<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Kevin, I just read that thread, thanks. I usually dislike Rickard's
attitude, but he has a point, the 2 products are for different purposes
even if sometimes they somehow match (someone adds GSM to the GEVCU,
someone adds outputs for relays and stuff to the OVMS). I saw the GEVCU
project a while ago and didn't like it much, mostly for Rickard's
involvement, and also because it was quite "amateur", but now at ver 5
it starts to look more professional.<br></div>The question is - do we
want to step up the game and start making a truly automotive device? The
answer is no, because it involves HUGE investments and a very
structured company to respect al the standards, but we should at least
try to do our best with our limited resources, and the GEVCU 5 seems to
have taken this direction quite seriously. This is only because they will actually mess with the car's internals; as a mostly read-only interface, OVMS doesn't need that much safety.<br>The price problem is very important, as the OVMS is mostly an end user "gadget", while the GEVCU aims to be a real ECU. So OVMS have to keep a low price point. Unfortunately the CINCH cases
cost a lot, as Jack said in that thread "A BOM isn't a product. We have more in enclosure and cable than we have in the circuit board very nearly." so we must keep on using "chinese" enclosures, but this doesn't stop us from looking for a better one.<br>
<br></div><div>I don't really like the Arduino environment, but if that makes the product more desirable we can go that way, as it should also significantly reduce development cost.<br></div><div><br></div>Matt, the new platform should very easily solve all your points, but the 3G modem is still a big question mark for me. Do we really need it? going 3G means higher service prices (especially for international contracts), and you sometimes don't even have coverage.. should consume more current too. A way to share the 3G connection with other devices (streaming radio...) would make up for the higher connection cost.<br>
</div><div><div><div><br></div>I think
that an RTOS/OS will be very useful in that way, as people can add and
remove modules as they will, but this requires a lot of effort (to implement it on a micro) or a powerful and power hungry device. A very cool thing would be to pair a small cheap router running linux ( <a href="http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wr702n">http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/tl-wr702n</a> for ~18$ or <a href="http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/8devices/carambola">http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/8devices/carambola</a> for ~25$ ) with an USB 3G modem and a custom USB-CAN adapter (that can even be later used for development, and sold as a product by itself!). But this is quite an hack, and while adding extremely easy development, almost infinite expansion capabilities and wifi out of the box, it's not a very consumer product. Heck, it can even get streaming radios to the audio system with an usb audio card! (I'm just brainstorming, but I like this idea more the more I think about it...)<br>
<br></div><div>MG<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-06-16 20:55 GMT+02:00 Lee Howard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lee.howard@mainpine.com" target="_blank">lee.howard@mainpine.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I want to say "amen" to both Kevin's and Matt's comments.<br>
<br>
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.).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Lee.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
*Lee Howard*<br>
*Mainpine, Inc. Chief Technology Officer*<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B1%20866%20363%206680" value="+18663636680" target="_blank">+1 866 363 6680</a> | Fax: <a href="tel:%2B1%20360%20462%208160" value="+13604628160" target="_blank">+1 360 462 8160</a><br>
<a href="mailto:lee.howard@mainpine.com" target="_blank">lee.howard@mainpine.com</a> | <a href="http://www.mainpine.com" target="_blank">www.mainpine.com</a><br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OvmsDev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk" target="_blank">OvmsDev@lists.teslaclub.hk</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.teslaclub.hk/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev" target="_blank">http://lists.teslaclub.hk/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>