w.pasman
Elite Veteran
Location: Netherlands
| | Quote |
| I'm not sure how to measure this one since it takes 4 to 5 frames to transition from one collective setting to another. Any ideas? To be fair to the two combinations tested thus far, it would need to be to the end of the transition. That will automatically put it in the 60+ ms range. This would also then be true of the 14MZ when used with a PCM1024 rx.
|
Latency is always measured from the moment the stick moves to the moment the transition is complete. PCM1024 has a way to make 'half a move' in the first frame, followed by the final move in the next frame. Just as with servos, it does NOT count when it STARTS to move, it counts when it ARRIVES. And yes, this is BAD for the max latency but it's just as bad when you try to control your machine.
And BTW I think that a large spread on the latency is also not good, it would give a jittery, unreliable feel to the controls.
| Quote |
| I found it more difficult to test this setup due to the odd nature of how the channels change so I only went for the minimums. In theory you would add one frame time to get the maximums.
|
and
| Quote |
| So perhaps if we can assume the 14MZ starts sending the change "immediately", then we can subtract about 39 ms (3 frames)from the 9C numbers and use those as the 14MZ + PCM1024 receiver numbers.
|
Please report the raw findings, and leave such 'corrections' for a discussion. I would not try to use such educated guesses. As you can see in my reports, they can think of pretty nasty update schemes, combined with many other factors resulting in very weird (usually high) max latencies. For the 9C guess, I think that my latency report already proved that your suggested 1-frame difference is not what is found in reality. |
-.jpg)
Please let me know if you need it, I think I still have it somewhere in my own archives
Maybe they were removed, or a harddisk crashed?
