Building a Custom Drone Controller from Scratch — Part 4: Accelerometer Tilt Control

If you’ve seen Pacific Rim, you know the core idea behind a Jaeger: a pilot doesn’t push buttons to make the giant robot punch — they punch, and the robot punches with them. The machine reads the pilot’s body and mirrors it. That’s the exact idea behind the first control mode I built for the Maritaca Force 1 and Dr.One drones: you tilt the controller, the drone tilts with you.

No joystick, no buttons for movement — just an M5Stack AtomS3 in your hand, leaning the way you want the drone to fly. In this article I’ll walk through how that actually works under the hood: turning raw motion-sensor numbers into smooth flight commands, the gesture I use for throttle (which is not tilt-based, for a good reason), and a yaw-control redesign that turned out to accidentally fix a completely unrelated bug.

The big idea: tilt is data, not magic

Inside the AtomS3 sits a small chip that measures two different things: acceleration (how the board is oriented relative to gravity) and rotation rate (how fast it’s spinning). Tilt the board to the left, and gravity “pulls” more on one axis than another — from that pull, we can calculate an angle. That angle is the only ingredient we need for roll and pitch.

float pitchDeg = atan2f(imu.ax, sqrtf(imu.ay * imu.ay + imu.az * imu.az)) * (180.0f / M_PI);
float rollDeg  = atan2f(imu.ay, sqrtf(imu.ax * imu.ax + imu.az * imu.az)) * (180.0f / M_PI);

Don’t worry about the trigonometry — the short version is: atan2f converts the raw gravity readings on each axis into an angle in degrees. Tilt the board 15° to the right, and rollDeg comes out as roughly 15. That’s it. From here on, it’s all about turning that number into something a drone can actually use safely.

From a raw angle to a flight command

If we sent that raw angle straight to the drone, two things would go wrong immediately. First, your hand is never perfectly still — even resting flat, there’s a tiny natural tremor that the sensor happily reports as “tilt.” Second, a twitchy, instant response to every micro-movement would make the drone feel nervous and hard to fly precisely.

Two small ideas fix both problems:

  • Dead zone — ignore any tilt smaller than about 10°. Below that threshold, we treat the board as “flat,” even if the sensor reports a tiny non-zero number. This is what keeps the drone from drifting on its own just because your hand isn’t a tripod.
  • Expo curve — once you’re past the dead zone, small additional tilts produce small movements, and big tilts produce big movements, but the relationship isn’t a straight line — it curves, so fine control near the center is easier and the extremes are still reachable.
uint8_t AccelController::mapAxis(float value, float maxRange, float deadZone, float expo) {
    if (fabsf(value) < deadZone) return 0x80; // 0x80 = neutral, dead-center

    float sign   = value > 0.0f ? 1.0f : -1.0f;
    float scaled = (fabsf(value) - deadZone) / (maxRange - deadZone);
    if (scaled > 1.0f) scaled = 1.0f;

    scaled = scaled * ((1.0f - expo) + expo * scaled); // the "curve"
    return (uint8_t)((0.5f + sign * scaled * 0.5f) * 254.0f);
}

One more ingredient, and this is the one that actually makes it feel like piloting rather than flicking a switch: a slew rate limiter. Even if you snap the board from flat to a hard tilt instantly, the output value isn’t allowed to jump instantly — it ramps there over a fraction of a second. It’s the same principle as a car’s steering having weight to it instead of feeling like an on/off switch. Tiny detail, huge difference in how trustworthy the drone feels in your hand.

Throttle: the one gesture that isn’t tilt

Here’s a detail that surprised me during testing: both drones run what’s called altitude-hold firmware. Left alone, they actively fight to stay at whatever height they’re already at — like a Jaeger’s auto-balance systems quietly correcting your footing so you don’t topple over. That’s great for a beginner-friendly drone, but it means throttle can’t just be “tilt forward = climb” the way roll and pitch are tilt-based. Instead, throttle uses the only physical button on the AtomS3:

  • Press and hold the screen button → climb
  • Click once, then press and hold → descend
  • Let go → the drone snaps back to hovering at whatever height it just reached

That last part — snapping back to neutral the instant you release — took a real bug to discover. My first version kept whatever throttle value you’d built up even after you let go, which sounds harmless until you realize it means the drone keeps climbing (or sinking) forever after you’ve stopped touching anything. On altitude-hold firmware, “neutral” isn’t zero — it’s “stay right here,” so the fix was just snapping back to that neutral value the moment your thumb leaves the button.

The yaw redesign: when “more realistic” makes things worse

This is the part of the story I actually want to tell, because it’s a good example of a control scheme that looked elegant on paper and was miserable in practice.

My first idea for yaw (spinning the drone left/right in place) was to use the gyroscope’s twist-rate — physically rotate the flat board like a steering wheel lying on a table, and the drone spins to match. It’s the most “drift-compatible-pilot” idea of the whole project: your hand’s rotation becomes the robot’s rotation, no abstraction in between.

It was also nearly unflyable. Twisting a small board flat on your palm, with enough precision to stop exactly where you want, turns out to be a genuinely hard physical motion — much harder than tilting it, which your wrist already does naturally. Worse, any tiny ambient drift in the gyroscope reading (sensors are never perfectly zeroed) had a path all the way to the drone’s yaw command, which I suspect caused an unrelated mystery: the drone would slowly spin on the ground before even taking off, for no command I could find in the logs.

The fix ended up being almost embarrassingly simple. Instead of inventing a new gesture, I reused the existing one: a single click of the screen button toggles a “yaw mode,” and while it’s on, the same left/right tilt that normally controls roll gets rerouted to control yaw instead:

out.roll  = yawModeActive ? DroneAxis::NEUTRAL    : (uint8_t)_currentRoll;
out.yaw   = yawModeActive ? (uint8_t)_currentRoll : DroneAxis::NEUTRAL;

Click once, tilt left/right to spin in place; click again, and the same tilt goes back to strafing. No new motion to learn, and the gyroscope is no longer involved in flight at all — which meant that mystery ground-spin bug disappeared the moment this shipped, without me touching it directly. Sometimes the best fix for a bug is removing the entire mechanism it was hiding in.

What’s next

Tilt control gets you flying with nothing but your hand and a tiny screen, but it has a ceiling — there’s only so much precision your wrist can offer, and only one physical button to work with. In the next article, I’ll cover the second control mode I built: a full Bluetooth gamepad host running directly on the ESP32, including a very unexpected discovery about how a $15 controller pretends to be a touchscreen.

Enjoy

[]’s
PopolonY2k

Building a Custom Drone Controller from Scratch — Part 3: Firmware Architecture (HAL Pattern, Non-Blocking Loop, and the Flight State Machine)

In Part 1 we talked about why this project exists and what hardware it runs on, and in Part 2 we reverse-engineered the UDP protocol that lets an M5Stack AtomS3 talk to a cheap WiFi toy drone. Before going further into flight control and gamepad support, it’s worth stopping to look at how the firmware itself is put together — because the same skeleton ends up driving two completely different drones (Maritaca Force 1, the black E58-protocol drone, and Dr.One, the grey FLOW-WIFI drone) and two completely different input methods (accelerometer tilt and a Bluetooth gamepad) without duplicating the flight logic.

The full source is on GitHub: github.com/popolony2k/maritaca-e88-controller.

A quick tour of the project structure

The firmware is built with PlatformIO, using plain .cpp/.h files (no .ino) so everything can be unit-structured and reasoned about like normal C++. The layout looks like this:

src/
├── main.cpp                  # wiring + non-blocking main loop
├── hal/
│   ├── hal.h                  # BoardHal, DisplayHal, ImuHal, ButtonHal
│   ├── m5atoms3.h
│   └── m5atoms3.cpp           # only file that includes M5Unified.h
├── imu/
│   └── accelerometer.h/.cpp   # ImuData struct, filtering
├── comm/
│   ├── drone_protocol_base.h  # abstract DroneProtocolBase interface
│   ├── drone_protocol.h/.cpp  # WIFI_8K_ black drone (E58 8-byte)
│   ├── flow_wifi_protocol.h/.cpp # FLOW-WIFI grey drone (88-byte)
│   └── wifi_manager.h/.cpp    # WiFi station + auto-detect scan
├── bt/
│   ├── gamepad_axes.h         # normalized axes, no BLE deps
│   └── ble_gamepad.h/.cpp     # BLE HID host (iPega, 8BitDo)
├── control/
│   ├── accel_controller.h/.cpp   # tilt → roll/pitch/yaw/throttle
│   ├── gamepad_controller.h/.cpp # gamepad axes → DroneState
│   ├── flight_controller.h/.cpp  # the state machine
│   └── operation_mode.h
└── ui/
    └── display.h/.cpp         # pure renderer

Three ideas repeat throughout this tree, and they’re the subject of the rest of this article:

  1. A hardware abstraction layer (HAL) that keeps the M5Stack SDK out of almost every file.
  2. A non-blocking main loop built entirely on millis() — no delay(), anywhere.
  3. A flight state machine that’s shared by both drones and both input modes.

The HAL: one file gets to know about M5Unified

M5Unified is a great library — it gives you the display, the IMU, the button and the power management of the AtomS3 behind one consistent API. The problem is that once #include <M5Unified.h> shows up in a file, that file is now tied to this specific board. For a project that already juggles two drone protocols and two control schemes, we didn’t want a third axis of “which file is allowed to touch the hardware.”

So the rule is simple: only src/hal/m5atoms3.cpp includes M5Unified.h. Everything else — the flight controller, the display renderer, the accelerometer filter — talks to a set of plain interfaces defined in hal.h:

struct BoardHal {
    void (*begin)           ();
    void (*update)          ();
    int  (*getBatteryLevel) ();   // 0/25/50/75/100 in %
    bool (*isCharging)      ();   // always false on this hardware
};

struct ButtonHal {
    bool (*wasPressed)  ();
    bool (*wasReleased) ();
    bool (*pressedFor)  (uint32_t ms);
};

These are structs of function pointers, not abstract classes with virtual methods. The implementation, in m5atoms3.cpp, fills them in with non-capturing lambdas:

const BoardHal kBoard {
    .begin           = [] { auto cfg = M5.config(); M5.begin(cfg); },
    .update          = [] { M5.update(); },
    .getBatteryLevel = [] { return batteryLevel(); },
    .isCharging      = [] { return false; },
};

const ButtonHal kButton {
    .wasPressed  = []()            -> bool { return M5.BtnA.wasPressed(); },
    .wasReleased = []()            -> bool { return M5.BtnA.wasReleased(); },
    .pressedFor  = [](uint32_t ms) -> bool { return (bool)M5.BtnA.pressedFor(ms); },
};

A non-capturing lambda — one that doesn’t reference any outside variables — has no state of its own, so it decays to a plain function pointer at compile time. There’s no closure object, no heap allocation, no vtable lookup. kBoard.update() compiles down to exactly the same code as calling M5.update() directly, but every other file in the project now depends on hal.h (a tiny, dependency-free header) instead of the entire M5Unified SDK.

This pays off in a very concrete way: the battery-level logic — reading GPIO8/ADC2 through a voltage divider, averaging samples, applying hysteresis around the 25/50/75% boundaries — lives entirely inside m5atoms3.cpp as a couple of small static functions. The flight controller and the display just call kBoard.getBatteryLevel() and get back a number from 0–100. When the battery calibration changed (we covered that story in an earlier debugging session), not a single line outside m5atoms3.cpp needed to change.

A loop with no delay()

The AtomS3 in this project is doing a lot at once: polling a button, running an IMU filter, talking to a BLE gamepad, maintaining a WiFi connection, sending UDP control packets at a fixed rate, and redrawing a small LCD — all from a single loop(). If any one of those used delay(), everything else would stall for that duration. A drone waiting for its next 40 ms control packet doesn’t care that the display “only” wanted to sleep for 10 ms.

So the project has a hard rule: no delay() in loop(), ever. Every periodic task instead remembers the last time it ran and checks millis() on every pass:

static uint32_t _lastDisplayMs = 0;
static constexpr uint32_t DISPLAY_INTERVAL_MS = 100; // 10 Hz

void loop() {
    kBoard.update();
    wifi.update();
    imu.update(kImu);

    // ... gamepad + flight controller update, every iteration ...

    uint32_t now = millis();
    if (now - _lastDisplayMs >= DISPLAY_INTERVAL_MS) {
        _lastDisplayMs = now;
        display.update(/* ... */);
    }
}

The same pattern shows up at every layer, each with its own cadence chosen for a reason:

  • Drone control packets go out at ~25 Hz (every ~40 ms) — fast enough for responsive flight, matching what the original Android app does.
  • The keepalive packet (AA 80 80 00 80 00 80 55) fires every ~790 ms when the sticks are idle, so the drone doesn’t think the link has died.
  • The display redraws at 10 Hz — plenty for human eyes, and it keeps SPI traffic from competing with the more time-critical UDP and BLE work.
  • BLE scanning uses 5-second timed windows, restarted every 6 seconds while no gamepad is connected.

Because every one of these is just “a timestamp and a constant,” loop() can run thousands of times a second, doing almost nothing on most iterations and exactly the right thing the moment any of those windows elapses. Nothing ever blocks anything else.

One subtlety we ran into directly because of this design: WiFiUDP::begin() needs WiFi.mode() to have been called at least once to initialize the ESP32’s network stack — even on builds where WiFi is never actually connected. Skip it, and the drone protocol driver crashes during setup(), producing a silent boot loop. It’s a good reminder that “non-blocking” and “stateless” aren’t the same thing — some subsystems still have a required initialization order, even if nothing about them looks synchronous.

The flight state machine

All of the above exists to support the actual brain of the firmware: FlightController. It’s a small state machine with six states:

enum class FlightState {
    Idle,        // disarmed, sending keepalive packets
    Calibrating, // sending CaliGyro for 1.5 s before arming
    Arming,      // Unlock, then TakeOff
    Flying,      // active flight, 25 Hz control packets
    Landing,     // sending Land for 2 s, then back to Idle
    Emergency,   // EmergStop, then immediately back to Idle
};

The normal lifecycle is exactly what you’d expect:

Idle ──(double-click + WiFi ok)──▶ Calibrating ──▶ Arming ──▶ Flying
Flying ──(double-click)──▶ Landing ──▶ Idle
any state ──(triple-click)──▶ Emergency ──▶ Idle

Every transition goes through one function, enterState(), which resets all the per-state bookkeeping (button click counters, one-shot command timers, the “is this the first frame in this state” flag) and logs the transition to Serial. runState() then does whatever that state needs to do every frame: send the right command bytes, check elapsed time, and decide whether it’s time to move on.

Gestures, not menus

Remember — the only physical input in ACCEL mode is a single screen button (BtnA). Every gesture has to be encoded in click count and timing:

  • Single click in Flying toggles yaw on/off.
  • Double click in Idle arms and takes off (if WiFi is connected); double click in Flying starts landing.
  • Triple click, from any state, is an immediate emergency stop.
  • Press-and-hold (ACCEL mode, while Flying) drives the throttle — first hold = climb, click-then-hold = descend.

All of this is decided by a small amount of state — _clickCount, _lastReleaseMs, _buttonDown — updated once per frame in handleButton(). A click only “counts” once the double-click window (DOUBLE_CLICK_MS = 1000) has elapsed without a follow-up press, which is what lets a double-click and a hold-after-click (the throttle-down gesture) coexist on the same physical button.

In BLUETOOTH mode, the same state machine is driven by handleGamepadButtons() instead — rising edges on the gamepad’s button bitmask map directly to the same transitions (A = arm, B = land, X = emergency, etc.), so runState() itself doesn’t need to know or care which input method is active.

One state machine, two drones

This is the part that ties back to Part 2. Maritaca Force 1 (the WIFI_8K_ / E58-protocol drone) needs the full Calibrating → Arming(Unlock → TakeOff) → Flying sequence. Dr.One (the FLOW-WIFI drone) auto-arms the moment it receives a single TakeOff toggle — sending it through a multi-second calibration dance would just be wrong for that hardware.

Rather than branch the state machine on “which drone is this,” the abstract DroneProtocolBase interface exposes a single capability flag:

// FlightController::handleDoubleClick()
enterState(_deps.drone.supportsArmSequence()
           ? FlightState::Calibrating   // Maritaca Force 1
           : FlightState::Flying);      // Dr.One — auto-arms on TakeOff

and enterState() fires the one-shot TakeOff command itself when that flag is false:

if (s == FlightState::Flying) {
    _accel.begin();
    _gamepad.begin();
    if (!_deps.drone.supportsArmSequence()) {
        _oneShotCmd   = DroneCmd::TakeOff;
        _oneShotUntil = millis() + 1000;
    }
}

Everything else — gesture handling, throttle hold, the altitude-hold throttle logic, the landing and emergency paths — is shared. Swapping drones at boot is just a matter of which concrete DroneProtocolBase implementation gets injected into FlightController‘s constructor; WifiManager::scanForFirst() figures out which SSID is visible and the rest follows automatically.

Safety net: WiFi loss means emergency stop

Every call to runState() starts with one check, before the big switch statement:

if (!wifiOk && _state != FlightState::Idle && _state != FlightState::Emergency) {
    Serial.println("[Flight] WiFi lost — emergency stop");
    enterState(FlightState::Emergency);
    return;
}

If the AtomS3 ever drops its connection to the drone’s access point while armed, calibrating, flying, or landing, the very next frame forces an emergency stop — regardless of what gesture or gamepad input is happening. The same idea applies to losing the Bluetooth gamepad mid-flight in BLUETOOTH mode. Given that this whole project is one step away from “small spinning blades a meter from your face,” this single guard clause is arguably the most important seven lines in the firmware.

What’s next

With the skeleton in place — HAL, non-blocking loop, and a drone-agnostic state machine — the next two articles get to the fun part: turning physical input into flight commands. Part 4 covers the accelerometer/tilt control path (and the altitude-hold throttle gesture that took some real debugging to get right), and Part 5 covers building a BLE HID host from scratch to support a Bluetooth gamepad.

As always, the full source is on GitHub: github.com/popolony2k/maritaca-e88-controller. You can also see Maritaca Force 1 in action on the project’s YouTube playlist.

Enjoy
[]’s
PopolonY2k

Building a Custom Drone Controller from Scratch — Part 2: Reverse Engineering the UDP Protocol

In Part 1 we introduced the project: a custom WiFi flight controller for Eachine E88/E58 toy drones running on an M5Stack AtomS3. But before writing a single line of firmware, there was a much bigger problem to solve — nobody publishes the protocol these drones speak. No SDK, no documentation, no public spec. If you want to control one of these drones from your own hardware, you have to figure out the protocol yourself.

This is the story of how that happened — entirely through packet capture analysis.

The Tool: PCAPdroid

The drone exposes its own WiFi access point. Its official Android app — the kind of generic white-label app that ships with these E88/E58 clones, often named something like WIFI_CAM or KY UFO — connects to that access point and talks to the drone over plain UDP, no encryption, no authentication. That makes it a perfect target for packet capture.

Using PCAPdroid (a packet capture app for Android that doesn’t require root), it’s possible to record every packet exchanged between the phone and the drone while flying it normally with the official app. The result is a .pcap file that can be opened in Wireshark for analysis.

This single technique — capture with the phone, analyze with Wireshark — was enough to fully reverse-engineer two completely different drone protocols, described below and in Part 6 of this series.

Step 1: Finding the Control Channel

The first question is always: which port is the drone listening on? Standard E58/E88 drones are documented (informally, around hobbyist forums) to use UDP port 50000 or 7099. A quick port scan against this drone showed those ports closed. The actual control channel turned out to be UDP port 8090 — non-standard, and only discoverable by capturing real traffic from the official app.

Filtering the capture by the drone’s IP address (192.168.4.153) and watching for periodic, fixed-size UDP packets immediately revealed the pattern: 8-byte packets sent roughly 25 times per second while the joystick was active.

Step 2: Decoding the Packet Format

Looking at several consecutive packets side by side made the structure obvious almost immediately — most bytes stayed at a constant value (0x80, the “neutral” position for a joystick axis), while one byte changed smoothly as the throttle stick moved:

66 80 80 80 80 00 00 99   ← all axes neutral
66 80 80 26 80 00 a6 99   ← throttle increasing
66 80 80 52 80 00 d2 99   ← throttle higher

From this, the 8-byte structure became clear:

[ 0x66 | Roll | Pitch | Throttle | Yaw | Cmd | XOR | 0x99 ]
  • Byte 0 — fixed header 0x66
  • Bytes 1–4 — Roll, Pitch, Throttle, Yaw, each centered at 0x80 (128)
  • Byte 5 — command flags (take-off, land, flip, etc.)
  • Byte 6 — checksum
  • Byte 7 — fixed footer 0x99

The checksum was the easiest part to confirm — byte 6 is simply the XOR of the four axis bytes. Take the second sample above: 0x80 ^ 0x80 ^ 0x26 ^ 0x80 = 0xA6. Matches exactly.

Step 3: The Missing Piece — App Mode Activation

Here’s where things got interesting. Sending these exact 8-byte packets to port 8090 did nothing. The drone simply ignored them.

The capture held the answer. Right after connecting, before any control packet appeared on port 8090, the app sent two tiny packets to a completely different port — UDP 8080, which is also the drone’s video streaming port:

42 76   → sent on connect: switches drone to WiFi/app control mode
42 77   → sent on disconnect: returns drone to 2.4 GHz RF controller mode

The drone normally boots in 2.4 GHz RF mode (controlled by its physical remote) and completely ignores WiFi commands until this two-byte handshake arrives. Once 42 76 is sent, the drone switches modes, the video stream starts instantly, and port 8090 starts accepting control packets. This single discovery — a two-byte “magic packet” hidden in the connection sequence — was the missing 10% that made the whole protocol work.

Step 4: The Keepalive Packet

One more detail surfaced while analyzing idle periods in the capture — moments where the joystick wasn’t being touched. Instead of going silent, the app kept sending a different 8-byte packet roughly every 790 ms:

AA 80 80 00 80 00 80 55

Notice the header and footer: 0xAA and 0x55 are the bitwise complements of 0x66 and 0x99 — a nice touch of symmetry from whoever designed this protocol. This keepalive almost certainly prevents the drone from timing out the connection and triggering a failsafe landing.

Step 5: Mapping the Command Flags

The command byte (byte 5) only changes when the user presses a button in the app — take off, land, flip, calibrate, etc. By isolating captures around each button press and comparing the command byte before and after, each flag could be matched to its function:

BitValueFunction
00x01Auto take-off
10x02Land
20x04Emergency stop
30x08360° flip
40x10Headless mode
50x20Lock
60x40Unlock motors
70x80Calibrate gyro

The Complete Picture

Putting it all together, the full control sequence for this drone (which we identified as a WIFI_8K_ variant — confirmed via its SSID WIFI_8K_Wf48702) looks like this:

  1. Connect to the drone’s WiFi access point
  2. Send 42 76 to UDP port 8080 — switches the drone into app control mode
  3. Send 8-byte control packets to UDP port 8090 at ~25 Hz while flying
  4. Send the AA…55 keepalive every ~790 ms when the stick is idle
  5. Send 42 77 to UDP port 8080 on disconnect — returns the drone to RF mode

None of this is documented anywhere. It was all extracted, byte by byte, from real traffic captured between a phone and a drone.

Why This Matters

This kind of analysis isn’t just useful for toy drones. The same workflow — capture real traffic, isolate patterns, correlate user actions with byte changes — applies to any closed proprietary protocol: IoT devices, smart home gadgets, obscure consumer electronics. PCAPdroid plus Wireshark plus patience is a surprisingly powerful combination.

The full implementation of this protocol, including the packet encoder, checksum logic, and state machine that drives it, lives in the project’s source code: github.com/popolony2k/maritaca-e88-controller.

What’s Next

In Part 3, we’ll move from protocol to firmware — the architecture decisions behind the AtomS3 codebase: the hardware abstraction layer, the non-blocking control loop, and the flight state machine that turns raw protocol bytes into a real, controllable drone.

Enjoy
[]’s
PopolonY2k

Building a Custom Drone Controller from Scratch — Part 1: Hardware and Motivation

Toy drones are everywhere. You can pick up an Eachine E88 or E58 for under $30, fly it around your living room, and have a decent time. But what happens when the official app stops working, the manufacturer disappears, or you simply want to understand what’s actually happening between your phone and that spinning plastic in the air?

That question is what started this project.

The Goal

Build a fully custom WiFi flight controller for Eachine E88/E58 toy drones, running on an M5Stack AtomS3 attached to an M5Stack Atomic Battery Base — a compact ESP32-S3 assembly with a built-in LCD, RGB LED, LiPo battery, and a single face button. No phone required. No official app. Full control over every byte sent to the drone.

The complete build process for the black drone — which we called Maritaca Force 1 — is documented in a YouTube playlist where you can follow the project from the very beginning, including hardware assembly, initial tests, and first flights. Watch the Maritaca Force 1 build playlist on YouTube.

The Hardware

M5Stack AtomS3 + Atomic Battery Base

The AtomS3 is a compact development board built around the ESP32-S3 (240 MHz dual-core, 8 MB Flash, 2 MB PSRAM), attached to the M5Stack Atomic Battery Base which adds a LiPo battery and an IP5306 power management IC. Together they form the controller unit used in this project:

  • Built-in 0.85″ 128×128 LCD (GC9107 driver, SPI) — small but enough for a real flight HUD
  • Built-in RGB LED via M5Unified
  • One face button (BtnA, GPIO 41) — the entire UI runs through this single input
  • WiFi 2.4 GHz built in — connects directly to the drone’s access point
  • LiPo battery via Atomic Battery Base — USB-C charging, fits in one hand
  • Battery level read directly via I2C (0x75) — no extra library needed, just two register reads

The Drones — Eachine E88 Clones

Both drones are E88 clones that expose a WiFi access point, stream MJPEG video over UDP, and accept flight commands via UDP packets using a protocol derived from the Eachine E58 family.

We have two drones in this project:

  • Maritaca Force 1 (black drone, WIFI_8K_ variant) — 8-byte UDP packets on port 8090
  • Dr.One (grey drone, FLOW-WIFI variant) — 88-byte wrapped packets on port 8800, with optical flow altitude hold

Both were fully reverse-engineered from packet captures. No SDK, no documentation.

The Build System

The firmware is written in C++ using PlatformIO and the Arduino framework, targeting the m5stack-atoms3 board. The only external library dependency is M5Unified — everything else (WiFi, BLE, UDP) comes from the ESP32 Arduino core.

Why Not Just Use the App?

  1. The official apps are garbage. Laggy, ad-infested, and they break with OS updates.
  2. Learning. Reverse engineering a proprietary UDP protocol from packet captures is a genuinely interesting exercise.
  3. Control. Once you own the protocol, you can do things the app never supported — like controlling the drone with a physical BLE gamepad, or using the board’s accelerometer as a tilt controller.
  4. The AtomS3 fits in your pocket. A dedicated hardware controller with a real display is more satisfying than a phone app.

What’s Coming in This Series

  • Part 1 (this post) — Hardware and motivation
  • Part 2 — Reverse engineering the UDP protocol with packet captures
  • Part 3 — Firmware architecture: HAL pattern, non-blocking loop, flight state machine
  • Part 4 — Accelerometer tilt control
  • Part 5 — BLE HID gamepad host on ESP32 (iPega PG-9021S)
  • Part 6 — Second drone: FLOW-WIFI reverse engineering

Enjoy

[]’s
PopolonY2k

C vs Rust

Após algum tempo sem posts aqui no blog, deixo esse post sobre um novo projeto que deixei público no GitHub, onde demonstro como integrar projetos escritos em C com bibliotecas escritas em Rust (o inverso também é possível), utilizando CMake e todo ferramental disponível no ecossistema do Rust.

O projeto em questão é o weather-bot que já está disponível no meu perfil no GitHub, prontinho para uso nas plataformas Linux e MacOSX, até a data desse artigo.

Conforme explico no vídeo sobre o weather-bot em meu canal no Youtube, o projeto ainda não foi testado no Windows, portanto possíveis ajustes talvez sejam necessários para compatibilizar o mesmo nessa plataforma e caso seja necessário alguma compatibilização, a mesma deva afetar apenas na camada do CMake, uma vez que o projeto foi desenvolvido com o máximo de código multi-plataforma em mente, tanto na parte C quanto na parte Rust.

Abaixo segue o vídeo sobre a “saga” do desenvolvimento desse projeto.

[]’s
PopolonY2k