• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 88 subscribers
  • Views 20767 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 345569
Options

Multi-Connections at same time possible on newest version of Channel Sounding for ranging Initiator/Reflector?

NickDeLeenheer

deleted

Parents
  • +1

    Hi Nick,

    It's possible to run CS on multiple connections at the same time. We don't make much effort to avoid scheduling conflicts however so parameters and kconfigs have to be selected carefully. One thing to note that if you have issues with this, one usual suspect is that you haven't increased BT_CTLR_SDC_CS_COUNT.

    Is your end-goal to trilaterate a position? 

    Also, would it be hard to implement multiple antennas to my nRF54L15 boards? I think that multiple antenna paths would increase accuracy, since the accuracy of the distance estimation is very dependent on the specific shortest path that it found. nRF54L15 only has 1 Antenna path (i Think). And if it has more, is it easy to configure multiple antenna paths?

    Could you expand a bit on what you mean by this, and "antenna paths"? EDIT: I see now that we support multiple antennas for CS much like DF. This was news to me. That is what is being referred to by antenna paths. The NRF54L15DK just has one paths, but you could connect more.

    The nRF54L15DK has one antenna on it. You can however connect a different antenna on it as well. I am not so sure if something along the lines of a antenna matrix (like what you use for direction finding) would be able to improve anything here.

    A last question on how to improve accuracy: Is the ifft better for inside? It uses the same phase samples as the Phase Slope method, but i was wondering how it works and where i can find the implementation, because it seems better for now. I also was wondering why it is now taking longer to get my distances with the same configuration compared to the previous version of this sample?

    Not necessarily. This older webinar goes through the differences.

    Regards,

    Elfving

  • +1 in reply to NickDeLeenheer

    Unfortunately the public samples I've linked you to is what we currently have available. I also see that you have another case open on this, we prefer to keep the tickets separate to avoid doing double the work. 

    Regards,

    Elfving

  • in reply to Elfving
    This reply was deleted.
  • +1 in reply to NickDeLeenheer
    NickDeLeenheer said:
    Yes i am sorry, i was a little bit stressed out about getting my code fixed as soon as possible. I appreciate all the help that i get from Nordic engineers. In my first reply to your answer i stated that i would like to have help on my other case (ticket). I wanted to close this ticket already, but i first wanted to also speak to you about my urge to get a working code...

    No problem, that is very understandable. Slight smile My point was just that I'd prefer to keep the tickets on topic. Though now I a bit uncertain about where to draw the line, yesterday I got the impression that the two cases where originally about somewhat different things. At least we can keep the sequential vs multiple connections question in the other ticket. 

    Like I told you in a previous ticket, if you are at the end of your masters thesis, unless your thesis revolves around optimizing channel sounding, I wouldn't focus on this. Optimizing this would take some time.

    Regards,

    Elfving

  • 0 in reply to Elfving

    Hi,

    I just got a working code! Thank you very murch!

    Kind regards,

    Nick De Leenheer

Reply Children
  • 0 in reply to NickDeLeenheer

    Great Nick! Glad to hear it Slight smile Hope your supervisor accepts you getting it a day late.

    Regards,

    Elfving

  • 0 in reply to NickDeLeenheer

    Hey Nick, I am also working on multi-connections. I saw that you were able to get sequential connections, I was wondering how you achieved this, is it by making a queue in the reflector to manage the connections? Right now my initiators are just connecting simultaneously, and which ever comes first connects first and the second one would sometimes be able to connect, the other times it shows "tried to parse empty step data". Sometimes they both connect, and at times they both don't connect. I believe they are competing for resources, leading to a race condition. I cannot get consistent results due to uncertain outcomes. I was wondering how you managed to get a perfect sequential order, or if you even have a simultaneous connection now. Thanks.

  • 0 in reply to Triscuit

    Hi,

    Yesterday i did measurements, and i must say... it works, but it is pretty slow. And with a lot of beacons, it takes longer because of large memory being used i think. i am making an initiator who reconnects with multiple devices and i succeeded in this matter, altough it is not yet very good...

    I am still looking forward on improving my code.

    Kind regards,

    Nick De Leenheer

  • 0 in reply to NickDeLeenheer

    Hi Nick,

    I am curious about how you actually implemented the system to reconnect with multiple devices. Did you put them in a queue and make them retrieve data one by one and then dequeue after? If so did you implement a queue structure in the reflector code? I am also concerned about the memory, as I have observed, conducting multiple channel sounding procedures at once slows each one down significantly and sometimes causes one of them to stop updating completely, but I am using a free for all system where multiple initiators work all at once. Thanks for your response.

    Sincerely,

    Triscuit

Related
Terms of service