AOG has allways done this. Current code really cannot handle an offset mower.
AOG needs tractor to be within work area so offset can only extend a bit to the side. Workaround is to literally add a front mount mower to your tractor also. Or double width of implement in AOG so tractor is within working width.
Your welcome to try coding it to work. Even if you only get the code to roughly work, we can help clean it up when got more time.
I tried that in simulator: Following a line seems to work quite well! What doesnt work is the calculation of the uturn if you pick to skip one or more lines it finishes next to the line.
True. But mowing on AB with offset mower means your running on the crop, so why do that?
Im not fully familier with all the functions in AOG yet, but is there a way to setup guidance lines in AOG to allow to cover a field in cuts with an offset mower? Kind of a tricky situations…I normally just use the GPS to open up cuts down across the field, and then drive by hand, saves having any triangles. Solution is a front mower…but dont have one (yet!)
You don;t have to make the mower look right in AOG, you just need an AB Line the right distance apart. Follow the line like a normal implement without any offset - the guy in the cab knows which way to swing the thing.
Yeah thats what Ive been trying to do, but with offset mower, you have to do it in cuts, so the A-B lines cant be the same distances apart, same as single rotor rakes etc, its different going one way to the other (Im not talking about swing over moco mowers by the way, this is single fixed offset mower thats mounted to tractor, very common here in UK / europe)…I got around it by just shifting the track every time i went the opposite direction, but be nice if there is already a proper way to do that…
Is their some reason that V4.3.10 doesnt have machine UDP
Find and older version with machine udp. I have been using 4.3 with udp hydraulic lift and section control on air drill. Working great.
so are you saying that the machine UDP from say 4.1.1 would work with 4.3.1
machine / section control has not changed much. For USB you need V4 10 byte sentence (former 8 Bytes) but UDP hasn’t changed. So section control codes are working as they should, including switches (remote control for AOG SC) (see GitHub and youtube MTZ8302)
I dont think that v4.1.1 and v4.1.12 machine UDP are working with v4.3.1. When i click on GPS data in upper right corner the autosteer udp shows a counter but the machine udp just sits at zero?? any tips would be appreciated.
Send PGN 32736 Back to Aog for Machine controller
Send PGN 32761 Back to Aog for Section Switches
I dont think i understand. i also hooked light to pin 5 on nano (section 1) and no response
Yes it should
1 Like
I wonder what im doing wrong. Its an aftermarket nano. Would an genuine nano make a difference. Using it with one of these
powered with 9 volts on VIN and gnd.
???
I just powered my nano from usb power for now. an aftermarket nano should work. Looks like the right ethernet module. I justed hooked up 4 relay module and it worked. Sorry don’t have office time now as busy seeding so cant look right now exactly which version my udp machine control is from. Somewhere Brian mentioned which one to try and thats the one i used. And yes i’m using lastest 4.3 version
1 Like
Sorry, i ran out of time with the udp machine module. That will be next!
There was a bug saving Overshoot reduction. I know some were saying getting back to the line caused the vehicle to oscillate, so double check if your settings isn’t set to 0.1 Generally a good setting is 1.0
The fix is in the updated release - no version change at all https://github.com/farmerbriantee/AgOpenGPS/releases/tag/4.3.10
1 Like
Hi Brian,
why do you always update the releases with the same Version number? This can get really confusing. Why not counting up the last digit for small improvements?
Which Version do you have?
4.3.10
Ah ok. But which one? The one with feature X or without
3 Likes
I’m guessing it is to do with the fact that Arduino version has to match AOG. But I agree, it kind of defeats the object of incremental version fixes.
1 Like