Author Topic: Changing the RMF69 radio configuration [+300kbps settings]  (Read 9244 times)

sid1202

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
Re: Changing the RMF69HCW configuration and back
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2016, 06:14:18 AM »
I've been playing with the settings and I would like to be able to "analyses" the performance of the radios at different settings. I was wondering if there is a standard measuring algorithm or sample code to achieve this so that my tests are meaningful to others too, not just me.

I've seen some results posted  here and there, but I did not find any testing guidelines anywhere...

Sid

perky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 870
  • Country: gb
Re: Changing the RMF69HCW configuration and back
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2016, 07:27:07 AM »
Not that I'm aware of, I think people tend to do their own ad-hoc testing. It would be nice to run some standard code on two radios and have it cycle through various settings automatically and report things like RSSI and packet error rate though.
Mark.

WhiteHare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Country: us
Re: Changing the RMF69HCW configuration and back
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2016, 10:40:38 AM »
Probably the closest thing to a "standard" would be measuring the bit error rate, but even that starts to get blurry: e.g. do you measure it before or after the error correction code does its work? Do you test the bits in the entire frame, or just the data payload?  If you completely miss a frame, how many bits of error do you count that as?  And how do you count a frame that you "received" but was never actually sent?  And on and on and on.  The actual definition of BER seems a tad fuzzy.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2016, 12:25:50 PM by WhiteHare »

sid1202

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
Re: Changing the RMF69HCW configuration and back
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2016, 12:34:49 PM »
As I was looking at testing, I quickly saw there is a multitude of ways to do so. I wanted the results to be meaningful to the rest of the community.

I'm not even sure ow I should proceed there are so many options. I'll ask on the RadioHead Forum see if they use a standard testing routine for their stuff.

Have you guys played with unlimited payload length ?

Sid

ChemE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: us
Re: Changing the RMF69 radio configuration [+300kbps settings]
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2017, 08:26:57 AM »
This thread never actually wound up explicitly spelling out working 300kbps settings so I'm sharing mine for others who are looking to break into this speed.  I make no promises that these are 100% optimized but they get me 300+ feet which is all I need.

300kbps Settings - No Encryption or CRC to keep packet as small as possible
Bit Rate - 300kHz
Fdev - 300kHz
RxBW - 500kHz
Code: [Select]
const uint8_t CONFIG[][2] = {
    { REG_OPMODE, RF_OPMODE_SEQUENCER_ON | RF_OPMODE_LISTEN_OFF | RF_OPMODE_STANDBY },    // 0x01
    { REG_DATAMODUL, RF_DATAMODUL_DATAMODE_PACKET | RF_DATAMODUL_MODULATIONTYPE_FSK | RF_DATAMODUL_MODULATIONSHAPING_00 },    // 0x02
    { REG_BITRATEMSB, RF_BITRATEMSB_300000 },    // 0x03
    { REG_BITRATELSB, RF_BITRATELSB_300000 },    // 0x04
    { REG_FDEVMSB, RF_FDEVMSB_300000 },    // 0x05
    { REG_FDEVLSB, RF_FDEVLSB_300000 },    // 0x06
    { REG_FRFMSB, RF_FRFMSB_915 },    // 0x07
    { REG_FRFMID, RF_FRFMID_915 },     // 0x08
    { REG_FRFLSB, RF_FRFLSB_915 },    // 0x09
    { REG_RXBW, RF_RXBW_DCCFREQ_111 | RF_RXBW_MANT_16 | RF_RXBW_EXP_0 },    // 0x19
    { REG_DIOMAPPING1, RF_DIOMAPPING1_DIO0_01 },    // 0x25
    { REG_DIOMAPPING2, RF_DIOMAPPING2_CLKOUT_OFF },    //0x26
    { REG_IRQFLAGS2, RF_IRQFLAGS2_FIFOOVERRUN },    // 0x28
    { REG_RSSITHRESH, 220 },    // 0x29
    { REG_PREAMBLELSB, RF_PREAMBLESIZE_LSB_VALUE },    // 0x2D
    { REG_SYNCCONFIG, RF_SYNC_ON | RF_SYNC_FIFOFILL_AUTO | RF_SYNC_SIZE_2 | RF_SYNC_TOL_0 },    // 0x2E
    { REG_SYNCVALUE1, 0x2D },    // 0x2F
    { REG_SYNCVALUE2, networkID },    // 0x30
    { REG_PACKETCONFIG1, RF_PACKET1_FORMAT_VARIABLE | RF_PACKET1_DCFREE_OFF | RF_PACKET1_CRC_OFF | RF_PACKET1_CRCAUTOCLEAR_OFF | RF_PACKET1_ADRSFILTERING_OFF },    // 0x37
    { REG_PAYLOADLENGTH, 66 },    // 0x38
    { REG_FIFOTHRESH, RF_FIFOTHRESH_TXSTART_FIFONOTEMPTY | RF_FIFOTHRESH_VALUE },    // 0x3C
    { REG_PACKETCONFIG2, RF_PACKET2_RXRESTARTDELAY_2BITS | RF_PACKET2_AUTORXRESTART_ON | RF_PACKET2_AES_OFF },    // 0x3D
    { REG_TESTDAGC, RF_DAGC_IMPROVED_LOWBETA0 },    // 0x6F
    { 255, 0 }
  };
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 09:00:13 AM by ChemE »

sid1202

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Country: ca
Re: Changing the RMF69 radio configuration [+300kbps settings]
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2017, 09:17:14 AM »
Thanks ChemE,

I've been to busy at work lately so I had to put this on hold, but I'm about to get back at it within a couple of weeks. I'll be writing up some documentation on this process too probably in February. I'll post about that when time comes though.

madsci1016

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Country: us
Re: Changing the RMF69 radio configuration [+300kbps settings]
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2017, 01:58:10 PM »
ChemE,

I used your settings to get my radios working @ 6' apart sending 41 bytes @44hz between them. The stock library settings were chocking on the same setup.

However, my reported RSSI went from -20 to -100 when I used your settings. I'm using RF69HCW. IS this to be expected, or do I need to tweak one of your settings for the HCW model?

ChemE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: us
Re: Changing the RMF69 radio configuration [+300kbps settings]
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2017, 02:22:41 PM »
That RSSI is unexpectedly low for sure.  I have both Ws and HWs and with those settings my RSSIs range from -50s at power level 0 to -25 or so at power level 31 when the radios are separated by 15' or so and line-of-sight or just a pane of glass in between them.  See the other thread about comments on caching RSSI so you can read it way faster though.  Something is still up though, b/c those numbers will come up some but not to what I get.