Feature Requests...
 

I was just writing a review of an ESC and brain was ticking over...

- Wouldn't it be nice if you could have the ability to create, load and edit profiles in Castlelink without having an ESC present. Any chance of an over-ride mode where you can select which ESC you have and then play with profiles.

- ABS breaking... Can you sense if the rotor locks and pulse the breaking.

- Soft/hard LiPo cutoff - Customizable cutoffs - Say soft cutoff at 3.5v / cell which reduces power to 40% and then hard cutoff at 3.1v - Similar to a boat cutoff for a get you back to pits.

+ External temp sensor port - For a motor temp sensor which adjustable cutoffs.

Just a thought!

How about then loading a couple of different setups on to a feild program card :yes:

Great idea's Arktic

I second the two posts above. Especially loading settings without a controller, that would be extremely helpful.

i really like the external temp sensor port w/ cutoff idea.:yes:

> A "link" port to allow two (or more) ESCs to be used in parallel. This could be used to put both ESCs in full parallel for high currents to one motor, or sync two ESCs for a dual motor setup.

> Alternate throttle signal modes other than the typical PWM radio. Like a 5k ohm pot, or simple DC voltage level.

I can't really comment on the other requests/suggestions because they are beyond my knowledge level/technical ability. But we already have this feature, it's been out since the last release. The Demo Mode should allow you to do exactly what you're talking about. Without a controller connected, click on the "Having Trouble Connecting Your Device?" tab and select the controller you want to "Demo", then click the Demo Mode button. It will pop-up just like you have the selected controller connected. You can change any of the settings the controller has available with the latest software.

You can save those settings or load settings from a previously saved setup. Try it out and let me know if this is what you were looking for. As for the other stuff, I'll have to let Patrick take care of that because I don't know the technical limitations of the software and hardware.

Based on my limited knowledge on the technical capabilities of the programming, etc., I doubt the first request is possible. I don't think it would be possible, (without major modifications and lots and lots of already scarce engineering time) to produce something like this. Both controllers would have to be in perfect sync with each other and I think we would run into the same limitations with the technology like when we try to run 2 brushless motors on the same ESC. Pat may be able to shine a better light on this subject though.

Even if it was possible, the engineering time it would take probably wouldn't be worth it given the limited market share for something like this. It's much easier to just make a bigger, more powerful controller for larger applications. The ability to sync the two controllers together while running separate motors would be very useful for the crawler market though. And it would be great if we could work that into every controller, so you wouldn't have to buy a crawler specific controller. If it could be marketed correctly and the cost worth it, this would be a great feature. But engineering time is at a premium, so we have to design products that offer the greatest benefits; our engineers already have so many projects on their plates, it's amazing they can do what they do as it is.

As for the alternate signal modes, I believe we can do this for custom controllers/software; but I doubt you'll ever see it in a standard controller. These are designed for the RC industry and the radio input signal is one of the few industry standards.

I believe the biggest problem with adding new features is being able to condense the programming code enough to get it to fit on the processor. They are already doing all kinds of crazy tricks to get certain features to fit as it is. The more features they add, the more they have to compress everything and you can only compress it so far. We can use larger processors, but we have to have backwards compatibility with the stuff already on the market, so there is a limit to what they can do.

Thomas Porfert
Castle Tech Support

Thanks for the reply Thomas.

For my first point, I just figured the "slave" ESC would simply have the brains disabled and have the primary ESC do all the logic. Yeah, there would be a lot of engineering involved, but just figured it would be an easy way to add more current handling. The ability to use two motors would be more involved to be sure.

For my second point, I do realize these ESCs are for the R/C industry, but there are a LOT of non R/C applications where a low-cost feature-rich brushless controller could be used; pretty much any application where a brushed motor is used could be replaced with a much more efficient and maintenance-free BL motor.

Both of my ideas may not have much marketability (or maybe they would). It's just a wish list for me. :whistle:

Yes that works perfectly... Never knew that was hidden there... :)

news to me too, nice easter egg, got anymore?

just like traxxas do with the VXL... except it NEVER works properly :rofl:

the one thing i want to see done is A DARN FLIP FLOP SWITCH FOR THE ESC'S!!!
like the VXL, one touch on, hold for off. then the damn truck wont turn itself off all the time and i get the keep the switch.