Most of the omnet modules are having a centralized communication model. I beg your forgiveness, but I an not able to track any complete decentralized module till now. I am more inclined to work with the INETMANET frame work as I want to implement the mesh deterministic approach or distributed reservation protocol in omnet.
If anybody can point me to any specific module with distributed communication model at mac layer, it would be a great help for me.
You are probably thinking of The INET Framework. OMNeT++ is a simulation engine; it does not contain simulation models, though (by default) it installs The INET Framework to help new users get started quickly.
The INET Framework can also simulate, e.g., WLAN cards operating in Ad Hoc mode, so this would fulfill your requirement for being able to simulate a decentralized system. Depending on what you want to simulate, there are many module libraries that are focusing completely on decentralized operation that might be more applicable to your question.
Some examples are Oversim for peer-to-peer networks, Castalia for wireless sensor and body area networks, or Veins for vehicular networks.
Related
I'm doing a project where I have 2 raspberry pi zeros connected and a psoc 5 connected to one of the rpi's.
The connection between them are all i2c.
One of the rpi's are considered the "master" and from my android phone I will use ssh to remote control the master.
[Phone] = SSH = [RPi Master] = I2C = [RPi Slave]
||
[PSOC 5]
My teacher told me to consider tcp/ip, but I will still have the 2 rpi's and the psoc connected by wires.
My question therefore is - are there any benefits in doing tcp in my project?
There is no clear way to answer whether TCP is better than I2C without more info about your project, as that is an application-specific question. This question would be easier to answer with a little more detail on your project, including requirements, data rates, etc., but I will try to give you some info based on personal experience.
The only reason to consider TCP/IP between the devices is if the data rate needed is higher than I2C can support, or if it would be useful to keep them separated beyond I2C range.
Creating a program that utilizes TCP to run on your phone and the master would make the system a little more complete, as you would have a program running on the master constantly to automatically accept information from the user and run the commands, rather than having to control it from the command line. This would also force you to create some sort of user-facing program for the phone. From a design perspective for a class project, this could be preferable.
Without knowing why your teacher suggested that it is hard to give you a straight answer; it is possible the suggestion was given not for any real performance reasons but for you to learn about networking, TCP/IP protocols, or to be able to say you have "IoT experience".
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this. Sorry if I'm wrong.
I'd like to know if you can run code in an Xbee module without being connected to the computer or another device like arduino.
For example, I want to have 2-3 Xbee modules that communicate with each other sending information and then take decisions by code dynamically without using the X-CTU software. And I don't want those Xbee modules to be connected to the PC or other devices, they have to run by themselves with a coin cell battery and run some code previously written into their memory. Is this possible? If so, can you provide me some info/documentation to take a look? which language do you have to use to program the code? Which Xbee model do I need?
Thank you!
The XBEE modules can not do such tasks without a host. You can not run your own code on the module.
If you want to run you own code on the same device as the ZigBee stack then you should choose a solution from a silicon/stack provider.
You could achieve your goal using the Texas Instruments ZigBee Home automation SDK from www.ti.com/tool/z-stack which runs the ZigBee stack and your application on one of the TI ZigBee SoC's. But there are likely other similar providers as well.
Regards, TC.
XBees can be configured to initialize themselves with network data, i.e. the PAN ID, so they're aware of how to communicate on start up without requiring external configuration. However, they cannot run headlessly; they must to have some idea of the data that needs to be sent. They're fundamentally designed to act as a transparent serial bridge between computers to aid communications on personal networks. They cannot however be configured to do something bespoke.
It sounds like you're worried about power, so you could try looking for a low-power microcontroller that possesses a USART; this is all you'll need in order to communicate with an XBee via Serial.
It isn't possible to put your own code on a standard XBee module, but Digi does offer a Programmable XBee that includes a Freescale HCS08 co-processor that you can write code for. They offer a development kit with sample programs to get your started.
For a small-scale project where you don't need to be ZigBee certified, that might be easier than getting up to speed with a ZigBee development kit from TI, Freescale or Silicon Labs.
On the DroneKit.io page, it mentions using DroneKit Python when creating Ground Control Stations for Windows. However, there appears to be no documentation for this.
Is it meant to simply simulate a com port and act as a proxy for other Ground Control Stations, which just makes it easier hijack the MAVLink?
Also, it mentions Python being used for low-latency processes. This seems to be oxymoronic. Is there a reason that it would be better than just using C/C++ for the purpose of hijacking the MAVLink?
Thanks!
DroneKit-Python can be used either to create a python-based ground station or it can be run on a companion computer. There is no practical difference between the two except how you set up the connection to the vehicle from the computer running the script. The different ways of starting MAVProxy for the different connections are covered in the Getting Started documentation.
The reason that there is no "specific" documentation on using DK-Python for GCS is primarily "marketing". The far bigger market for ground station GCS software is in tablets/phones that will use DK-Android or a future iOS port. DK-Python has been positioned solely as for use in the air interface. Even though there is no "specific" documentation, in fact all the existing documentation is relevant.
Is it meant to simply simulate a com port and act as a proxy for other Ground Control Stations, which just makes it easier hijack the MAVLink?
No. See above.
Also, it mentions Python being used for low-latency processes. This seems to be oxymoronic. Is there a reason that it would be better than just using C/C++ for the purpose of hijacking the MAVLink?
It doesn't mention low-latency processes, so the answer is "invalid question".
You're probably misreading the text "that require a low-latency link". The point here is that if you have dronekit-python running on a companion computer and connected by a fast link you can do real time handling of incoming sensor data. This allows computer vision control of the UAV. However if you run DK-Python on a ground control station you will have a much slower link. You can still control movement of the UAV but the latency will be much higher.
Hope that helps!
I am planning to build a micro controller (a switch will be attached to the embedded system which contains this micro controller) and this embedded system will be connected through a wire to mobile phone. My objective is to dial a particular number through the connected mobile phone network when the user presses the switch on the embedded system. ( planning to use AT commands for dialing). After extensive search, I have found that it is possible to do this above task. Some of the questions I have on this :
a) Do we have to install any drivers on the micro controller to communicate with mobile phone (for sending AT commands) i.e., is it sufficient if we simply code the related AT commands in the micro-controller (in C++) ?
b) Many people were using F-bus protocol for this above objective. Is there any other general protocol similar to this which can help for communicating with all mobiles (samsung,nokia,sony..)
I have read extensively in SO also. But, I have not found any question regarding the drivers. I would appreciate any kind of help
Thanks
A driver is nothing more than a software that allows your system to interact other devices, and is usually associated with Operating Systems (the driver might provide an abstraction layer for your communication). Do you plan to use an Operating System at all?
In any case, it is quite obvious that if you want to communicate to another device you need the software to do so. The question is if you write it your self or if you get an "off the shelf" solution.
In many cases, particularly when a device uses a proprietary communication protocol, you have no option but to get a driver to communicate with it, and that most likely will require you to have an Operating System.
If cellular communication is all you need, there are MUCH easier solutions available (particularly if you intend of turning your project into a product). Search for "embedded modems" or M2M solutions. There are lots of available modems to which you connect using RS232, and can send the AT commands directly. Telit and Multitech are two providers I've worked with and are really easy to interface with.
I am looking how to do multicast (video streams) router, with the following requirements:
receiving and sending multicast streams at 3-30Mbps (vlan forwarding)
in-ram (or storage) delaying to compensate for network congestion
TCP tunneling (UDP to TCP and vice-versa)
rate shaping of output UDP streams with up to 1 second jitter
for TCP tunneling, multi-homed network support
hundreds of streams at 3-30Mbits
I have did extensive research and I could not find any networking or video broadcast product actually matching these requirements.
I have implemented C linux app which does the above for a single stream, but now I would need to add web interface, multiple stream support etc, so I was wondering if there is something which can accomplish the above with the quality and reliability suitable for the video broadcast, like some kind of product?
Doing this in C is not easy so I was wondering if there are any higher level languages which could match the performance? Would perl, python, java would be a good choice?
How do I architect this kind of software? I am currently using C application running Redhat with RT kernel with command line interface and single stream support.
I want to do application which would run 100 streams 24/7 (using 8 or 16 core system with 64GB RAM) and would be easy to configure it on the fly using either command line or web interface.
I just cant see any better option than current Redhat RT kernel and simple C userspace app. It seems to be the best and easiest option to go with.
The usual division in architecting such an application is to have the high performance parts done by C code and to write low performance components, like a user interface for configuration and such, in a higher level language like Python or Ruby or what have you. It would be hard to achieve the performance requirements in a high level language, but it would be unnecessarily masochistic to write a web configuration system in C.