Which autopilot is ready to use?

[pkvaloy]

Hello UAV experts!

I'm working for the Norwegian institute for nature reserch (NINA). In a wind powerplant we have set up a radar system to learn about how birds, and in particular eagles, flies around the wind turbines.

To calibrate the radar I have flown an GPS equipped electric trainer in the park. Later the GPS tracks is compared to the radar images. The range of these tests is restricted to my eyesight: I have to turn the plane around after some hundred meters to not loose orientation.

I'm looking for a autopilot system to be able to upload some waypoints from a laptop. I will manually takeoff the plane, have it fly to the the waypoints, and then come back for me to manually land it.

I'm looking for a system which is more or less ready to use and don't require hours of fiddling with linux or source code compilers. Does anyone have some suggestions?

Best regards - Paul

[zlite]

How much are you willing to pay? For $5,000 you can get some quite good ones. Or, if you don't mind last-gen technology and relatively crude software, there's always the original PicoPilot for $700.

[airmcn_3]

Hello UAV experts!

I'm working for the Norwegian institute for nature reserch (NINA). In a wind powerplant we have set up a radar system to learn about how birds, and in particular eagles, flies around the wind turbines.

To calibrate the radar I have flown an GPS equipped electric trainer in the park. Later the GPS tracks is compared to the radar images. The range of these tests is restricted to my eyesight: I have to turn the plane around after some hundred meters to not loose orientation.

I'm looking for a autopilot system to be able to upload some waypoints from a laptop. I will manually takeoff the plane, have it fly to the the waypoints, and then come back for me to manually land it.

I'm looking for a system which is more or less ready to use and don't require hours of fiddling with linux or source code compilers. Does anyone have some suggestions?

Best regards - Paul


ATTO Pilot. You will have to go through the export crap to get this unit though. Its a fun bunch of paperwork.......

[ios]

How much are you willing to pay? For $5,000 you can get some quite good ones. Or, if you don't mind last-gen technology and relatively crude software, there's always the original PicoPilot for $700.

I can't understand why everyone keeps on quoting $5,000 for a commercial autopilot. If you add the ground station and software and airframe, etc,... I don't see how you can get away with anything less than $20,000. And this dosn't even take into account integration time & cost as well as regulatory complience (which one needs to comply to if using the UAV for anything other than recreation).

[pkvaloy]

Thank you for the replies so far.

I have also considered the PicoPilot.

Downsides:
Seems that it needs some extra buffers to work with my Futaba FASST receivers (3,3V).
No storage of GPS tracks in an onboard memory. Will eventually have to use an additional EagleTree logger for that.

AttoPilot:
Downside (big one): Not available. Except from that it seems perfect.

I have the airframes and radio equipment ready to go. I have been flying model airplanes for 30 years, and is a microelectronics engineer who for the last 10 years have been working as a computer programmer. This is just to say I'm well aware of the challenges I might stumble into.

That is also the main reason I wan't a system that is as ready to go as possible.

The price tag should be below $3000 or else I don't think my employer will say yes.

Any other suggestions?

Best regards - Paul

[fnev]

I can't understand why everyone keeps on quoting $5,000 for a commercial autopilot. If you add the ground station and software and airframe, etc,... I don't see how you can get away with anything less than $20,000. And this dosn't even take into account integration time & cost as well as regulatory complience (which one needs to comply to if using the UAV for anything other than recreation).

For us, mere mortal, we do have to put bread on the table. To develop a WORKING and QUALIFIED autopilot (system) it takes time and resources… Are YOU working for free?

[workshop]

PicoPilot NA or AttoPilot 1.8 seem to be the two best choices for you. I use both autopilots and each requires fine tuning to get them to work. PicoPilot has two pots to dial in and AttoPilot has 6 or more variables in a text file to adjust.

AttoPilot is far more advanced and customizable but availability in US and especially EU is a obstacle right now. PicoPilot, although crude, uses IMU based stabilization and therefore is an all weather solution.

Contact Dean Goedde directly to see what can be done about the delay. If you still can't wait, get the PicoPilot.

Jeff

[ios]

For us, mere mortal, we do have to put bread on the table. To develop a WORKING and QUALIFIED autopilot (system) it takes time and resources… Are YOU working for free?

Hi fnav, I don't understand your statement,... have I understated the cost too ??

[fnev]

If you develop and qualify a GOOD autopilot it is going (at 5000 US) to need a LOT of sale in order to recover your investment and make a profit if you don’t have a side contract with a specific customer that will absorb all the costs…

So, let say it is going to be in the order of 100 units to be sold to private individuals. Do you think the market is there; and over a relatively short period of time as you have to survive?

By the sound of most of the people involved on this forum this cost is OUTRAGEOUS…

An other point with autopilot is what do you buy: the hardware and with or without the software? As long as the autopilot has been designed for a VERY similar airframe (and I speak not only dimensionally but as well inertias, flight envelop, flight dynamic,…) you will need to modify or even rewrite the software. This is NOT cheap…

I want to be very clear: I am speaking of a solid of the shelf product. It is more than a circuit board with sensors and software. You need to do ALL the testing and qualification exercises before you may sell (commercially) your product.

So, in short, yes your estimation is still pretty far from the reality.

[zlite]

AttoPilot is far more advanced and customizable but availability in US and especially EU is a obstacle right now. PicoPilot, although crude, uses IMU based stabilization and therefore is an all weather solution.


PicoPilot does not use a full IMU. It just uses gyros (not accelerometers) and corrects with GPS. Intended only for stable high-wing trainers. No match for AttoPilot, which costs the same.

Within your price range, I don't think you can beat AttoPilot. Perhaps you can work out an arrangement to get an early version from Dean. It's certainly working and nicely tested at this point.

[ios]

For us, mere mortal, we do have to put bread on the table. To develop a WORKING and QUALIFIED autopilot (system) it takes time and resources… Are YOU working for free?

Hi fnav, I totally agree with all your comments, and to answer your question above, the answer is yes :) UAVs are my hobby so I do work for free !! (and I do a good job of it if I do say so myself!)

http://www.diydrones.com/profile/Ios

It would be interesting to hear your background and involvment in UAVs fnav

Paul; have you considered an FPV setup instead of UAV - you can fly beyond line of sight, and using an OSD unit which displays the direction to home, your able to easily bring your plane back. You'll still need a separate GPS data logger. Alternatively, maybe perform a number of flights from different launch locations to get broader coverage of area.

[Tuner]

Is it just me or does it seem like these posts are getting off topic or did not read all of the first post. People need to read the first post more.

The only option you have for your price range (unless you can figure out how to export the Atto pilot) is the Paparrazi Autopilot. I bet if you offered cash you might even be able to buy a PPZ members system they have already built and tested.(though It might be difficult to find a member willing to sell their system)

It has taken me, somone with a similar skill-set as you with fare less expereince only 3 weeks to get 80% of my system set-up and I am not working on this full-time. The only hard part I have to do now is calibrate my IR Sensors and test out some flightplans in the simulator. (I am adding a IMU so this is the other hard part but in theory I can do most everything without it using just the IR sensors.)

With the recent posts from PPZ Beginners it is now become very easy to find information on how to set-up the PPZ system.

Auto-Pilot + Airframe + Radio + Motor + Battery + Servos = from $1,000-$1,500

Now I know what you are thinking PPZ requires fiddling with Linux.
I hate linux with a passion only becuase I love GUI interfaces and while a very accomplished coder in C C++ assembly I just hat a command line prompt.
That said I installed linux on VBOX and honestly the only hard part was getting the USB to work in both VBOX and LINUX.

I am using the FunJet airframe and also plan on using the Easy Glider Pro airframe.
Both of these have default configuration files.
The only code you will be looking at in theory are the Cofiguration .XML files.
The Ground Control software manages compiling the code for the hardware all you do is select you configuration, and click the build button.

It sounds like the Atto Pilot might be more the right choice for you but PPZ seems to be the only one you can actual obtain. http://chebuzz.com/paparazzi/

[wonginator1221]

PicoPilot does not use a full IMU. It just uses gyros (not accelerometers) and corrects with GPS. Intended only for stable high-wing trainers. No match for AttoPilot, which costs the same.

Within your price range, I don't think you can beat AttoPilot. Perhaps you can work out an arrangement to get an early version from Dean. It's certainly working and nicely tested at this point.

I'm surprised you didn't mention your own baby, the ArduPilot. There have been plenty of people who have reported successful flights. If he just wants it to fly to some waypoints and back I'm sure the Ardupilot would be fine.

[pkvaloy]

Paul; have you considered an FPV setup instead of UAV - you can fly beyond line of sight, and using an OSD unit which displays the direction to home, your able to easily bring your plane back. You'll still need a separate GPS data logger. Alternatively, maybe perform a number of flights from different launch locations to get broader coverage of area.

I'm starting to think more along these lines myself. I already have a GPS and two loggers from Eagletree. They are also developing a OSD PRO version at the moment, although their current OSD will probably be sufficient for me.

We are already flying from different locations, but we need longer continious flight lines.

A FPV system will be legal to operate in Norway, which is not the case with an autopilot.

If I find a reasonable priced downlink system on 1,3GHz, and video some goggles, I think I'll go for that solution.

Thanks to all who have replied.

Best regards - Paul

[airmcn_3]

I'm starting to think more along these lines myself. I already have a GPS and two loggers from Eagletree. They are also developing a OSD PRO version at the moment, although their current OSD will probably be sufficient for me.

We are already flying from different locations, but we need longer continious flight lines.

A FPV system will be legal to operate in Norway, which is not the case with an autopilot.

If I find a reasonable priced downlink system on 1,3GHz, and video some goggles, I think I'll go for that solution.

Thanks to all who have replied.

Best regards - Paul


I have a RV 1.3 GHz video system I would sell you; it does not come with the camera but does come with an 8dbi patch antenna....... its not exactly legal here in Australia so I am not using it.

[dmgoedde]

As long as the autopilot has been designed for a VERY similar airframe (and I speak not only dimensionally but as well inertias, flight envelop, flight dynamic,…) you will need to modify or even rewrite the software. This is NOT cheap…OR not.

In the case of AttoPilot, the end user has full access to all gains, timing parameters, elevon mixing, special rudder treatment for full house planes, navigation tuning parameters, etc... It is all in an easy to edit .txt file called SET, and soon enough will be adjustable via a GUI. I have not heard of a plane that AttoPilot can't fly - from 12 ounce MAVs to 8' Telemaster at 12 pounds, flying wings with elevons, foamies, Twinstar, Miss2 motorglider, E-Flite FuntanaX and Mini Ultra Stick and Taylorcraft, Stick, LT-40, bizarre lifting body UAVs, large flying wings, slow planes and fast planes. No external hardware or adapter are needed, as the Atto is OK with all RC systems and 3.3V logic and has internal elevon and V-tail mixing.

Export stuff is not that big a hurdle, and the last steps of commodity jurisdiction are being wrapped up. I can send you a simple Enduser questionaire to get the ball rolling on export. I still have around 38 complete AttoPilot units sitting here in stock. Not officially selling yet, as the GCS is not done to my liking yet, however that is no handicap as you can get new versions as they come out, and with Atto the GCS is definately NOT a requirement as it was originally designed as a stand alone unit to be used without 2-way modems.

[hobbyboy]

Can we pre order?

Bob

[dmgoedde]

Can we pre order?

BobWell, 1-2 people per day are twisting my arm into selling right now, so yes.

The reason I am resisting is ONLY because I am updating the manual. the more people I sell to early means more 1:1 direct product support and it is slowing me down. The manual is significantly updated even today, so that burden of direct support is lessening.

[Gary Mortimer]

I will make a plane it cant fly

[vassilis]

Dean,

Any chance on having a look at the manual (even if it is not yet finished)?

Thanks,
Vassilis

[ios]

I will make a plane it cant fly

hahahaha !!! :p

[carguy84]

I will make a plane it cant fly
LOLOL

[dmgoedde]

Dean,

Any chance on having a look at the manual (even if it is not yet finished)?

Thanks,
VassilisManual is now updated. PM me with your personal e-mail address. There are no plans to openly publish the manual to non-customers (such as posting it on AttoPilot.com) but I will make an exception on a case by case basis.

[Gary Mortimer]

Send me one too then please Dean.

I wont put it anywhere else, promise

G

[Mark Hanson]

PicoPilot NA or AttoPilot 1.8 seem to be the two best choices for you. I use both autopilots and each requires fine tuning to get them to work. PicoPilot has two pots to dial in and AttoPilot has 6 or more variables in a text file to adjust.
Jeff

The 2009 UNAV price list shows the PICOPILOT-NA priced at $550
That includes the autopilot, GPS and WP editor software.
Features include: pitch and roll control, altitude hold and 32 programmable WP GPS navigation. The autopilot is small, only 2" x 1" x 0.75" ( including all sensors). A complete PICOPILOT system only weighs 2 oz., including the GPS, connectors and all the sensors.

PICOPILOT is a proven design and has sold over 200 units since 2002.
Its easy to set up with only two POTs to adjust and comes with a simple, easy to use WP-Editor program. PICOPILOT features a TRL (turn-rate) wing leveler that uses a single MEMS rate sensor. The altitude hold feature uses vertical speed and a BARO sensor.

The PICOPILOT-NAT has been discontinued because not many people wanted the speed hold feature. Besides its not really needed on slow, stable airframes.

Although PICOPILOT was designed for electric motor-gliders, its quite capable of flying larger planes including those with ailerons.

This video shows a stock PICOPILOT-NA flying a 5 lb Telemaster with ailerons. The plane is powered by an OS52FS engine ( lots of vibration ) and is flying at around 45mph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cZaCOEoiow

[EddieHaskell]

[QUOTE=Mark Hanson] PICOPILOT features a TRL (turn-rate) wing leveler that uses a single MEMS rate sensor. The altitude hold feature uses vertical speed and a BARO sensor.

I thought all these hobby autopilots used IR sensors ?
Does pico pilot require an additional attitude control like most of the others ?

[small_rcer]

PICOPILOT is a proven design and has sold over 200 units since 2002.
Its easy to set up with only two POTs to adjust and comes with a simple, easy to use WP-Editor program. PICOPILOT features a TRL (turn-rate) wing leveler that uses a single MEMS rate sensor. The altitude hold feature uses vertical speed and a BARO sensor.

The PICOPILOT-NAT has been discontinued because not many people wanted the speed hold feature. Besides its not really needed on slow, stable airframes.

There might be a little bit of contradiction here. In 7 years this "proven design" has sold over 200 or about 30 per year. It might be proven but it does seem to be missing widespread acceptance. ArduinoPilot, featured in DIYdrones and in posts on RCG, indicate they have sold over 200 since Dec 2008, albeit they are not complete autopilots. However the feature set is growing daily.

And as he states above PicoPilot is really designed for "slow, stable airframes", which is less and less what people are planning to use such a device on. It might have a hard time flying a fast elevon equipped flying wing for instance.

So as the subject is 'which autopilot is ready to use' , Picopilot is ready but it has not a very widespread use, or at least its' use is not widely posted on RCGroups. So the amount of feedback or assistance from a large user base is not likely to be found with such a small number in place. Almost all other autopilots which have been discussed on RC Groups will have now or very shortly a sold to customer base of well over the 200 mark. These do now, or will include shortly,

Paparazzi, ArduinoPilot, and AttoPilot.

There are likely others such as MicroPilot and other Unav products, but their price point is somewhat out of the hobby or dedicated experimenters price range.

Jim H

[patrickegan]

Hold the phone!

Out of the experimental price range? $500 is not a lot of money for an autopilot that is ready to roll. The U-nav line has years of experience and the roll your own systems don’t have the same configuration or software. So how would you show any constant reliability?

[dmgoedde]

Disclaimer: I own my own autopilot company... I am not posting here as an innocent bystander. Add 1 more officially to the "Which Autopilot is ready to use?" list:

AttoPilot Product Released today. Order process sheet is now posted at www.AttoPilot.com on the "Buy Now" tab.

And for proven design and reliability... AttoPilot has a 2 year heritage of beta testing, 3 years if you count the initial development.

[patrickegan]

Disclaimer: I don’t own an auto pilot company nor do I own any of autopilots mentioned. Too busy horsing around with the FAA trying to protect a market for you guys to sell to.

Beta testing is one thing, production another. I don’t really care either way what product anyone wants to buy/use, but I think the community should have better cohesion. :)

[dmgoedde]

Disclaimer: I don’t own an auto pilot company nor do I own any of autopilots mentioned. Too busy horsing around with the FAA trying to protect a market for you guys to sell to.It takes all of us to make the World go 'round. Without guys like me, you wouldn't have anything to horse around with the FAA. :) See how the smiley face defuses tension?

[Mark Hanson]

I thought all these hobby autopilots used IR sensors ?
Does pico pilot require an additional attitude control like most of the others ?

No, PICOPILOT does not use any IR sensors nor does it require any additional attitude control. PICOPILOT uses an inertial rate sensor which is more reliable that an IR horizon sensing attitude control, capable of operating in any weather or terrain. PICOPILOT was originally developed for the commercial UAV market.

[patrickegan]

We are fighting hard to keep the use of this type of equipment on the table, but I still have plenty to do besides. :)

[brakar]

Dear Patrick Egan,

We all appreciate the work that you do. :), Anyway, there is a few points that I do not quite understand. Why do you only comment on the AttoPilot-thread?

Is it because you think it represents a bigger threat to American interests than other similar systems, like the ardupilit and paparazzi? (which is readily available also outside the US).

If, so, it would be wery informative to receive an answer to why.
Is Attopilot more Advanced? Does it have more advanced hardware, or is it that Dan has come up with a better software than the others?

[patrickegan]

No, none of that. I comment in threads where folks deride U-nav. The company is one of the pioneers in this field with a product that works. I’m part of the ICC too and am involved in the Global integration effort so I think worldwide. Isn't Norway participating in the EUROCAE W-73 effort, I don’t think autonomous flight is allowed, or is it?

[Mark Hanson]

[U]And for proven design and reliability... AttoPilot has a 2 year heritage of beta testing, 3 years if you count the initial development.


In the real world, R&D time doesn't count towards a product's life.

That would be like Boeing claiming that the 787 has been in service for 6 years dispite the fact it has yet to fly!

According to your own remarks "AttoPilot Product Released today" [MAR19,2009]) I think most people would agree that your product is only a few days old. Similarly, just because you have a forum thread with over 100K views doesn't necessarily mean you have a commercially viable product.

[small_rcer]

In the real world, R&D time doesn't count towards a product's life.

That would be like Boeing claiming that the 787 has been in service for 6 years dispite the fact it has yet to fly!

According to your own remarks "AttoPilot Product Released today" [MAR19,2009]) I think most people would agree that your product is only a few days old. Similarly, just because you have a forum thread with over 100K views doesn't necessarily mean you have a commercially viable product.

Notwithstanding the commercial release, AttoPilot has been flying in various iterations for over 2 years. The fact that it reached commercial release in a very polished form is an achievement in itself. The code base and algorithms that have been developed, refined, and implemented is, and will be, I believe, a base for many future enhancements.

The possibility to scale this down physically to a very minute size with revised manufacturing, means that a less than 10 oz practical use UAV capability could easily be developed.

So regard the AttoPilot as having been flying for 2 years in private use and regard the PUBLIC release as another milestone, not a birth date.

The U-Nav product is a product for the same potential market. It just implements its' capabilities in a manner quite different from the way AttoPilot does. That does not make either product right or wrong, just different. The U-Nav product is based on 7-8 year old technology so it is bound to be different. Not bad, just different and older technology.

[brakar]

Originally posted by patrickegan
Isn't Norway participating in the EUROCAE W-73 effort, I don’t think autonomous flight is allowed, or is it?

I tried to find out about the EUROCAE W-73, but could not find any notice of it on norwegian internet-pages. Seems to me it is some work going on in EU, possibly with the intention of making some new regulations. Norway is not a member of the EU, but we follow most of their regulations anyway. So if or when a new regulation will be made, I guess that it will also be implemented in norwegian law - after a few years.

However, from what I could find on internet, the intention of this work seemes not to be to restrict the use of model aircrafts. On the contrary, it was emphasized that A model aircraft flown for sport or recreation is not a UAV and should not be considered as such! ref http://www.belgianaeroclub.be/eas/1-europe-air-sports-eas-matters/1-1-minutes/general-meeting-of-europe-air-sports-cologne-26-27-march-2006/supporting-documents/r6024_gmannex-13_aeromo-344.pdf

When it comes to wheter autonomous flight is allowed, or not in Norway. I do not know. If it is not explicit forbidden in norwegian law, it is allowed. I have not been able to find any regulations at all concerning this so far. I would be greateful if you could enlighten me on this subject.

PS. In my view, I have difficult to see why autonomous flight should be restricted, as long as the RC pilot has the model within sight and within RC control. Do you see it differently?

[zlite]

The U-Nav product is based on 7-8 year old technology so it is bound to be different. Not bad, just different and older technology.

As an unhappy owner of several U-Nav products, I can assure you that 7-8 year-old technology is not just different, it is indeed worse. The world has moved on since the turn of the century, but in my experience U-Nav has not. AttoPilot is truly next-gen tech, thoroughly tested, and I was delighted to move to that.

Competition is good. It might even be good for U-Nav.

[patrickegan]

The main concern with the CAA’s is a flyaway. I don’t know if anyone has tried to certify software (or hardware) for aviation, it is no easy trick. They have a whole warehouse of 486 computers that are certified for space.
I don’t believe any autonomous flight is allowed in Europe. I’ll see if I can find you a non CAA contact in Norway. I’ll be in D.C. all next week so it may take me a while.

[EddieHaskell]

There's a lot of discussion on this forum about various autopilot projects but the only videos I've seen so far have been with pico-pilot. Are any of these other autopilots actually flying autonomously ? If so, let's see some flight videos of them.

[Mark Hanson]

As an unhappy owner of several U-Nav products.

zlite - aka - Chris Anderson, owner of DIYdrones.com
promoting competing commercial products.

[zlite]

There's a lot of discussion on this forum about various autopilot projects but the only videos I've seen so far have been with pico-pilot. Are any of these other autopilots actually flying autonomously ? If so, let's see some flight videos of them.

Check the AttoPilot thread. There are dozens of them there. There's no point in reposting videos everytime someone starts a new thread.

[zlite]

zlite - aka - Chris Anderson, owner of DIYdrones.com
promoting competing commercial products.

Yes, as my bio says. Your bio, however, does not say that you work with U-Nav. If you're calling for full disclosure, maybe you should do the same?

BTW, DIY Drones is not commercial. We are a non-profit, giving away open source technology. We don't make a penny--indeed we donate tens of thousands of dollars to the development of open UAV technology each year. And I have no business or financial connection to AttoPilot--I'm just a fan, like many others here.

[hobbyboy]

Ditto on what Zlite said.

I did try the PicoPilot ( among others) and was not happy at all. Then there was my 1500.00 Micropilot that could not even make it into the air. I really think this will be a good product but we will see.

Mark,

I am not sure if you are in the aviation business or not, but development time and flight testing does count for product reliabilty/viability. Yes, the same methods that are used to develop and certify the 787........




Bob

[dmgoedde]

There's a lot of discussion on this forum about various autopilot projects but the only videos I've seen so far have been with pico-pilot. Are any of these other autopilots actually flying autonomously ? If so, let's see some flight videos of them.Your comment sounds remarkably like that 10-post person "ChuckyDgr8". Chucky also wrote something like "I hear lots of talk on here, only Pico-Pilot seems to be doing autonomous flights". Look around a little... there are MANY other examples.

Just 2:
http://www.vimeo.com/3249191
http://www.vimeo.com/2599290

[patrickegan]

Research fits the definition of "compensation and hire"

[zlite]

Research fits the definition of "compensation and hire"

Only paid research. Not amateur "research", which is what most of here do.

[d_wheel]

Ditto on what Zlite said.

I did try the PicoPilot ( among others) and was not happy at all. Then there was my 1500.00 Micropilot that could not even make it into the air. I really think this will be a good product but we will see.

Mark,

I am not sure if you are in the aviation business or not, but development time and flight testing does count for product reliabilty/viability. Yes, the same methods that are used to develop and certify the 787........




Bob

Same here. Picopilot was marginal at best. Gave up on it quite a while back and tossed it into the back of my junk drawer Their RTL unit works fine with simple aircraft, but is very limiting. In the short time I've used Attopilot (30 flights or so), it has proven to be many many times more capable than Picopilot.

Later;

D.W.

[patrickegan]

They are hanging their hats on "if any money is changing hands"...

[patrickegan]

Hobby RC (in the estimation of many) will not not include any device that allows the aircraft to be flown beyond line of sight. You made a heck of an impression at the AUVSI show. :)

[dmgoedde]

...

[d_wheel]

There's a lot of discussion on this forum about various autopilot projects but the only videos I've seen so far have been with pico-pilot. Are any of these other autopilots actually flying autonomously ? If so, let's see some flight videos of them.

Hello Eddie. For me, video is not the most interesting thing at this point. I've tried more "autopilots" than I care to admit over the years. Finding one that actually does what it is advertised to do, at a price that is not for corporations only, is a rare find. I have had more successful fully autonomous flights with Attopilot in the short time I have had it than all of the others combined over the years. The videos will start coming when I've had my fun just watching it "do its thing" for a while. :p

Later;

D.W.

[dmgoedde]

Hello Eddie. For me, video is not the most interesting thing at this point. I've tried more "autopilots" than I care to admit over the years. Finding one that actually does what it is advertised to do, at a price that is not for corporations only, is a rare find. I have had more successful fully autonomous flights with Attopilot in the short time I have had it than all of the others combined over the years. The videos will start coming when I've had my fun just watching it "do its thing" for a while. :p

Later;

D.W.Glad to hear it Dale. Tom Harper, and about 20 other groups and people are having the same results now. I imagine there will not shortage of videos soon.

Tell me: despite 100 user-configurable parameters, did you find Atto difficult to tune? Do you agree that in reality there are only a couple key gain parameters to tune? Was Atto fussy for you with magic tuning ranges, or somewhat forgiving and tolerant?

[zlite]

Hobby RC (in the estimation of many) will not not include any device that allows the aircraft to be flown beyond line of sight. You made a heck of an impression at the AUVSI show. :)

Staying within line of sight has always been part of the FAA guidelines for recreational use and is something we've required of our users (it's also just good safety practice). What's the difference in the proposed rules?

[spitfiremk9]

No, PICOPILOT does not use any IR sensors nor does it require any additional attitude control. PICOPILOT uses an inertial rate sensor which is more reliable that an IR horizon sensing attitude control, capable of operating in any weather or terrain. PICOPILOT was originally developed for the commercial UAV market.

Hogwash, Pcopilot will not operate in any weather, it will not operate in strong wind.

[Gary Mortimer]

Or China

[spitfiremk9]

Disclaimer: I don’t own an auto pilot company nor do I own any of autopilots mentioned. Too busy horsing around with the FAA trying to protect a market for you guys to sell to.

Beta testing is one thing, production another. I don’t really care either way what product anyone wants to buy/use, but I think the community should have better cohesion. :)

Cohesion is what all this amounts to.

[Tom Harper]

I do not find tuning to be a problem. The system works right out of the box. Parameter variation is more a matter of being able to tailor the system to your application as you become familiar with both. It's not something you have to do just to make it work. It's a capability you can use when the need arises.

Tom

[d_wheel]

Glad to hear it Dale. Tom Harper, and about 20 other groups and people are having the same results now. I imagine there will not shortage of videos soon.

Tell me: despite 100 user-configurable parameters, did you find Atto difficult to tune? Do you agree that in reality there are only a couple key gain parameters to tune? Was Atto fussy for you with magic tuning ranges, or somewhat forgiving and tolerant?

The default set file worked fairly well from the first flight but was kind of sloppy while trying to hold the lines. After 3 or 4 tuning flights I had it working much better. It has performed very well since (around 30 flights). I am sure it could be fine tuned even more, but my motto is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.". These flights were with an Easy Star and it became apparent that I wasn't seeing all of Attos potential with this airframe. I'm in the process of moving it to a more capable platform and will keep everyone informed on how it goes.

Later;

D.W.

[spitfiremk9]

Can we look at a more broader picture here? If anyone cares to look at or remember previous posts ( I say remember because U-NAV gripes seem to vanish? ) We have a moderator who openly admits to U-NAV favour, as if this was not obvious, the guy only breaks his monosylabic stance when anyone is telling the truth about that revolting company.

[dmgoedde]

The possibility to scale this down physically to a very minute size with revised manufacturing, means that a less than 10 oz practical use UAV capability could easily be developed.I've already used it in 12 ounce MAV, AND a group at OU is using it in a 5 ounce MAV (total flight weight) delta of 14" span. So, sub 10 ounce is already here. 2 and 3 ounce is on the horizon.

[patrickegan]

Can we look at a more broader picture here? If anyone cares to look at or remember previous posts ( I say remember because U-NAV gripes seem to vanish? ) We have a moderator who openly admits to U-NAV favour, as if this was not obvious, the guy only breaks his monosylabic stance when anyone is telling the truth about that revolting company.

No this is... Anywho, you guys just want to fight, so whatever. :confused:

[patrickegan]

Staying within line of sight has always been part of the FAA guidelines for recreational use and is something we've required of our users (it's also just good safety practice). What's the difference in the proposed rules?

The hobbyist may not be very happy, there are folks think the hobby needs some good old fashion regulating. We'll have to keep an eye out for the NPRM. :)

[brakar]

Originally posted by patrickegan
I don’t believe any autonomous flight is allowed in Europe.

A litle update on this one. First of all, Europe consists of several individual countries and there is no common european law. In EU there is the Commission which has more or less one single purpose; to propose drafts for common regulations for all the european countries. In this work first of all experts praticipate, but allso stakeholders, interestgroups etc. have the possibility to participate.

When the Commission has a ready-made proposition, the text is sent to the Council, (consisting of ministers/gevernmental delegats from eack country) who will amend the text or send it back if they disagree. In the end, the european Parlament (elected delegats form all the countries - and the peoples spokesmen) has to amend the text. If they do, each country has to transform the regulative text into national law, until then the regulations have no effect. (Due to its origin as a trade federation, EU mainly proposes common regulations, standards etc for issues which is related to trade. Apparently a lot of issues have efect on the competition among companies based in the differnt countries - so there is a lot of regulations to be made).

When it comes UAVs, at present time there are aperently no common regulations/laws, at least not any that forbids this.

On the other hand there is work going on to make common standards, which usually is volunterly to follow. This is what the EUROCAE WorkGroup-73 on Unmanned Aircraft Systems is doing: Main objective is to deliver standards and guidance that will ensure the safety and regularity of unmanned aircraft missions operating in non-segregated airspace.

This work is open and available at internet. You could start with these links to get an idea. Lots of interesting stuff:

http://www.smalluas.com/home.htm
http://www.uvs-info.com/Yearbook2008/033_Contributing-Stakeholder_EUROCAE.pdf
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eatm/gallery/content/public/events/Updated%20Presentations/9%20EUROCAE%20WG%2073.pdf
http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L2_unmanned_air_systems.htm
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/g_about.php

brakar

[Mark Hanson]

Same here. Picopilot was marginal at best. Gave up on it quite a while back and tossed it into the back of my junk drawer ...
D.W.

FYI: Dan Wheel is not a UNAV customer... no record of selling anything to him.

Dan is however, a well known supporter of the Dean's project.

[d_wheel]

FYI: Dan Wheel is not a UNAV customer... no record of selling anything to him.

Dan is however, a well known supporter of the Dean's project.

I don't know who Dan Wheel is, but it isn't me. I have 3 of your systems. 2 purchased from you and one off of eBay. I will provide my name to you in a pm if you assure me you will keep it private AND return here with a message that you do indeed have records of purchases.

Later;

D.W.

[Gary Mortimer]

Its a customer service tradition at UNAV!

ie no service.

But this is rather hi-jacking the thread.

I am a supporter of Ardupilot, Attopilot and RCAP

Before its pointed out.

[zlite]

Unbelievable. Mark Hanson calls d_wheel a liar and then it turns out that he's got the wrong person. So typical of UNAV's contempt for the community, to say nothing of its insulting treatment of customers (I've been on the receiving end of too much of it).

Mark, you owe d_wheel an apology.

[webfoot175]

This thread is looking like a bunch of fans rooting for their favorite team so
I thought I should add my testimonial.

I bought a picopilot-na about six months ago and installed it on a hobbylobby
hawk. The hawk is a motorized glider with a 300w motor. At first I did have some minor problems setting up the serial port on my laptop but the autopilot installation was easy and straight forward. I contacted u-nav support and Mark suggested the gains I should start with and some other tips. I had no problems with u-nav tech support like some people have claimed. I didn't have any problems with their software either. The manual is pretty good but I wish it had a few more diagrams. I created some on Google Earth and exported the files like the manual said with no problems. The autopilot worked the first flight and it flew to the three waypoints I had programed. The turning arc seems to be about 50 to 75 feet depending on the wind. I'm looking forward to better weather so I can get some more flights in. This is fun stuff ! You can count me as a happy picopilot customer.

[jetstreaming]

This thread has taken a tangent, more a 5 page thread on slating each others auto-pilot systems! :D

With your autopilot / UAV solution you would essentially be programming a number of waypoints, launching the plane, then waiting for it to "come back again" sometime later.

FPV would be a more "interactive" experience, that might suit your requirements better.

As you state, you have years of past experience flying planes, and FPV would essentially be the "next step"..

You can send the plane up immediately, without having to program the autopilot on a set flight path. Also fly ANY direction and change course if you make interesting observations instantly - You have immediate control.

Let us know what solution you go for... :)

[spitfiremk9]

This thread has taken a tangent, more a 5 page thread on slating each others auto-pilot systems! :D

With your autopilot / UAV solution you would essentially be programming a number of waypoints, launching the plane, then waiting for it to "come back again" sometime later.

FPV would be a more "interactive" experience, that might suit your requirements better.

As you state, you have years of past experience flying planes, and FPV would essentially be the "next step"..

You can send the plane up immediately, without having to program the autopilot on a set flight path. Also fly ANY direction and change course if you make interesting observations instantly - You have immediate control.

Let us know what solution you go for... :)


The solution I think, is that FPV stinks, but live and let live, go buy a snowboard.

[Gary Mortimer]

Well largely I think its down to the image.

Matters not if the autopilot can fly you to the moon if the image you are capturing looks like it was taken by a box camera.

All of us I think are guilty of looking at longer higher faster numbers without looking at simpler cheaper quicker.

[kbosak]

In the real world, R&D time doesn't count towards a product's life.

That would be like Boeing claiming that the 787 has been in service for 6 years dispite the fact it has yet to fly!

According to your own remarks "AttoPilot Product Released today" [MAR19,2009]) I think most people would agree that your product is only a few days old. Similarly, just because you have a forum thread with over 100K views doesn't necessarily mean you have a commercially viable product.
I think the problem is that AttoPilot promised to solve ALL problems. Even I, being electronics +realtime sw developer, sometimes I believe it does.
There is only one choice: let the ppl buy the first 50 units and understand that in complex equipment, the number of options really matters. However, contrary to popular myth always emerging among crowd observing a new event, the less options - the better the system is. I think we are going to observe 'feature bubble' popping in 'amateur UAV market'.

[patrickegan]

Are you inferring market saturation or eluding to the lack of legal use?

[dmgoedde]

Today two gentlemen from a military UAV company dropped by to hand deliver a 3m flying wing UAV that weighs 10 Lb empty, up to 30 Lbs w/ batteries and payload. They wanted to see first hand if 1) Dean knows what he is talking about, and 2) can AttoPilot be configured to fly their UAV. Of course they realize that IMU Atto is what they will eventually need, but horizon sensing is more than adequate to get started in the evaluation.

My point: They were happy to see that AttoPilot:
1) Has already flown 8 ounce to 15 Lb UAVs
2) Has a parameter called "Max Rate" (attitude angular rate control) to suit control of tiny to huge UAVs
3) Has highly flexible PID including widths of the proportional bands

When I ship an AttoPilot, the generic SET file provided has navigation settings to suit normal sized UAVs for what most customers expect to fly: 2 to 10 Lb planes of span 36" to say 72". The only real work adjusting parameters is in the simple P gains for pitch and roll. I even provide (included in the price) the software to graphically analyze PID performance from LOG'd flights.

Sure - if there were tons of goofy parameters to adjust then it would be just plain stupid. The large amount of useful parameters in Atto allow powerful and exquisite autonomous functionality, but are NOT required to get started or do normal flights.

[patrickegan]

That's great, you're on your way to your first $40 million contract supporting the warfighter. Time to put the long pants on as you are entering COA territory. :)

[spitfiremk9]

That's great, you're on your way to your first $40 million contract supporting the warfighter. Time to put the long pants on as you are entering COA territory. :)

Anyone that can integrate a UAV to fly autonamously deserves to wear long pants,,, Even Forest

[patrickegan]

Forest,

And need's a COA

[Gary Mortimer]

You forgot the T Patrick

[patrickegan]

He lives in the desert :D