No, i am running the first logger version, not sure which it is, the one from this post:
It will take me a while to update the rx as i am happy depite sometimes having this hickups and it takes a bit to get the receiver out.
i will try to make a video next time it happens.
Ok, then an update will probably solve this, since I implemented a fix already some time ago
Also recommend to update Tx btw, for the newest collision detection features
Hi everyone
I was thinking of designing a smaller version of the V2 receiver, better suited for eFoil and assist situations where a 2nd output is not needed and size is a concern
I was thinking if the following
No 2nd motor output: I will probably leave a pad somewhere so you can still read the 2nd signal with an Arduino, but it won’t be plug and play with a 2nd ESC/VESC
Simplified UART: One dedicated UART for VESC, one for GPS, fixed ad 3.3V for VESC and 5V for UART
No bind and user button - binding will have to be done via software/USB
SMA antenna connector not assembled to board, making it much flatter, antenna connected with U.FL directly to the RF module/processor
BMS detection input will need external resistors when used (saves a lot of space due to onboard resistors having to be spaced apart otherwise because higher voltage)
USB C port onboard or with external programming adapter? Would save a lot of space, but also make programming and debugging more tedious
What’s the size/shape you prefer? Preferred measurements for width x height please?
Leave SMA antenna connector as a footprint so the user can assemble themselves? Takes a lot of space though…
Do you even have a need for a smaller Rx? If so, leave a like
Let me know what you think 
Love it, thanks Ludwig!
USB-C is a nice-to-have, but in foil assist mode I’d completely pot the RX, so a micro cable sticking out would be just fine (whatever is the lighter option I would take)
size and shape: the current Maytech RX is a good size. Square and smallest possible is prob an easy bet
no SMA, U.FL is just as easy. SMA is too heavy for foil assist
Maybe comes with a lightweight potting kit like the BREMote?
Myabe 2, extra 5V pin to attach an LED that shows connection or no connection?
Sounds great.
As I wrote before, I got the Bremote2 running on this, Wireless Stick Lite(V3), ESP32S3 + SX1262 LoRa Node, Meshtastic and LoRaWAN Compatible – Heltec Automation , but I assume yours will be much more reliable.
I also already have OTA and config over wifi working. Once you have that running on the “real” firmware you only need USB for initial flashing.
For the antenna, can you not use the connector directly on the chip?
Nice idea, thanks!
That’s at least the goal haha
A bit of circuitry is needed for reliable level conversion for GPS and VESC, PWM generation,…
Nice! I also think the firmware will become more stable over time requiring less frequent updates
Yes that’s the plan I proposed above, that one is called U.FL or IPEX. I do not plan to add another one in addition. Made that more clear above too.
My wishes for a smaller rx:
No bind and user button
antenna connected with U.FL directly to the RF module/processor, no SMA
Leave SMA antenna connector as a footprint : No
no BMS detection i
include a USB C port!
size/shape: can be long, but not to width
So I am trying to simplify and clean up my cables.
Can you easily explain why we need two BEC’s?
And what failure I can expect if I use only one?
I cannot fit your BEC in there and I’d like to reduce the number of parts that can fail.
Ideally I would just want 4 cables to run to the RX - 5V, GND and two signals.
2 ESCs have their GND connected on their power input. A lot of current flows there and since wires will always have resistance and therefore voltage drop at current, the GND potential of those two ESCs will differ from another
The Rx will generate the PWM signal that is only a few volts, in reference to the GND it gets on each channel
If you connect those signal GNDs as well on the Rx side, the voltage difference from the power cables will introduce interference, that may be degrading the PWM signal
So you need a separate supply for each PWM channels with separate GND, therefore 2 isolated BECs
If you don’t use them, expect interference and one or both motors cutting out randomly
If you want to save space and not use the BREmote BEC, just use ESCs or VESCs with integrated BEC, so they can supply the Rx on their own - you will still need 6 wires though, GND, 5V and SIG each
You remember back then, when we had stereo and cassette players, and sometimes connecting them made them hum? Same thing - GND loop (Brummschleife in German)
Another analogy: Take 2 eSkate boards, control them with 2 independent remotes and try standing one foot on each board without having them drift apart in speed and forcing you into a split - that’s how the Rx feels 
Already had a discussion with ChatGPT about this, trying to understand.
But it makes no sense to me, eventually AI gave in.
I run BatV and GND from the battery to one BEC and from there to the RX.
I understand, GND for both PWM signals is connected = bad.
Got some quality ones here from iflight and the Matek BEC12s Pro.
Both have full continuity for GND on input and output.
So I replace the one BEC by two of those, I will still have a direct ground connection between PWM0 and PWM1.
Do I need a special BEC that has isolated GND?
Don’t worry, I won’t haha
That is preferred and what the BREmote BEC offers: 2 fully isolated without GND connected
But even with non-isolated BECs it is working, if you connect them correctly
Here a video that explains it
Thank you for the effort the video and for the electronics education 
If I understand it correctly, that means the only way to wire this with two BECs is to put the RX right next to the ESC, which means you also have to put both ESCs at the same spot.
And quite honestly from the video, I still do not get why it has to be two BECs. If the BECs are close together, you also directly connect ground there between the two. Only V+ is separate in that case.
I’ll add two less nicely draw pics. Hopefully you can still understand my question.
Likely I am missing something there, but I would assume the light blue marked spots should have more or less identical gnd levels. And if that is the case both pics should be near identical regarding a gnd loop.
The closer together I put the BECs the less difference.
If I put the PCBs back to back, the difference would be 2mm of trace on the PCB.
No.
The BECs need to be taking their voltage right next to the ESC, but the wires from that place going to the BEC and from BEC to Rx can be arbitratily long, since they don’t suffer any voltage drop.
In the 2nd image, you will run into problems
Again, BECs wires as close to ESCs input as possible, see grey connections
Thats nice, but the idea is not to make the BECs not have any voltage difference to each other, but to make each BEC not have any difference to the corresponding ESC, which will get bigger and bigger the further you place the BECs input wire from the corresponding ESC
Example for a system with different places for Rx, ESC1 and ESC2
The GND bridge is needed for systems with 2 independent batteries
Thanks again for the advice and patience.
I will just accept this and wire it like that and also accept I do not understand electronics.
Always open for further discussions In the forum or via a phone call - which may help with the depth this topic has
Maybe do it like on the VESC 75200 with just a connector and an (optional cable)?
On my RXs the USB ports are all broken by now or rather they still work, but they do not provide 5v. I assume those are really tiny pins and close together, so even a bit of condensed water or even salty air will lead to corrosion.
Would also save space.
In the current bremote v2 implementation, is there a way to reduce the steering effect based on the throttle/speed?
low throttle/speed → high steering
high throttle/speed → low steering
I would like to avoid tilting over my tow boogie on high speed and still be able to do sharp turns on low speed…
No, that is not implemented. There is a provision to make the steering follow a expo curve for example, but also not implemented yet.
Are you sure that would even work?
At low throttle on my boogie, steering pretty much always makes one motor completely stop.
So to steer more it would have to reverse.
Or is that only on mine?
