📢 SimpleFOClibrary v2.3 is out

Hello everyone, we are very happy to announce that the new release v2.3 of the SimpleFOClibrary is out for few days now!

Here is an overview of some of the most important updates:

  • Arduino Mega 6pwm more timers supported
  • Arduino boards - frequency change support either 32kHz or 4kHz
  • Arduino Uno - synched timers in 3pwm and 6pwm mode #71
  • Teensy 3.x initial support for 6pwm
  • Teensy 4.x initial support for 6pwm
  • Example for v3.1 SimpleFOCShield
  • RP2040 compatibility for earlehillpower core #234 #236
  • More flexible monitoring API
    • start, end and separator characters
    • decimal places (settable through commander)
  • Added machine readable verbose mode in Commander #233
  • SimpleFOCWebController - Web based user interface for SimpleFOC by @geekuillaume - webcontroller.simplefoc.com
  • bugfix - MagneticSensorPWM multiple occasions - #258
  • bugfix - current sense align - added offset exchange when exchanging pins
  • bugfix - trapezoid 150 fixed
  • bugfix - 4pwm on ESP8266 #224
  • Additional InlineCurrentSense and LowsideCurrentSense constructor using milliVolts per Amp #253
  • STM32L4xx current sense support by @Triple6 (discord) #257
  • phase disable in 6pwm mode
    • stm32 - software and hardware 6pwm
    • atmega328
    • atmega2560
  • Lag compensation using motor inductance #246
    • current control through voltage torque mode enhancement
    • extended BLDCMotor and StepperMotor constructors to receive the inductance paramerer
    • can also be set using motor.phase_inductance or through Commander

Nice work on this release. Would it make sense to add the Acceleration/Deceleration planner into the next release as seen in this thread? 3D Printed Robot Arm - Acceleration / Deceleration Planner Algorithm? - #35 by JorgeMaker

Or, is the concern that motion planning shouldn’t be in the main release, but kept outside of it since not everyone will want it?


My gut tells me not to add more functionality to the library until we get what we already have properly finished.

There is also an argument to be made that not everyone needs it, but I see this as more of a problem in the docs and examples, in the sense that other users might be confused by the extra functionality they don’t need.

I’d maybe put it in the drivers library as long as it’s just a few classes, and let it mature a bit there? Or maybe the motion planning topic really deserves its own library, since I can easily see this topic growing beyond the size of SimpleFOC itself…

That’s my 2c…



I agree that its handy to have but maybe not directly in the SimpleFOC library. So yes drivers or something separate.


Carelsbergh Stijn

1 Like