Your arguments for why you went with OpenTX vs EdgeTX seem a bit contradictory. First you say that the touch support for menus and such is great, but not so important to the lua app since buttons are easier. Yes, I can understand that as a reason why given the two choices, it wouldn't matter which you went with. But then you say that touch makes parts of the app easier to use, and given touch support is not actually present in OTX, this means running a custom fork. Or you could just run EdgeTX, which merged added support for touch in lua apps over a week ago. Then, at 8:34, you're talking about the "concept for the apps" is not suitable... but hang on a minute... this is new in EdgeTX, and *on top of prior OpenTX lua support* ... so I'm not quite sure what you're saying doesn't allow your ground control app to work in a reasonable manner... would you care to explain *how* it will prevent it from working? You could either have it small, and full screen it, or set it as a full screen panel, or run it from tools... the later two exactly as you would do in OTX. So I'd really like to know what you actually mean by that statement, rather than you stopping by the Discord and stating that the earth is a sphere... as that is irrelevant. discordapp.com/channels/839849772864503828/842693696629899274/872775854030225448
to 1st paragraph: I think I made it clear in a couple of places that I distinguish between what's good for setting up models and such things and operating the transmitter and telemetry lua widget during flight. I can't see how statements referring to the one and the other could possibly contradict. It seems you want to construct a contradiction which is not there. Yes, touch is IMHO indeed a deal break for a lua script as I show it. The progress of the app was in fact seriously hampered because of lack of it, and I'm biting my ass that I failed to see that this could have been already done one year ago. your fork argument is pretty stale. No, you cannot "just run EdgeTx", that's a totally wrong statement. It's a fork either way. You appear to have missed this key point (listen again to the first sentence in the video). Also, you seem to know already that otx 2.3.15 won't have lua touch support, but you may find this to turn out to be incorrect. to 2nd paragraph: You seem to think that all it needs is some touch and everything is then perfect even if all the rest is totally hard to use and operate in flight. I think that I talk a lot about that there is more to consider than just having some touch gestures, or the other fanciness like opening/closing pp you are mentioning. And I indeed think things are much easier currently in OpenTx. The concept of apps in EdgeTx is anything else than that. It may make great demo videos and may fascinate on the bench, but that's it about usability for purposes like here. I think it would need serious reconsideration, which I believe would end up in quite some conceptual changes. But I can't see anything of this happening, rather to the opposite, and your response in my eyes is just another demonstration of it, to clinche to it at all costs. To give you one specific concern, this dammed green frame (and that's related to it) needs to go. Also, you seem to think that the difference between "not working" and "not working in a reasonable manner" is pure semantics. I do not think so. It's pointless to have a discussion then one can't even agree on such trivia. Concerning your reference to discord you fail to realize that this was a reaction not action, maybe you want to think about what this little "re" means. Yes, it could be interesting to have a serious discussion, and it's public that I made efforts to contribute, but stopped as I don't see it possible, for the reasons I outlined in that discord, which actually just describes a pattern in your community. I think I do have good reasons for why I prefer using OpenTx for what I did in the video, and for what I'm doing. And I have outlined them in the video to some extend. You guys can dismiss the arguments or not, it is irrelevant to what I work on. (btw, the very same works on EdgeTx ... on my fork of EdgeTx ... not vanilla EdgeTx, so, I use EdgeTx ... my fork of EdgeTx)
I think you clearly missed the point of the first paragraph - which is that you are at first saying "touch is great for radio setup", then "but my lua app will be using buttons", and then "but it also uses touch" ... so the first part of your video is on raising an irrelevant point (or is it even a strawman argument?), since your focus is apparently on using the radio a GCS through a lua script - so what does radio setup touch have to do with that, other than to come off as saying "well, EdgeTX has some good points, but I'm here today to say OpenTX is better"? As I said before, if you had simply said something conveying "for my project, EdgeTX has touch support for both radio configuration and lua scripts but it just did not fit my needs, so I forked OpenTX" that would have been more factually grounded. To be clear, I know you can't 'just run' edgetx, since it doesn't have the mavlink telemetry support needed - but neither does opentx now, does it? I don't have any insider information about OTX, but I think there is more chance of hell freezing over before touch support is added as quickly as the next release, as they are waiting on FreeRTOS integration first, so will want to test that, and then maybe implement touch support... so I think we are looking at a couple of revisions worth of wait. Then again, they could surprise and move quicker than they have ever done in the history of the project, and implement it in the next release. Time will tell. Regarding the "second paragraph", you still haven't answer the single question that was there - I said I wanted to know what exactly you mean by "the apps concept just won't allow you to do something like this"... Can you not run a lua script from SYS -> Tools, just like you would on OTX? Can you not have a full-screen panel, just like you would on OTX? And in addition, on ETX, can you not have a small widget that changes to a full-screen one? I am asking these questions in order for you to better explain your point of view, and maybe then we can start to figure out a better model, or make a decision as to whether this is too much of a niche case. I don't know all the ins and outs of your project, or of lua, so please keep that in mind - in other words - "that just won't work" isn't a very meaningful answer - as the "why" has not been given, so it does not inform as to "how it could be improved". You were pinged on the discord because you stated in your video that touch in lua was not possible, and since it was known you were on the server the question was raised was essentially "is this really the case, since there is a video from a week earlier in this channel that shows touch working in lua" (th-cam.com/video/QSl6AVRojjw/w-d-xo.html) ... so I would that thought that was the perfect opportunity for you to say that you weren't aware of that, or that you had seen it and that it didn't fit you needs (and perhaps explain why). If you looked into the functionality or not obviously would be entirely up to you - as if you have things set up as you want them in OTX, unless there was some added value in switching/trying it out on EdgeTX, why would you spend time on it. You have put a lot of work into this project, and have valuable insights to give... but if you just want to "react" instead of having meaningful dialog, that's fine, I have better things to do with my time.
concerning 1st paragraph I think you clearly missed the point of my response, that you put statements referring to different context into the same context. It's always possible to construct artificial contradictions that way. You can continue to argue around that and ignore that "little detail" for as long as you want, I'm not going to bother. Your long answer is full of such artificially constructed cases. Where did I ever say "OpenTx is better"? I think I in fact had been very enthusiastic about EdgeTx. Further below you are emphasizing that ""that just won't work" isn't a very meaningful answer" but have done just exactly this type of shortening when claiming I said that "OpenTx is better". And so on and forth. I have too little interest to go through all your text, pointing at all the cases. None of the things you claim I have said I have said as you are (mis-)presenting it. concerning that I have not answered to "I wanted to know what exactly you mean by "the apps concept just won't allow you to do something like this"" you are incorrect. It's just not the answer you were wanting. I've answered that I have no interest in discussing this with you in that much detail for reasons I have outlined. This would require a level of open-mindedness which I can't see. In my experience it's not a successful strategy for entering a discussion (I have seen the very same with you guys with mavlink, so I'm not surprised to see it again). You may think that I am obliged to answer what you want to hear, but I don't. Dito, if you consider it a niche or not, is really irrelevant to me. Again I do not see a reason to bother. I am actually very surprised that you go into this argument with this attitude at all, and seem to think anyone must be interested. I have zero interest to bother with artificially construed contradictions and similar noise. It seems you guys just don't like/are angry at that someone demonstrated that touch lua is easily possible with opentx2.3, demonstrated it in a real-world application, and that someone is saying that for practical operation EdgeTx is not yet quite there and too cumbersome. When you guys have cooled down and come to reason one could give it a serious try. For the moment, I'm happy to summarize the two points I was trying to make, which in short were: 1) You don't mandatorily need EdgeTx since OpenTx2.3 with touch lua is perfectly fine and gives essentially all one needs in operation (for the type of thing I'm demonstrating) 2) EdgeTx is not quite there (for the type of thing I'm demonstrating), and my impression is that it might not change
@@OlliW42Given the fact you seem to this this is an argument, I think I'll let *you* cool down. As there is no point continuing this until you are able to answer some very basic questions. It's also quite interesting you raised mavlink, as you never answered the question in that PR, which is really the only reason it didn't progress. You are correct - no answer at all is not the answer I was seeking. Since this video already existed showing touch events in lua scripts (th-cam.com/video/QSl6AVRojjw/w-d-xo.html) - I was curious as to why you say the app model doesn't work. As is the ability to start the transmitter, with a full screen (telemetry!) widget right from power on... so that in conjunction with a touch screen capable widget could be shown immediately on powerup or with a single swipe, and then given full button and screen access in three presses (perhaps this could be improved?). th-cam.com/video/f-H9_aaFcXI/w-d-xo.html As to whether someone can fork OpenTX and make it touch compatible (instead of use "vanilla" EdgeTX or whatever, etc) it's not "angry"... I don't give two hoots... ... good on you for doing so, and showing what is possible! So please don't make spurious accusations about "you guys must be hot heads"... "I'm the adult in the room". If you want to annoy me, continue to not give suggestions on how to improve things. It certainly won't change if you don't say what needs changing.
Your arguments for why you went with OpenTX vs EdgeTX seem a bit contradictory. First you say that the touch support for menus and such is great, but not so important to the lua app since buttons are easier. Yes, I can understand that as a reason why given the two choices, it wouldn't matter which you went with. But then you say that touch makes parts of the app easier to use, and given touch support is not actually present in OTX, this means running a custom fork. Or you could just run EdgeTX, which merged added support for touch in lua apps over a week ago.
Then, at 8:34, you're talking about the "concept for the apps" is not suitable... but hang on a minute... this is new in EdgeTX, and *on top of prior OpenTX lua support* ... so I'm not quite sure what you're saying doesn't allow your ground control app to work in a reasonable manner... would you care to explain *how* it will prevent it from working? You could either have it small, and full screen it, or set it as a full screen panel, or run it from tools... the later two exactly as you would do in OTX. So I'd really like to know what you actually mean by that statement, rather than you stopping by the Discord and stating that the earth is a sphere... as that is irrelevant. discordapp.com/channels/839849772864503828/842693696629899274/872775854030225448
to 1st paragraph: I think I made it clear in a couple of places that I distinguish between what's good for setting up models and such things and operating the transmitter and telemetry lua widget during flight. I can't see how statements referring to the one and the other could possibly contradict. It seems you want to construct a contradiction which is not there. Yes, touch is IMHO indeed a deal break for a lua script as I show it. The progress of the app was in fact seriously hampered because of lack of it, and I'm biting my ass that I failed to see that this could have been already done one year ago.
your fork argument is pretty stale. No, you cannot "just run EdgeTx", that's a totally wrong statement. It's a fork either way. You appear to have missed this key point (listen again to the first sentence in the video). Also, you seem to know already that otx 2.3.15 won't have lua touch support, but you may find this to turn out to be incorrect.
to 2nd paragraph: You seem to think that all it needs is some touch and everything is then perfect even if all the rest is totally hard to use and operate in flight. I think that I talk a lot about that there is more to consider than just having some touch gestures, or the other fanciness like opening/closing pp you are mentioning. And I indeed think things are much easier currently in OpenTx. The concept of apps in EdgeTx is anything else than that. It may make great demo videos and may fascinate on the bench, but that's it about usability for purposes like here. I think it would need serious reconsideration, which I believe would end up in quite some conceptual changes. But I can't see anything of this happening, rather to the opposite, and your response in my eyes is just another demonstration of it, to clinche to it at all costs. To give you one specific concern, this dammed green frame (and that's related to it) needs to go.
Also, you seem to think that the difference between "not working" and "not working in a reasonable manner" is pure semantics. I do not think so. It's pointless to have a discussion then one can't even agree on such trivia. Concerning your reference to discord you fail to realize that this was a reaction not action, maybe you want to think about what this little "re" means.
Yes, it could be interesting to have a serious discussion, and it's public that I made efforts to contribute, but stopped as I don't see it possible, for the reasons I outlined in that discord, which actually just describes a pattern in your community.
I think I do have good reasons for why I prefer using OpenTx for what I did in the video, and for what I'm doing. And I have outlined them in the video to some extend. You guys can dismiss the arguments or not, it is irrelevant to what I work on.
(btw, the very same works on EdgeTx ... on my fork of EdgeTx ... not vanilla EdgeTx, so, I use EdgeTx ... my fork of EdgeTx)
I think you clearly missed the point of the first paragraph - which is that you are at first saying "touch is great for radio setup", then "but my lua app will be using buttons", and then "but it also uses touch" ... so the first part of your video is on raising an irrelevant point (or is it even a strawman argument?), since your focus is apparently on using the radio a GCS through a lua script - so what does radio setup touch have to do with that, other than to come off as saying "well, EdgeTX has some good points, but I'm here today to say OpenTX is better"? As I said before, if you had simply said something conveying "for my project, EdgeTX has touch support for both radio configuration and lua scripts but it just did not fit my needs, so I forked OpenTX" that would have been more factually grounded. To be clear, I know you can't 'just run' edgetx, since it doesn't have the mavlink telemetry support needed - but neither does opentx now, does it?
I don't have any insider information about OTX, but I think there is more chance of hell freezing over before touch support is added as quickly as the next release, as they are waiting on FreeRTOS integration first, so will want to test that, and then maybe implement touch support... so I think we are looking at a couple of revisions worth of wait. Then again, they could surprise and move quicker than they have ever done in the history of the project, and implement it in the next release. Time will tell.
Regarding the "second paragraph", you still haven't answer the single question that was there - I said I wanted to know what exactly you mean by "the apps concept just won't allow you to do something like this"... Can you not run a lua script from SYS -> Tools, just like you would on OTX? Can you not have a full-screen panel, just like you would on OTX? And in addition, on ETX, can you not have a small widget that changes to a full-screen one? I am asking these questions in order for you to better explain your point of view, and maybe then we can start to figure out a better model, or make a decision as to whether this is too much of a niche case. I don't know all the ins and outs of your project, or of lua, so please keep that in mind - in other words - "that just won't work" isn't a very meaningful answer - as the "why" has not been given, so it does not inform as to "how it could be improved".
You were pinged on the discord because you stated in your video that touch in lua was not possible, and since it was known you were on the server the question was raised was essentially "is this really the case, since there is a video from a week earlier in this channel that shows touch working in lua" (th-cam.com/video/QSl6AVRojjw/w-d-xo.html) ... so I would that thought that was the perfect opportunity for you to say that you weren't aware of that, or that you had seen it and that it didn't fit you needs (and perhaps explain why). If you looked into the functionality or not obviously would be entirely up to you - as if you have things set up as you want them in OTX, unless there was some added value in switching/trying it out on EdgeTX, why would you spend time on it. You have put a lot of work into this project, and have valuable insights to give... but if you just want to "react" instead of having meaningful dialog, that's fine, I have better things to do with my time.
concerning 1st paragraph I think you clearly missed the point of my response, that you put statements referring to different context into the same context. It's always possible to construct artificial contradictions that way. You can continue to argue around that and ignore that "little detail" for as long as you want, I'm not going to bother.
Your long answer is full of such artificially constructed cases. Where did I ever say "OpenTx is better"? I think I in fact had been very enthusiastic about EdgeTx. Further below you are emphasizing that ""that just won't work" isn't a very meaningful answer" but have done just exactly this type of shortening when claiming I said that "OpenTx is better". And so on and forth. I have too little interest to go through all your text, pointing at all the cases. None of the things you claim I have said I have said as you are (mis-)presenting it.
concerning that I have not answered to "I wanted to know what exactly you mean by "the apps concept just won't allow you to do something like this"" you are incorrect. It's just not the answer you were wanting. I've answered that I have no interest in discussing this with you in that much detail for reasons I have outlined. This would require a level of open-mindedness which I can't see. In my experience it's not a successful strategy for entering a discussion (I have seen the very same with you guys with mavlink, so I'm not surprised to see it again).
You may think that I am obliged to answer what you want to hear, but I don't.
Dito, if you consider it a niche or not, is really irrelevant to me. Again I do not see a reason to bother.
I am actually very surprised that you go into this argument with this attitude at all, and seem to think anyone must be interested. I have zero interest to bother with artificially construed contradictions and similar noise.
It seems you guys just don't like/are angry at that someone demonstrated that touch lua is easily possible with opentx2.3, demonstrated it in a real-world application, and that someone is saying that for practical operation EdgeTx is not yet quite there and too cumbersome.
When you guys have cooled down and come to reason one could give it a serious try.
For the moment, I'm happy to summarize the two points I was trying to make, which in short were:
1) You don't mandatorily need EdgeTx since OpenTx2.3 with touch lua is perfectly fine and gives essentially all one needs in operation (for the type of thing I'm demonstrating)
2) EdgeTx is not quite there (for the type of thing I'm demonstrating), and my impression is that it might not change
@@OlliW42Given the fact you seem to this this is an argument, I think I'll let *you* cool down. As there is no point continuing this until you are able to answer some very basic questions. It's also quite interesting you raised mavlink, as you never answered the question in that PR, which is really the only reason it didn't progress.
You are correct - no answer at all is not the answer I was seeking. Since this video already existed showing touch events in lua scripts (th-cam.com/video/QSl6AVRojjw/w-d-xo.html) - I was curious as to why you say the app model doesn't work. As is the ability to start the transmitter, with a full screen (telemetry!) widget right from power on... so that in conjunction with a touch screen capable widget could be shown immediately on powerup or with a single swipe, and then given full button and screen access in three presses (perhaps this could be improved?). th-cam.com/video/f-H9_aaFcXI/w-d-xo.html
As to whether someone can fork OpenTX and make it touch compatible (instead of use "vanilla" EdgeTX or whatever, etc) it's not "angry"... I don't give two hoots... ... good on you for doing so, and showing what is possible! So please don't make spurious accusations about "you guys must be hot heads"... "I'm the adult in the room". If you want to annoy me, continue to not give suggestions on how to improve things. It certainly won't change if you don't say what needs changing.