Even if they didn’t change it, they still must legally distribute the source code.
4 Likes
The FOCBOXes in Raptor 2 have a firmware that replies 2.80 to the GET_VERSION command. This is modified firmware. Original firmware had version 2.18. Even if they didn’t change anything else apart from the version number, this still requires to publish a complete source code of the firmware and BLDC Tool, because that one is obviously modified too in order to accept unrecognized 2.80 version.
10 Likes
Heh, well there you go. tsk, tsk, Enertion. Part of me wonders if they even have a copy of that source code or if they’ve just been uploading the same binary for the last 2 years.
It’d be cool if Vedder included some sort of smoking gun / easter egg buried deep inside the code that played “old McDonald had a farm” during motor detection with a special set of config params. Just in case someone decided to build a VESC and not actually tell anyone it was a VESC.
3 Likes
as @rpasichnyk said, they are using a modified Version -> simply hit the Read default config button in the BLDC tool. You dont get the standart values that Benjamin has used.
1 Like
My understanding was a spin-oof of ackmaniac’s f/w was used by enertion. Enertion sure as shit won’t realease gerbers, that would kill their sales overnight
Law is expensive in this type of situation in any country, there’s no point Vedder suing small companies in another continent, frankly very, very unlikely to happenin reality. At least Enertion tries to reach out and pay a dividend to Vedder, but Iguess he is too enigmatic to care…who knows.
Is Ben Vedder Satoshi Nakamoto, I guess we’ll never know
China does not recognise IP in Roman derived language,or on Tuesdays,so it matters little
1 Like
Thanks man, thats how I like it! In my mind that means, that the Git is online when the Unity is on sale?
1 Like
is this confirmed? I heard from everywhere the opposite?
@moon looks like thats something completely different, different manufactorer and has therefore nothing to do with the Unity
2 Likes
Well it is a dual vesc 6
Yes, once the Unity is released firmware should have a stable release and repository. Very excited for that to happen.
posts in theis thread
@Deodand perfect!
@moon Yes this is one PCB that contains “2 ESC based on VESC6 ©”. therefore 2 µController for 2 Motors
The Unity is one PCB with one µC (Brain) that has the perepherie to controll 2 Motors! completely different apprach.
1 Like
Oh sorry I didnt know
next post in the thread 
gotta agree with @chaka on this one. Enertion has never paid shit to bv as far as I know. Had the audacity to tell him to participate in their referral program if he wants to make a buk on their sales. Nobody knows the terms of their offer to work for them so you should not really put weight on his decline.
This is also too funny coming from Jason…
1 Like
whilst i appreciate that the discussion about releasing source code for forked projects is relevant, i dont think it belongs here. there are enough other threads for that.
Instead lets get hyped about the Unity. Tell me @onloop @barajabali @Deodand when will we be able to buy these dual ESC’s? are they based on vesc 4.2 or vesc 6 tech?
7 Likes
I would say the hardware is somewhere between the two but more in line with the current focbox (beefed up/refined 4.12) as it is a low side dual shunt layout, not three phase shunts like the vesc 6. We save some budget on the BOM by not having 2 MCUs, but if you use phase shunts you cant use the integrated low-side shunt amplifiers in the drv8301/3, that budget you save would then imediatley be spent on 6 shunt amplifiers. It is my opinion that the cost/performance tradeoff for this design choice isn’t worth it. I think one of the factors that made the VESC 6 so expensive is extreme 0.1% improvement to performance regardless of cost of the componentry. We instead designed with a focus on performance per dollar, and I think we have been succesful in that regard. The ride still feels super smooth and silent, and we are pushing about %30 more continuous amps during thermal throttling compared to the current focbox. Theres also some unique benefits to driving both motors from a single MCU, the motors are synchronized in such a way that they can kind of “share” the bulk capacitance, since they are driven off the same mcu clock it is possible to offset their peak current draw during pwm cycles.
The biggest changes with this design are that you’re going to save some cash, while getting a motor driver with an easy and much faster installation/calibration, higher performance, integrated switch that wont fail on you, and a really clean and unified phone/computer app that is going to make monitoring/tweaking the ride simple and elegant (if I do my job right 
still working to get this just right)
9 Likes
That’s really good to hear. If one of the DRV8302 chips falls over, will the system know to shut down a motor and keep functional brakes on the other motor? Assuming the MCU isn’t powered by the DRV chip – which is a whole 'nother thing…
It uses the DRV8301 and DRV8303. both have SPI communication (same as vesc6). The buck converter inside the DRV8301 is literally a different circuit inside the integrated circuit. DRV8303 is the same has the 01 except with no buck converter.
Yes if one motor is faulting for some reason, the mcu will continue to drive the non-faulting one.
8 Likes
That’s good to hear that was actually one of my concerns about having one unit drive 2 motors. Thank you.
1 Like