Today I saw an update of v3.52 with reference to Batrium BMS:
• Autoconfiguration for Batrium BMS “0xB038” profile, BatriumD. This includes enforcing DVCC on, and SVS on, and STS off.
When I check my Vitron system, it mentions 0xB037.
What are the differences and advantages of 0xB038?
This will be in our next software release. We have been collaborating with Victron the past few weeks, and held off on releasing ours until 3.52 was out of beta.
Could you confirm for us that 3.52 was released on the normal Victron update channel?
I just installed that VenusOS 3.52 update and have some issues with it:
Before (3.51 VenusOS) I saw in the device details “Batrium (Victron profile)” or similar and Product ID 0xB038.
After the upgrade I see there “Batrium-BMS batters” and Product ID 0xB037. In DVCC nothing is forced on. What can be the cause of that? I am running 2.17.55.
James, I just saw this pop up in my email and checked my system and my Cerbo GX did a auto firmware update and installed 3.52 and my battery balance. was. awful. I checked and the bms can buss bit rate settings were wrong since the update. I changed the settings to the correct values and then ran out of sun for. the day. I am watching this morning as I get close to 95 percent to see if that fixed the issue.
I am so glad batrium wiki. sent out this notice.
Let me know if this fixes your issues, and please post screenshots of your Victron device pages to confirm the Batrium-BMS (Victron Profile) appears as it should.
The update from Victron should not affect your bitrate settings. BMS-Can defaults to 500kbps which we adopt. 250k is usually on a different port on newer devices, but doubles up on older ones. Not sure what is going on there but we can dig in after you install the update.
And DVCC does not show SVS forced on and STS forced off.
I will go back to VenusOS 3.51 and keep Batrium 2.17.56. Is there anything I can investigate, why the “Victron profile” gets lost? I already tried to redect the battery in VenusOS and changing settings in WatchMonToolkit.
Thanks for the screenshots and info. Here’s what I can say for sure from what you’ve said
Your system is configured correctly for DVCC on the Batrium side. That’s the only time we will send 0xB037. This should force DVCC on etc.
“Batrium-BMS battery” is what should be appearing if you haven’t chosen to use DVCC on the Batrium side. I will talk to Victron about this as it’s not quite right to my knowledge.
Could you confirm whether you need to change the bitrate? Or does it remain working?
I’m just piecing together the story to go to Victron with, thank you for your testing and your patience, we won’t be leaving this in a broken state.
I did not touch the bitrate at all, neither on Batrium side nor on Victron side. I use a Cerbo GX device and the BMS-Can port is configured to 500kbit/s.
Could you please elaborate a little bit on when Batrium will send Product ID 0xB037 or 38 and when it will send Product “Batrium-BMS battery” or “Batrium-BMS (Victron profile)”? My experience is, currently, both values are tied together. Are they not?
Victron release notes contains this statement:
Autoconfiguration for Batrium BMS “0xB038” profile, BatriumD. This includes enforcing DVCC on, and SVS on, and STS off.
Therefore, I thought, the “newer” protocol between Batrium and VenusOS is the one with Product ID 0xB038 and Product “Batrium-BMS (Victron profile)”. As my assumption wrong?
Thank you very much for further improving the Batrium software and all your support.
James, apart from forcing DVCC on, what else does this update to? Can you possibly update the KB here: Victron GX | Batrium Knowledge / Wiki - it would be helpful for this to be kept uptodate.
Today I updated Batrium to 2.17.56g by using the link.
I have had updated Victron allready to V3.52.
I have rebooted Batrium (disconnect power supply for 10sec)
I have rebooted the Victron GX.
I had the same behavior as John and Kleini, but got it fixed today by updating the Cerbo to latest 3.60~4 release. Now the settings were forced and ID is on 0xB038! Happy with this and already noticing good results today (sunny day with 100% SOC).
Ok, that is strange! Something else must be triggering it. I will update another system tomorrow and see if it behaves the same, hoping to find the detail that makes the difference.