Icom RC706 Project
Kyle Yoksh (K0KN)
on
May 16, 2007
View comments about this article!
Hi everyone,
I wonder if anyone in this group is interested in working on a RC706 type project? I've patiently waited for a release of ANY kind from the RC706 folks, to no avail. Seems there are two guys involved, one guy has health problems, etc, so the project has been shelved for about two years!
I've asked them to PLEASE share their info with the ham community, so
that we can pick up where they left off. I've still received no response. Keep in mind that I'm not looking for any financial benefit here. I have two 706 radios, and several of my friends have 706s as well.
The very limited CI-v command set presents several challenges to true remote operation, and the RC706 solves every one of these. These limitations also make it impossible to program PL tones when saving memory channels into the radio, etc.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with this project, here's a short summary. The RC706 was designed as a go-between circuit from the main radio body to faceplate. Because all functions of the radio can be controlled by the faceplate, such as power on/off, volume, squelch, RF gain, and so on, this is the perfect place to place the interface. The RC706 is a wonderful concept, which has been successful at communicating with the radio and mimicking the faceplate.
Two prototypes have been produced, as of the last time info was released in 2005. One was a simpler version that did not allow the front face to be used at all. This would be similar to the Kenwood TS-B2000 that has no faceplate at all, and requires a PC to operate the rig. The other prototype made use of the faceplate.
From what I remember, the biggest challenge these guys had was trying to find the connector to fit the radio. They had been using remote face cables, which were clipped to scavenge the ends from…
The RC706 contains a PIC processor; if I recall and translates the Icom radio-to-face protocol into extended CI-v commands. A typical CI-v interface would then connect to this circuit rather than the rear panel CI-v jack.
I propose an open source type idea, where hardware and software is openly shared and distributed.
It would seem to me that the 'With faceplate' version would be the most desirable, especially if the rig would still operate w/o the face. For example, if you plan to remotely operate the rig, why put the wear and tear on the display if nobody is there to see it? Simply turn the radio on and remove the face. This should also keep anyone from tampering with the radio.
Please let me know if anyone is interested. Let's get this project going!
73,
Kyle Yoksh
K0KN
Olathe, Kansas
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by W4KDA on May 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this is a great project for the venerable 706. I currently have 3 of the mark 2 variety and love them.
You are talking my language here too. I am an electrical engineer and an expert PIC programmer. I have over 14 years experience including writing my own multitasking, application specific, real time operating system. At work I have high end work station layout tools, so I can help with the layout of multilayer PCBs in a real electrical CAD system as well.
I would be happy to lend my expertise, but unfortunately do not have a great deal of time to lend to the project. Still, I'd like to help and see this come to reality for the amateur radio community so I'll do what I can.
I think the first thing you need to do is to set up a project website with a forum where developers can share ideas and users can learn details about the project. You should also consider setting up an open source project at source forge (sourceforge.net). You may get some unexpected help from that channel.
Here's to your success!
73,
Kyle Albritton
W4KDA
|
| |
|
Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by K0KN on May 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi everyone,
Since this article was submitted, we've formed a Yahoo group as a meeting place,etc. All are welcome to join us:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project706
73,
Kyle Yoksh
K0KN
Olathe, Kansas
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
I would assume that your setup would be the same as the Icom 718. I use the CI-V connection through a CT-17 and run two Icom 718's and the Icom 756 Pro III through my computer equipped with a RS 232C port.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by KG6OMK on May 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yohoo groups won't work for this. They don't offer CVS or SVN nor bug tracking. source forge is much better equipped for your purposes
Much of what you need to do is hardware. But even hardware today is just computer files. You have
net lists, Gerber or even Verilog files and so on. So it makes sense to keep a hardware design in CVS.
One problem is finding people qualified to help. Very
few hams know much about software or computers and how
many of them would own a 706? and what fraction of them would want to run their 706 remotely? Frankly the project has to small of a base to be a good Open Source project.
I think to widen the user base you might want to think about a more general case of a "face plate cable intercept" project. and make 706 a special case of that project. Or, make your project a sub-project of something that is already popular (see below)
One design suggestion? OK the interface on one side is fixed and unchangeable. It is the "Icom 706 cable protocol". But on the other side it can be anything you want. Seems if you want to remotely control a radio TCP/IP is the way to go. The control card could even host a small web server like many of the home routers do.
Have you seem "hamlib". http://hamlib.sourceforge.net/ it seems like maybe what you want is a "706 faceplate Back End". If you get this to work then everything else is done for you You also can leverage the hamlib userbase and would not have to manage your own Source Forge project account.
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on May 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I would assume that your setup would be the same as the Icom 718. I use the CI-V connection through a CT-17 and run two Icom 718's and the Icom 756 Pro III through my computer equipped with a RS 232C port."
Not at all.
Neither of your radios have removable face plates. That is the key. CI-V is a different animal entirely.
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on May 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And one more post...
It may interest some of you to know that CI-V means Computer Interface Five as in....1985. The first radio to use it was the IC-735 released in 1986.
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by K5LXP on May 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, never expected to see this as an article on eHam. I don't think the RC706's creator Mike, K5ATM monitors this site, so I'll chime in for a little background. I'm one of the "two guys involved" with the project.
I did the mechanical and PWB designs for RC706 prototypes 2 and 3. The primary issues we ran into (besides each of us having significant health and life events at some point in the project) were related to two desired attributes of the unit. The first design goal was to be able to use the interface without modifying the radio in any way. The first brassboard prototype (Mike's creation) just used a remote head cable cut in the middle. But for production that's not really practical for cost and mechanical reasons. Icom gets $50 a smash for that cable as a replacement part so it's not really cost effective to do it that way, and it forces you to separate the control head from the chassis whether you want to operate that way or not. It would be difficult and time consuming as well to physically integrate those cable connectors into an assembly. For the final product we wanted a "bracket" that you sandwiched between the control head and the radio chassis.
The second challenge was feature creep. It would be one thing just to have the remote interface to the transceiver, but once you have direct control of the transceiver it opens the door to a multitude of potential features such as APRS, menu "macro" functions, custom menu controls and remapping, multiple memory banks, custom displays, remote DTMF control, and whatever else the imagination could come up with. That was my primary interest, to "supercharge" the capabilities of the 706 without having to have a PC attached.
The way it works is basically the interface operates in series with the control head and transceiver. Mike reverse engineered the protocol and thus is able to mimic the data the control head would normally send and receive, with a custom PC host via serial interface. He did a hybrid of CIV and "super" CIV (the control head protocol) in the interest of speed. It's a lot faster let's say, to send a CIV command to recall memory 15 than it would be to ascertain the current state of the transceiver and controls, then select memory mode and "rotate" the function knob digitally until you get to memory 15. But, if you were willing to sacrifice that speed you could obviate the CIV connection entirely and exclusively use the control head protocol. It works the other direction too- you can write whatever you want to the display, as long as the display segments in the area you're writing to support it. You could for example, show numeric data like time or a voltage on the frequency digits, and one idea we had was to scroll received APRS beacon text in the dot-matrix area above the menu buttons. Button and knob actions can be intercepted and re-mapped to do just about anything. I wanted to be able to put the menu fuctions I use the most as default, and create a one-touch menu that would configure the radio for sets of favorite band, mode and filter combinations. What you can do is pretty much only limited by the imagination and size/speed of the processor. As you can see, this is way beyond the scope of what the likes of hamlib and a PC would allow you to do- no PC or hamlib required.
As far as mechanical issues, yes the connector does add cost and complexity but wasn't a show stopper. They would have to be made from scratch however, as there is nothing available from Icom or anyone else that will work. I built the initial two control head brackets and connector sets on my own milling machine, then from the drawings gleaned from that effort we had a machine shop make four more on their CNC mill at a cost of about $100 apiece. We were given an estimate between $30 and $40 apiece in quantities of 100, so that seemed a reasonable route to go for production, at least for Rev A. The bracket is made from black Delrin and looked like it came from Icom. The PWB nests inside the bracket at a critical distance from each face such that the fabricated connectors are correctly aligned with the mating connectors on the chassis and control head. All you had to do was slide off the control head, and slide on the RC706. It was held in place using the existing ramp tabs and tapped ground screw hole. You could operate the radio this way without a control head if you wished (via PC host), or you could slide the control head on the RC706 and control the rig, or watch what the PC was doing. On the right side of the bracket where the VFO knob is are four 1/8" stereo connectors, for serial, CIV I/O, and RS-232/GPS NMEA for the SOTT.
Mike and I kind of where at a crossroads as to what features we should implement and we sorta agreed on stopping at just adding a Tinytrack (SOTT, actually) for a first run at it. That's when Mike started having his vision issues and even today I'm not sure he's totally recovered. It affected his ability to sit in front of a PC for hours on end doing PIC assembly. With both of us having more and more time and commitment issues we thought maybe we'd forego the bracket and just use a cable, just to get something out there. We tossed around a few ideas in terms of a black box format but it never went much past that, and both of us just kind of got worn out dorking around with it. Mike mentioned to me that he was going to propose the idea of passing the project on to a "qualified candidate" and I was fine with that, and indeed that's what he's done. We both have a significant amount of time, effort and a bit of cash invested in this thing, and with as much potential as it has it'd be a shame to see it fizzle. I'm kinda stuck since I've gone as far as I can, not having the extensive proficiency in PIC assembly that Mike has (he codes some pretty intense stuff professionally). I'd be happy to work with a new "management", and could potentially pick up where Mike and I left off since I still have all the PWB and CAD design files. Or not, depending on what the gaining individual/group wants. What I would like to see as a final product has remote PC control as a minor function (since any features would be largely driven by the host program anyway), with the focus being dynamic rig control through the intermediate processor. Most folks were interested in the RC706 for just being able to manage memories and as a solution for the missing PL and memory name CIV commands, but when you consider the potential of what this interface can do it makes mere memory management seem trite. At least that's the way I see it, maybe memory management is all folks are really interested in after all. I'd do it myself but I can't make that level of commitment to master PIC assembly to that degree just for this project. So that's where it stands today. All it needs is one or more PIC geniuses and a few thousand bucks to build a run of them. If all you want is memory management and remote PC function, the code exists to do that today.
Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by KG6OMK on May 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading K5LXP's post I think the way to go here is Make the interface as dumb as possible You fight feature creep by setting a goal to add as close to zero features as is possible. The only freatue you need to a n interface to a computer. basically a "cable intercept". You need to seriously get the functionality down and don't attempt protocol conversion just make it a "plumbing tee"
Then you have another project that does something with that interface, maybe two project that do two things with the interface.
Open source really is the way to go on this. After the basic hardware is done the rest is all software. With few exceptions you find that people who can design hardware really are not so good at software and vice versa so collaboration is required. The Internet and Source forge can facilitate that. Many examples now of radio equipment being done that way.
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by K5LXP on May 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Make the interface as dumb as possible
The problem with that idea is you gain very little with just that capability. All that would accomplish is to make up for a small delta in command and control visibility with the 706's CIV implementation. The 706 is not that stellar of a performer and in my opinion is not worth that much effort just to be able to program names and PL's into memory, which isn't even required in a remotely operated transceiver installation. So, the holy grail is to give the 706 standalone capabilities it never had. Otherwise all you ultimately end up with is a mediocre performing PC-controlled rig with an expensive interface, which nowadays is readily duplicated with most contemporary rigs and host software, and without any additional hardware. In other words, a 706 with a transparent/dumb interface does nothing more for you that a number of other rigs don't already do right out of the box, running existing host software. Doing standalone cool stuff like APRS, remote DTMF control, custom menus and displays, etc is what makes the RC706 worth it, not remote PC control (again, my opinion).
Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by N9QIV on May 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An initial interface with room for a prototype board would make sense to me. Any new functionality could be rapidly developed on a pc and then moved to a micro-controller on board. I think the most interesting feature from this idea is the control of the display. A pcb header that could host a micro-controller board or a serial interface for pc control would be great.
This project would also apply to the IC-703 since it has the same faceplate interface.
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by KG6OMK on May 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> Make the interface as dumb as possible
>The problem with that idea is you gain very little with >just that capability. All that would accomplish is to >make up for a small delta in command and control >visibility with the 706's CIV
OK, I said it wrong. I should have said "divide the interface in half. Make one half as dumb as possible and let it communicate to the other half using some simple and common interface. The problem(s) this solves is that (1) It let's different people work on the two halves. It's likely that the person who knows how to make a little block of plastic and some mechanical connectors is not the person best suited to programming a micro controller. and vice versa and (2) Every user has his own idea of what should go inside the "smart half" Many people could design "smart Halfs" once they had a mechanical parts and the protocol spec reverse enginerred.
Do the "dumb half" first.
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by N6JSX on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The one big question (that may be alreaqdy known) is can all CVI commands/data be accessed via the remote head connector? Or is their main body items that will only go to the main body CPU and CVI PC connector?
My interest in this project is for 706 remote base repeater control - to date there is NO repeater controler that will allow remote base VFO operations (insure users will not go out-of-band durning 706 RX that will TX over 440 repeater). Today, to insure legal operations of users the 706 needs to be in memory mode using RIT - to restrictive for HF SSB OPs. All I want is the ability to obtain 706 data & control of all buttons allowing me to interface a PC operated repeater controler.
There are many other considerations that need to take place - I've listed a few on the User group. Such as RS-232 or USB interfacing (USB got my vote). There needs ot be a signle PC interface not the 706 CVI port and the new RC port!
Who will make final decisions - if this project is left to User group democracy - its already dead, as every HAM is an opinionated expert (even if they don't know electronics or own a 706)!
|
| |
|
RE: Icom RC706 Project
|
|
|
by K0KN on May 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This project needs skilled volunteers to be a success.
Our group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project706) is seeking individuals with PIC and PC programming experience, hardware experience with PIC and RS-232/USB, etc.
I'd like a working prototype to be reality by year's end. This should be an easy goal to reach with a committed team.
Most improvements will be possible via PIC software, and I expect many versions of the software to be written, modified, etc.
Our focus should be on building a prototype at this point..
73,
Kyle
K0KN
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
DXLab – Possibly the Best Free Station Management Software
Easy Digital Interface
The Ham Recruiting Project (HRP):
Multi Amplifier Keying Buffer
Icom 756PRO3! Rumor or Reality?
Other How To Articles
A New Twist Around HOA Restrictions:
Maximizing Efficiency in HF Mobile Antennas
IC-706 Linear Amp Keying Circuit
What Antenna Restrictions?
Multi Amplifier Keying Buffer
|
