Companion add MT12 support

[bd4]

Is there an existing issue for this feature request?

• I have searched the existing issues

Is your feature request related to a problem?

No companion support for mt12 yet

Describe the solution you'd like

Can use companion with mt12

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

I didn't see any issue or PRs related to MT12 companion support, thought it might be useful to have an issue to track progress and coordinate contributions?

Wondering if there is some way I can contribute, I understand there are a lot of differences so may be a fair amount of work.

[3djc]

Yes, a lot of work is involved, since companion was designed a (long) while ago with only air radio in mind

[pfeerick]

If we take any shortcuts here, it will not be pretty. For sure, we could just slap in support for the MT12 like any other radio, but then people would be complain about the constant references to air stuff in companion, and drive stuff on the radio, and then there is simulator 😆

[jimdabim]

Hi there,

any way you could make the MT12 work together with the companion would be very much appreciated.
Even if it is not perfect in a first version and the simulator would look like an air one.

It would still help a lot.

Greetings,
Sebatian

[sirwatchalot]

I agree. Much of the learning curve for EdgeTX (especially for surface guys new to it) is in navigating the menus and working out what things do. Companion greatly simplifies this and allows for very rapid "tweek then simulate" learning. Having Companion available would hugely help adoption in my view. If it isn't already in the plan, the I fear the MT12 using EdgeTX was perhaps a mistake...

[magnusroe]

If it isn't already in the plan, the I fear the MT12 using EdgeTX was perhaps a mistake...

It has said in the roadmap that support is in the plan since at least January. I agree it would be nice to get it as soon as possible, but maybe semi-functional features would throw off new adopters just as soon as they were attracted. If I'm not mistaken a lot of the surface segment typically use one tx/rx pair per vehicle. Maybe the functionality can be introduced in betas though? The current page is a little confusing when it mentions support will come with 2.10 and we're already at 2.10.1

[sirwatchalot]

I agree - beta releases would be good. It would also help to know what the current timeline is. I've no issue with the Companion updates lagging a bit, but the early comments above seem to suggest work hasn't even started. Hopefully that's not the case.
(and being simplistic, it's the GUI that needs to change, the EdgeTX behaviours don't)

[bd4]

My understanding is, it is in the plan but is a lot of work because of differences with air radios. I wish I had more time to contribute but have pretty inconsistent free time to devote to it, and am not familiar with the code yet. I am sure more developer resources would be welcome.

I do think that a limited release with no simulator but basic editing functionality would still be useful to people.

[sirwatchalot]

I concur - even the just the editing functionality would be useful and lower the bar to entry.
But as for the radios being different - sure the combination of pots, switches, etc. is different but the radio doesn't actually DO anything different for each of those (except where we config EdgeTX differently). So it should just be a visualisation problem, no?

[gagarinlg]

It is a bit more. Some texts have to be redone, depending on the radio type.
@elecpower did a lot in the last couple of months to make it easier to introduce new radios into companion, but there is still a long way to go, to make it as easy as it should be t add new radios.

[3djc]

Also, quite a few things expect 2 sticks (4axis) when MT12 only has 2 axis

[sirwatchalot]

It is a bit more. Some texts have to be redone, depending on the radio type. @elecpower did a lot in the last couple of months to make it easier to introduce new radios into companion, but there is still a long way to go, to make it as easy as it should be t add new radios.

Ah - so it's as much about it being difficult to add a new radio (regardless of type) as it is about it being surface vs air

On the 2 axis sticks vs single axis - from a simulator perspective what breaks if nothing ever drives the sticks? Or is something hard baked? From an abstraction perspective I'd assume there are some archetypes that get assembled (pots, switches, 2 axis sticks) that have visual behaviours and drive input types. Beyond the visual, has the existence of 2 sticks been baked as an assumption into something unfortunate?

Anyway - detail aside, and essentially back to the start of the thread, what does "in the plan" mean? That work is being done? That work isn't being done, but has been scheduled (and if so, for when/which release)? Or just in the backlog to be done one day?