The only discrepancy - which is fatal to the software working - that I have
seen thus far, is that the developers have changed the prompt line, which I
use to detect when output from the device has finished. Being able to
detect either prompt might make it work, or there might be other
differences. I don't have a way to test this at this time.
edy555's firmware has recently received a number of updates the use of
which is limited to newer firmwares, but which are pretty much required to
have both fast and stable PC control of the NanoVNA. I'm looking at
implementing support for these in the next version, or the one after, of
NanoVNA-Saver.
I'm all in favour of trying to support the variety of devices and firmwares
that are appearing, but the software is primarily going to be tested
against the hardware I have - a NanoVNA-H running edy555's 0.2.2 firmware
at the moment.
--
Rune / 5Q5R
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 23:19, hwalker <herbwalker2476@...> wrote:
Paul,
Feedback from users so far is that the command set for the NanoVNA-F is
not fully compatible with the NanoVNA and, therefore neither NanoVNA-saver
or NanoVNASharp work with it.
If the only problem was adding the NanoVNA-F's VID and PID to the
getPort() function of NanoVNA-saver, Rune would have made those
accommodations happily. My opinion is the NanoVNA-F's developers are going
to modify the firmware so that it's command set overlaps the NanoVNA. The
second option is that the NanoVNA-F's developer's will branch a version of
NanoVNA-saver specifically for the NanoVNA-F. Doing so would mean any
improvements Rune made to NanoVNA-saver would not be immediately available
to NanoVNA-F users.
Herb
