[Ovmsdev] OVMS v2 stock / OVMS v3

Tue Aug 11 12:54:05 HKT 2015

> Other than getting "under the hood" what benefit does OVMS v3 aim to give EV owners over the OEM system?
> Or, is OVMS v3 essentially a reverse-engineering tool that provides a feature which is lacking for some limited EV models?

The goals of the project have always been to provide a platform for people to have fun with their cars. To get access to information that the manufacturers don’t give them. To add features and change things to the way the user wants. Certainly, as new cars come along with built in connectivity, this requirement will come into more conflict with what the manufacturers are providing, but I think we are still several years away from that.

For example:

> Nissan LEAF owners have Carwings,

Not where I live. The ones here don’t even have GPS navigation. And, there are a lot of Leaf owners plugging into OBDII ports to get access to the technical information that Nissan won’t provide.

> Chevy Volt owners have OnStar Mobile,

Not in Europe or Asia (or anywhere outside North America).

> I don't know how much value my say is any of this, but I would suggest that #1 would certainly be a mistake.

All feedback has value, and is most appreciated.

The v2 platform is certainly dying. I am stunned by how successful we have been and by how many modules are out there (around 1,000+). I certainly never expected that when seeing the first batch of 20 under the christmas tree back in 2011, and wondering whether we would make a second batch.

But the platform itself has been stretched to the limits. Switching to 3G, or adding on bluetooth/wifi, is just not technically possible on that platform. The PIC18F2685 we are using is the biggest of that PIC18 series that does what we need. Changing that processor to a 16, 24 or 32, would be a major re-write, and wouldn’t address the core issues of developer learning curve.

So, I guess what you are saying is that the option is really whether we want to say that OVMS did what it did, and has no purpose any more (we’ll just let the manufacturers decide what to give us, and be happy with that). Or, proceed with a more capable OVMS v3.

The other thing to consider is that if we don’t produce a 3G capable device, then the existing 2G users out there will slowly go offline.

Regards, Mark.

> On 11 Aug, 2015, at 11:56 am, Lee Howard <lee.howard at mainpine.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't know how much value my say is any of this, but I would suggest that #1 would certainly be a mistake.
> 
> While I appreciate that OVMS can provide a nice platform for reverse-engineering (or at least understanding the vehicle better) and while it certainly fills a void for EV owners/users of certain older vehicles which have no other option for remote monitoring and control (Roaster and Twizy, in-particular, iM-iEV possibly also), I just wonder what role OVMS v3 aims to fill for the broader EV community.  I mean...
> 
> Tesla Model S owners have the "Model S app",
> 
> Nissan LEAF owners have Carwings,
> 
> Chevy Volt owners have OnStar Mobile,
> 
> Ford owners have MyFord App,
> 
> ... and the list goes on and on.  Basically, if a vehicle has a cellular antenna and service then the manufacturer has an app for remote monitoring.  A few EVs don't have that connectivity, and adding OVMS to those vehicles provides real value, but that's a diminishing market.
> 
> Other than getting "under the hood" what benefit does OVMS v3 aim to give EV owners over the OEM system?  Or, is OVMS v3 essentially a reverse-engineering tool that provides a feature which is lacking for some limited EV models?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lee.
> 
> 
> On 08/10/2015 07:17 PM, Mark Webb-Johnson wrote:
>> At the current rate, the batch we have of OVMS v2 modules will run out sometime in the next two months.
>> 
>> Given the imminent shutdown of AT&T’s 2G network in USA, global re-allocation of 2G frequency bands, and the difficulties we are having obtaining the discontinued SIM908, it is decision time.
>> 
>> Option #1: Re-order a large batch now, enough to last us into the new year, but with the risk that I’ll be personally stuck with them.
>> Option #2: Just let the v2 modules run out, and move on with the plans for v3.
>> 
>> Development on v2 is stagnating. Partly because the platform already does what we need it to do, and partly because we’re hitting the limits (no external connectivity other than GPRS, single CAN bus, no storage, limited RAM, flash, etc).
>> 
>> The v3 plans have been on hold for some time, pending MBED OS release (first beta due this month) and the imminent release of hybrid processors such as that used in the UDOO Neo (due in September). We know what we want, but it is just too hard to pick a long-term platform when everything is on the cusp of changing.
>> 
>> I really want a v3 module. Something with lots of RAM and Flash, wifi, bluetooth and cellular connectivity, multiple CAN bus support, and a rich development platform. Something we can all use as a platform for reverse engineering as well as end-user connectivity. I’ll do everything I can to make this a reality. Just not today. Too much is changing and we need to wait for things to stabilise.
>> 
>> So, my gut feeling is to choose option #2. 2G GPRS is slowing dying, and building more on that platform just seems to be the wrong decision. This may leave us with several months of no platform stock, but I would rather people waited than spend $100 on something that is going to be obsolete/outdated. Kind of like buying an iPhone in August ;-) I don’t want to be stuck with the stock, and I don’t want people to buy a v2, only to have v3 come out a week later.
>> 
>> Even if we started now, which we can’t, an optimistic schedule for the first end-user v3 units would be early 2016.
>> 
>> So, tough decisions, but I really think option #2 is best. Bottom line is if you need v2 modules, order them now.
>> 
>> If you are likely to need a large quantity for any upcoming projects, let me know. The SIM908 modules will be unavailable within the next month or so, and changing to another module is a PITA I don’t want to deal with (especially given the tight RAM and FLASH we have now).
>> 
>> Regards, Mark.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.teslaclub.hk
>> http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
> 
> 
> -- 
> *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