added Aerium Radian F405 flight controller

[yaadch]

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

[haslinghuis]

Please check https://betaflight.com/docs/development/manufacturer/config-target-guidance

[yaadch]

@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]

@sugaarK Have you received this schematic?

[ot0tot]

@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]

@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]

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]

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..

[sugaarK]

4 letter code is used here.

[sugaarK]

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]

@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.

[osirisinferi]

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]

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