Bongofish
November 22, 2019, 06:32:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: You can attach photos hosted by the forum rather than using an external image hosting site, this means they will stay forever and not disappear after a year or two.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Help with calibration with waxbee  (Read 20298 times)
bernard
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2590


pato mania


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2013, 03:29:47 AM »

Modify the following:

SLAVE_X_MAX = 21240
SLAVE_Y_MAX = 15980

to be:

SLAVE_X_MAX = 6522
SLAVE_Y_MAX = 4988

Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2013, 04:18:58 AM »

totally mismatching.. the cursor and the pen.

the resolution of the panel is 1440*1050.
Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2013, 04:22:41 AM »

When I use 24587, 18447 (no specific reasons for those number). the cursor and pen is somehow ok.
But in the case of 6522 and 4988, the discrepancy is really really big like the panel size itself..
Logged
bernard
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2590


pato mania


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2013, 07:21:40 AM »

I assume you kept the USB_X_MAX and USB_Y_MAX untouched from the original template, right?
Your mapping in the Wacom driver is set to fully to the screen and to not force proportion, right?

I personally find those numbers quite small -- just that it is really what the board reports.  Strange that is.

I sent you a special waxbee to try. Check your mail.

Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2013, 12:57:31 PM »

I assume you kept the USB_X_MAX and USB_Y_MAX untouched from the original template, right?
Your mapping in the Wacom driver is set to fully to the screen and to not force proportion, right?
Both are right.
Still looks strange.


* ca.JPG (56.18 KB, 649x405 - viewed 261 times.)
Logged
bernard
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2590


pato mania


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2013, 02:53:22 PM »

A0 00 2E 23 63 00 50 00 00
0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

             7654 3210
byte 6: (50) 0101 0000


x = 00 << 7 + 2E << 2 + 2
y = 23 << 7 + 63 << 2 + 2


x = 0 + 184 + 2 = 186
y = 4480 + 396 + 2 = 4878



X was not at the right with just 186. Y was 4878 - was it close to the edge? Trying to find max values coming out of the tablet. Oh have you rotated the tablet 90 degrees?
Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2013, 09:20:18 AM »

nope, maybe I pointed to wrong edge point.

Still, the max y looks wierd, right? 4878 is still too small... strange.. no clue at all x.x
Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2013, 09:24:07 AM »

I test with 4 all edge points.

First : A0 00 38 23 7F 00 60 00
Second : A0 00 46 00 70 00 58 00
Third : A0 2F 0B 23 2F 00 68 00
Last : A0 2F 6D 00 4F 00 50 00
Logged
bernard
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2590


pato mania


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2013, 06:40:33 PM »

Hum, your packets have 8 bytes (I think it is missing the last one) -- I will assume 00 for the last one.
Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2013, 12:09:56 AM »

I checked again, sorry for my mistake.

Your assumption is right, the last one is 00 for all cases.
Logged
bernard
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2590


pato mania


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2013, 02:48:22 AM »

Here's the interpretation of X and Y of those packets:



First :
0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
A0 00 38 23 7F 00 60 00 --

                      #7654 3210
bits of byte 6: (60) = 0110 0000

X = 00 << 7 + 38 << 2 + 3 = 0 + 224 + 3    = 227
Y = 23 << 7 + 7F << 2 + 0 = 4480 + 508 + 0 = 4988

Second :
0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
A0 00 46 00 70 00 58 00 --

                      #7654 3210
bits of byte 6: (58) = 0101 1000

X = 00 << 7 + 46 << 2 + 2 = 0 + 280 + 2 = 282
Y = 00 << 7 + 70 << 2 + 3 = 0 + 448 + 3 = 451


Third :
0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
A0 2F 0B 23 2F 00 68 00 --

                      #7654 3210
bits of byte 6: (68) = 0110 1000

X = 2F << 7 + 0B << 2 + 3 = 6016 + 44 + 3  = 6063
Y = 23 << 7 + 2F << 2 + 1 = 4480 + 188 + 1 = 4669


Last :
0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
A0 2F 6D 00 4F 00 50 00 --

                      #7654 3210
bits of byte 6: (50) = 0101 0000

X = 2F << 7 + 6D << 2 + 2 = 6016 + 436 + 2 = 6454
Y = 00 << 7 + 4F << 2 + 2 = 0 + 316 + 2    = 318



Results: Within these 4 samples, the biggest coordinates seen for X and Y are:

Highest X = 6454
Highest Y = 4988

Which fits **almost perfectly**  within the computed values seen earlier (is equals or less):

SLAVE_X_MAX = 6522  <<--- 6522-6454 =  68 * ~0.03mm = or about 2mm away from the edge!  
SLAVE_Y_MAX = 4988  <<--- dead on!

That confirms my theory: those SLAVE_MAX_x values are correct.

Re-reading your text, I think you might be doing a mistake (not sure): These numbers should be put within WaxBeeConfig and flashed to the Teensy. (NOT in the Wacom driver as the mapping "counts").  Is this what you did?


* WaxBeeSlaveMax.png (29.22 KB. 627x477 - viewed 266 times.)

« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 03:01:50 AM by bernard » Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2013, 04:55:13 AM »

Yup, that is what i did exactly. Quite wierd... maybe we have incomplete knowledge about wacom sensor board.

Hope we can find something in future. At this moment, those numbers lead to "very" unreasonable result.
Logged
bernard
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2590


pato mania


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2013, 06:57:09 AM »

ISDV4 tablets are quite simple and have no configuration. In other words, the "tablet" is fine and behaves as expected. The problem either lies within the mapping logic & parameters in WaxBee/Teensy code or in the Wacom Windows driver mapping logic or parameters.

We'll dig more and see where it "breaks". There isn't much to it, we just have to be a little patient and we will find it, I am sure.  Smiley

In the meantime, make sure you also have the following in the WaxBee Config for the non-debug template that emulates an "Intuos2 XD-1218-U":

USB_X_MIN = 0           (left)
USB_Y_MIN = 1190      (top)        NOTE: this number is not 0 to avoid invoking the top menu stripe of the Intuos 2.
USB_X_MAX = 45720    (right)
USB_Y_MAX = 31680    (bottom)



« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 07:07:05 AM by bernard » Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2013, 07:20:27 AM »

Yup, I made sure of it.
Logged
bumhee34
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 146


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2013, 08:07:15 AM »

At this moment, I am using my theory(?).
With assumption that both intuos and wacom sensor board have same resolution, I am finding min x and max x of the slave.

Info : the panel is 12.1 inch. So, x is 9.68" and y is 7.26".
        intuos : x=45720 with 18", y=(31680 - 1190) with 12"

So, slave max x will be 45720/18*9.68= ~ 24587
And, slave max y will be (31680 - 1190)/12*7.26=~ 18447

And if you remind the active area of panel, it is amazing : 245.70 (H) X 184.275 (W).
Very close values!

Anyway, with above numbers, the mapping is quite good except along edge lines. Usually, tablet pc has some discrepancy between pen and cursor along edge lines, but in this DIY tablet, the difference looks larger than normal tablet PCs.

But anyway, with above numbers, it is ok in usual working area. Still wanna remove the discrepancy along edge lines.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 08:10:03 AM by bumhee34 » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!