, we know that we would like to be able to connect over bluetooth / wifi, but why invent something new? My idea was to just use the same protocol, with the difference being that the car module would allow many connections (server via wifi, server via GSM, apps via wifi, apps via bluetooth, etc). Exactly the same protocol, just multiple communication channels open at the same time.

For the smartphone apps, they could either connect directly via bluetooth/wifi or indirectly via the server.

For an in-car display, we could either use bluetooth (something like this http://www.fasttech.com/products/0/10004051/1292002-ti-cc2540-cc2541-bluetooth-4-0-ble-2540-2541) or an async connection. My preference is bluetooth, as that means all the display needs is power. But, if we do it that way, there would need to be some intelligence in the display. Something to drive the display and receive user input, as well as work the protocol back to the OVMS module.

That does provide a nice separation of complexity - all the user interface stuff is kept out of the core OVMS.

Regards, Mark.

On 17 Jun, 2014, at 4:24 pm, Michael Balzer <dexter at expeedo.de> wrote:

> Regarding the display, only smartphones can possibly do the job. I got quite a lot comments from users saying it's good the OVMS can be used without a smartphone. Also I personally would like to have a dedicated fixed mounted display for the additional live info from the OVMS -- in fact that's why the Twizplay (www.twizplay.de) is so appealing.
> 
> Btw: the Twizplay uses an EA DOGM128-6 LCD module which can be controlled via SPI and costs around 11 Euro (1 pc). There's a touch panel option for this display available, not sure about getting the touch input via SPI though.
> 
> For the Samsung NX300, I thought that does 2-3 hours with active camera + display + wifi. But I'm not certain about that, just read some consumer tests because of the hacking possibilities :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
> 
> 
> Am 17.06.2014 07:39, schrieb Mark Webb-Johnson:
>> 
>> 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> 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>
>>> Reply-To: OVMS Developers <ovmsdev at lists.teslaclub.hk>
>>> Date: Monday, June 16, 2014 at 11:55 AM
>>> To: OVMS Developers <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 | www.mainpine.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>>> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>>>> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>>> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
> 
> -- 
> Michael Balzer * Paradestr. 8 * D-42107 Wuppertal
> Fon 0202 / 272 2201 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
> <dexter.vcf>_______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> 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/20140617/101e10d1/attachment.htm>