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@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
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@zerocarbonworld.org> wrote:
Take a look at GEVCU 5;
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
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-