Skip to content

added Aerium Radian F405 flight controller #775

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

yaadch
Copy link

@yaadch yaadch commented May 13, 2025

Added Aerium Radian F405 HW definitions
https://www.aerium.co.il/product-page/radian

image

@haslinghuis
Copy link
Member

@yaadch
Copy link
Author

yaadch commented May 19, 2025

@haslinghuis
Hey Mark, thanks for the reference.
I emailed Betaflight's cloudtargets email address three days ago with no response.
Any idea how we can push this integration forward?

@ot0tot
Copy link
Contributor

ot0tot commented May 30, 2025

@sugaarK Have you received this schematic?

@ot0tot
Copy link
Contributor

ot0tot commented May 30, 2025

@yaadch Please review the manufacturer design guidelines (https://betaflight.com/docs/development/manufacturer/manufacturer-design-guidelines) and Betaflight Connector Standard (https://betaflight.com/docs/development/manufacturer/connector-standard). This design has many issues and cannot be approved as-is.

@yaadch
Copy link
Author

yaadch commented Jun 9, 2025

@ot0tot

Just following up, as I haven’t seen a reply to my previous email—please let me know if I’ve missed anything.

The current layout, pinout, and locking connectors on our board are specifically preferred by our users due to their proven reliability and usability in real-world conditions. Because of that, we want to be cautious about applying too many standards that could make the board unsuitable for their needs.
From our perspective, after reviewing the requirements multiple times, we haven’t identified the extent of the issues being raised. It would be helpful if you could clarify the specific concerns or technical limitations you’re referring to, so we can better understand your position and work toward a potential solution.

It’s also worth noting that the flight controller is a detachable module. Given that, we suggest focusing the compliance efforts on the MCU module itself, which can remain generic and aligned with Betaflight’s expectations, while allowing the carrier board to remain as is to meet current customer demand.
To fully address compliance concerns, we’re open to developing a separate carrier board variant that fully adheres to Betaflight’s hardware rules. This way, the MCU remains flexible, and end users can choose the carrier board that best suits their needs—striking a balance between standardization and practical usability.

Looking forward to your feedback.

@osirisinferi
Copy link

osirisinferi commented Jun 9, 2025

From our perspective, after reviewing the requirements multiple times, we haven’t identified the extent of the issues being raised.

I don't know what issues the BF team has found, but on the page linked in the first reply it says:

From the 3rd of December 2024, the Betaflight project will no longer accept new flight controller designs using the STM F4 and F7 series microcontroller where there is more than 4 motor outputs.

I notice a F405 board with 8 motor pins defined.

That's just what caught my eye, there might be more.

@sugaarK
Copy link
Member

sugaarK commented Jun 10, 2025

From our perspective, after reviewing the requirements multiple times, we haven’t identified the extent of the issues being raised.

I don't know what issues the BF team has found, but on the page linked in the first reply it says:

From the 3rd of December 2024, the Betaflight project will no longer accept new flight controller designs using the STM F4 and F7 series microcontroller where there is more than 4 motor outputs.

I notice a F405 board with 8 motor pins defined.

That's just what caught my eye, there might be more.

any pre opened before the ban were allowed to continue.. its not negotiable frankly if This is meant to be a premium product use an h7. the price difference is no longer an issue and you'll have a far more capable and flexible flight controller. the reason for the motor out put limit is its that or we just stop using the restricted chipsets..

#define FC_TARGET_MCU STM32F405

#define BOARD_NAME AERIUM_RADIAN_F405
#define MANUFACTURER_ID AERIUM
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

4 letter code is used here.

#define MOTOR2_PIN PB0
#define MOTOR3_PIN PA8
#define MOTOR4_PIN PA3
#define MOTOR5_PIN PA2
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this chipset is limited to 4 motor outputs and timer only bidirectional dshot. also these motors must be pinned in a way to ensure they use only one timer for the motor set..

@yaadch
Copy link
Author

yaadch commented Jun 10, 2025

@sugaarK @osirisinferi

Thank you for your response.
We currently have a working hardware version based on the STM32H743 (already running ArduPilot, PX4 and Betaflight).

Based on your feedback, it seems advisable to focus on this version and not pursue the F405.
I’ve sent a separate email regarding this, please have a look so we can move forward.

image

@osirisinferi
Copy link

osirisinferi commented Jun 10, 2025

any pre opened before the ban were allowed to continue..

I know, but this PR was opened less than one month ago 🙂

--

so its subject tot the new target rules layer out from dec 2024... 4 motor out puts

Which was exactly my point to begin with 😉

@sugaarK
Copy link
Member

sugaarK commented Jun 10, 2025

any pre opened before the ban were allowed to continue..

I know, but this PR was opened less than one month ago 🙂

so its subject tot the new target rules layer out from dec 2024... 4 motor out puts

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants