I had a few alternative control ideas that I'll provide - perhaps these could show up on shoulders or someplace else. I throw them out not as a demand or requirement, but just sharing some ideas.

First, I think it would be interesting if the main controller itself had more modular control options. I know that probably makes it more expensive, but all those fixed locations for switches and pots that may never get used just beg to be swapped out for something unique to a particular operating mode (boat, submarine, car, etc.)

I've always thought that for a quadcopter a different kind of throttle was needed than the traditional RC airplane throttle. It's even different from the throttle on a helicopter but more like the throttle that is inside a real helicopter. I'm thinking of a throttle that is sometimes found on flightsticks for the PC that acts more like a slider and isn't connected to the joystick. How many times have you gone to change the yaw and instead increased or decreased the throttle? A slider would prevent that. The sliders you find on digital editing stations have some interesting qualities like the ability to program the min/max, configure a default start (with motors to set that position), and the ability to act as an offset from a dynamic value (effectively adjusting the minimum on the fly).

Another use for a slider control would be in RC submarines where the middle position is neutral buoyancy while up raise the sub and down lowers it. Traditional airplane TX are not that great for submarines which is why many of these folks build their own controllers (although I believe much of that is because of the need to move to a low frequency for water use.)

Another concept from flightsticks that might be interesting on the FPV controller would be an 8-way hat-style button. I could see this being used to easily switch between multiple camera angles. Now I know you're thinking that most FPV flight involves 1 camera, but that's just today. Situational awareness is only possible with multiple cameras and I expect to see a way to stream and view multiple cameras from a single aircraft in the near future. I already can find multi-channel video switches for RC use. What better way to switch between views than a hat?

Another idea I had but without a clear use (just variety) would be a shoulder-mounted thumbwheel. Sure this acts just like a pot, but the form factor might be interesting. The only use I can contrive is for more easily adjusting the trim on a glider. The use case is to flip a switch indicating your adjusting that particular trim, then using the wheel to do so. As I said, it is somewhat contrived. But it is a different control than you normally see on RC TX.

Keep up the cool work Demetri!
Scott

Hi scottsh and welcome to the forum

The slider throttle idea is really neat and i see no reason of not trying it out. As i already mentioned in the news, i am working on a second version of the OSRC system right now and these notes are spot on when talking about modularity. I am happy to say that these features shall already be possible since in addition to all other removable items on the Main Unit, you shall also have the ability to remove easily the Stick assembly as any other module and replace it with a car wheel, slider or another control. It did take me almost 2 - 4 weeks to do that design since to remove easily the assembly everything had to be smaller and enclosed but it shall be totally possible now.

The Hat button i shall have to think about since the space on the FPVC Basic and especially Advanced is limited, so having additional buttons in that configuration would be tricky but i am working on those modules right now so i shall try out some ideas and see how it goes.

The shoulder mounted pots are a nice touch. In the new OSRC, the mechanism for the Shoulders is actually quite better and the area of the shoulder is larger so a module with this type of application would be possible as well. I don't want to clutter the initial release with too many accessories but instead, create an environment which would allow expandability without redesigning the core concept.

Your ideas are really great and quite reasonable. Thank you for this post and I'm glad to have you on board