Picopilot [Archive]

patrickegan

Apr 10, 2009, 01:54 PM

Main Entry:
pub•lic•i•ty
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)pə-ˈbli-sə-tē, -ˈblis-tē\
Function:
noun
Date:
1788
1: the quality or state of being public2 a: an act or device designed to attract public interest ; specifically : information with news value issued as a means of gaining public attention or support b: the dissemination of information or promotional material c: paid advertising d: publicattention or acclaim

Your repeated posts suggest that you don’t have Nader-esque motives. That’s fine, we are all well aware of your dislike of their product but, it is starting to appear that you are pushing an agenda. The trolling is beneath everyone here. :)

tekrunner

Apr 10, 2009, 02:02 PM

patrickegan

Apr 10, 2009, 02:34 PM

Undeniably true, but in this case the mantle appears to fit.

Gary Mortimer

Apr 10, 2009, 02:42 PM

Maybe a job in promotion is not in his future though.

Doing a shocking job here.

tekrunner

Apr 10, 2009, 02:55 PM

Undeniably true, but in this case the mantle appears to fit.

You caught me. UNAV is a publicly traded company and I'm secretly shorting their stock!

clolson

Apr 10, 2009, 03:10 PM

troll:

Pronunciation:
\ˈtrōl\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *troiller, *troller; akin to Anglo-French troil, trolle winch
Date:
15th century

transitive verb

1: to cause to move round and round : roll
2 a: to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b: to sing loudly c: to celebrate in song
3 a: to fish for by trolling b: to fish by trolling in <troll lakes> c: to pull through the water in trolling <troll a lure> d: to search in or at <trolls flea markets for bargains> ; also : prowl <troll nightclubs>

intransitive verb
1: to move around : ramble
2 a: to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat b: search , look <trolling for sponsors> ; also : prowl
3: to sing or play in a jovial manner
4: to speak rapidly

Or are we talking about the noun version of the word? Cross that bridge when we come to it?

patrickegan

Apr 10, 2009, 03:19 PM

Depends on who's under the bridge we're crossing ;)

clolson

Apr 10, 2009, 03:36 PM

Depends on who's under the bridge we're crossing ;)

Well I'll have to take a poll to see which bridges across which I will stroll, reading a scroll, singing a carol, thinking about payroll, listening to rock and roll, avoiding any holes, while I'm out on parole ... and see what jumps out.

I hope this thread wasn't about anything important!

Curt.

spitfiremk9

Apr 10, 2009, 05:30 PM

Depends on who's under the bridge we're crossing ;)

Even the kids that invented "janky" know that one, its the big bad ugly
U-nav

EddieHaskell

Apr 11, 2009, 12:43 PM

.... does picopilot require an export license for Europe ?

dmgoedde

Apr 11, 2009, 03:21 PM

.... does picopilot require an export license for Europe ?There is no need to ask that here. Look at their website.

Mark Hanson

Apr 11, 2009, 09:05 PM

.... does picopilot require an export license for Europe ?

Yes, PICOPILOT has a US Commerce classification that requires an export license for all countries except Canada. We've had about 95% of our export license applications approved so far, to about a dozen countries. The applications usually take about 30 days for Commerce to process.

Mark Hanson

Apr 11, 2009, 09:24 PM

Mark Hanson is an employee at UNAV and is probably trying to counter the horrible publicity the company has received on this forum.

I think most readers have figured out that Chris Anderson has been conducting a negative ad campaign against UNAV for about a year now.
It's certainly been no secret on his site, Chris routinely talks about his intent to "put the competition out of business"...LOL
In case there is any doubt about Chris' intention to promote commercial products, take a look at his recent AdruPilot postings.

I suppose we should be flattered that Chris would take the time and effort to publicly portray UNAV as "the competition to beat". But, as many politicians have discovered, a negative campaign usually comes back to bite the source.
I say there is no need to run a childish smear campaign, let the consumer vote with their wallets like any other market.

As for the other PICOPILOT critics, most of them are just following Chris' lead in a bashing campaign. Most of the negative testimonials have been bogus anyway. The fact is that PICOPILOT enjoys a 90% customer satisfaction rate. Most are still flying missions, many in other countries like IceBear in Sweden.

UNAV has attracted the attention of Chris and others simply because we've been the only company to supply low cost autopilots for many years now.

carguy84

Apr 11, 2009, 11:27 PM

The fact is that PICOPILOT enjoys a 90% customer satisfaction rate.
How is this rating tallied? Returns? Questionnaire?

I've never used any UNav products, but I'd be lieing if I said I haven't been intrigued with the Heli solution, especially if that laser based altitude works as described. However, the pricing is prohibitively expensive, so I will wait in the hopes of a similar product to take over that market with a hobby price.

As for UNav plank solutions, if you can take some constructive criticism, I'm not a fan of piecemeal products. Porsche has been doing it for years, and it has killed them in the long run. I also think for products like this, which enter into a huge hobby community, for a company that offered pretty much the only attainable solution for years, engagement as a company with the community is non-existent. There'a a heavily trafficked sub-forum, dedicated to exactly what UNav offers, but the only time we ever hear from UNav is in threads like this.

If it was me, or my company, I'd have a dedicated person answering any and all questions related to UAVs, best practices, how-to's, posting in-flight videos, articles, contests, reputation management.... THEN, as a consumer, I would have the confidence knowing that not only does the company produce a product I'm interested in - but I can see how it works in the real world and know that getting answers to questions is going to be quick and painless.

And that is why I own an AttoPilot.

As for Chris Anderson (who I don't know from a hole in the wall), I can't see how it's in UNav's best interest to engage in any sort of "attack/counter-attack". Especially with someone who has advanced this sector with an open source solution. The guy is all about community and has an online following most companies dream about.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/lc/OUTREACH/BODResource/images%5C2cents2.jpg

PS - PM me if UNav ever releases a sub $1500 heli autopilot.

Mark Hanson

Apr 12, 2009, 01:05 PM

I think I am starting to catch on to what is going on. I clearly looks like a rudder turn. I wonder why what the reason for the post was....

The plane in the video is setup with a PICOPILOT-NA controlling the rudder and aileron servos Y'd together. As you can see it has a very good roll-rate.
Many users have run their PICOPILOT on aileron planes, that was the point of the video.

Mark Hanson

Apr 12, 2009, 01:25 PM

??? try buying an advert on the site

People promote products on this forum all the time.

Dean has had his AttoPilot thread up since August 2007 advertising his product. Most of the postings on that thread have been by his Beta testers who have probably received free parts, so naturally they all say nice things about Dean and the product.

Paparazzi is another product that has a long running thread to advertise their products. And many other projects have been promoted over the years.

Recently, Chris Anderson put up AdruPilot which will probably become another long running thread. Apparently the traffic on his site has dropped off so he finds it necessary to advertise over here.

Why not, this forum has been a great source of free advertisment for a lot of companies. All they have to do is get a few Beta testers and they instantly have a friendly following on their thread.

nick.sargeant

Apr 12, 2009, 01:42 PM

Looking at this thread, It seems you need a few friends Mike...
Got a Picopilot you care to send my way? :P

patrickegan

Apr 12, 2009, 02:01 PM

Giving away product I can see makes many friends, but with such a small pool of users a bad business plan. I guess in this instance U-Nav represents the establishment and the gratis economy faction are just raging against the machine???

Tom Harper

Apr 12, 2009, 02:28 PM

Mark,

AttoPilot Beta testers purchased their systems.

AttoPilot performance speaks for itself.

Tom

patrickegan

Apr 12, 2009, 02:42 PM

So you payed full price to do R&D for someone else's company?

Tom Harper

Apr 12, 2009, 03:06 PM

Pat,

Sure - fun project with a great exchange of information.

Tom

Schroly

Apr 12, 2009, 05:09 PM

.....I guess in this instance U-Nav represents the establishment and the gratis economy faction are just raging against the machine???

Yep, that about sums it up.

ios

Apr 12, 2009, 08:22 PM

Hi Mark,

I've got nothing against you at all, in fact I considered picopilot when I was starting out with UAVs. It was the lack of information on your website about integration of picopilot on different platforms which drove me away, and the lack of independent positive customer reviews and (regardless of being positive or negative) discussion about your product on the forums amongst hobbyists. Its alot of money for a hobbyist to part with when he dosn't have confidence that the product will perform - and to give you an idea - I have spent over $10000 in the last year just for UAV related "stuff",... so customer confidence in a product I think is HUGE - and there is a market. I'm sorry, but I'm still not confident that picopilot cuts it. So, perhaps the constructive advice people are giving you about P.R. - take it.

Dean has had his AttoPilot thread up since August 2007 advertising his product. Most of the postings on that thread have been by his Beta testers who have probably received free parts, so naturally they all say nice things about Dean and the product.

I am an Attopilot Beta tester - and in my opinion, one which has had alot of success but havn't been blowing my trumpet. How many times have you seen me appear on the Attopilot thread??

As noted previously, all Attopilot Beta Testers have payed for their Attopilots, and everyone involved considers it a privilege to be involved with Dean in the development of an autopilot which meets the needs of UAV hobbyists on this forum - which can confidently be used on any plane. No one on the Attopilot thread is saying nice things about Dean and his products because they recieved free parts. They are saying nice things because his product does what its advertised to do, Dean has engaged with this community and is open about his product, and has contributed and helped others with their own DIY autopilots, he is responsive about his own product, he is always improving it and he has provided magnificent support.

If you like, I can send you a set of waypoints to fly in your local area. I will tip my hat to you if you can match the results I have achieved with attopilot (beta unit) with picopilot,...

patrickegan

Apr 12, 2009, 08:23 PM

Just think now you don't have to pay any of that and the product is fully tested by forum users from all over who'll be happy to R&D the customer service too. :)

zlite

Apr 12, 2009, 08:23 PM

Recently, Chris Anderson put up AdruPilot which will probably become another long running thread. Apparently the traffic on his site has dropped off so he finds it necessary to advertise over here.
Mark, do you make up everything you say, or just stuff about us?

Our traffic report is below. We're up 400% over the past year.

carguy84

Apr 13, 2009, 12:30 AM

So you payed full price to do R&D for someone else's company?
Can you please list out the cons in helping to develop a product, that you own, to further meet your needs and the needs of other owners/future owners? Is the concept of community feedback that foreign to UNav?

Pssst, don't let Google know their mistake...GMail's been in beta now for 5 years!

carguy84

Apr 13, 2009, 12:35 AM

Recently, Chris Anderson put up AdruPilot which will probably become another long running thread. Apparently the traffic on his site has dropped off so he finds it necessary to advertise over here.
http://grapher.compete.com/u-nav.com+diydrones.com_uv_310.png

Glass houses, Mark? Seriously, save a little face for your company and reassess the situation here.

spitfiremk9

Apr 13, 2009, 06:02 AM

Just think now you don't have to pay any of that and the product is fully tested by forum users from all over who'll be happy to R&D the customer service too. :)

Excellent

patrickegan

Apr 13, 2009, 09:35 AM

Maybe you should send out your CV to some of the start ups? That is if tek hasn't already beat you to it ;)

spitfiremk9

Apr 13, 2009, 03:25 PM

Maybe you should send out your CV to some of the start ups? That is if tek hasn't already beat you to it ;)
Can't speak for Tek but my CV is paucing compared to some of you guys, anyway, big shiny trumpet owners get first call.

dmgoedde

Apr 13, 2009, 03:33 PM

People promote products on this forum all the time.very true

Dean has had his AttoPilot thread up since August 2007 advertising his product. Most of the postings on that thread have been by his Beta testers who have probably received free parts, so naturally they all say nice things about Dean and the product.Beta testers payed for component cost and shipping, so yes in a sense they got free value in terms of me not charging for my time or development costs. However, my paying customers are also saying nice things.

spitfiremk9

Apr 13, 2009, 03:34 PM

http://grapher.compete.com/u-nav.com+diydrones.com_uv_310.png

Glass houses, Mark? Seriously, save a little face for your company and reassess the situation here.

Hehehe

John O'Sullivan

Apr 13, 2009, 05:23 PM

I have been and am still a Beta tester for the AttoPilot. Dean has treated all of us with dignity and listened and responded to constructive suggestions.
We had a dedicated closed forum (recently discontinued), where development advances were discussed.

None of the Beta Testers disclosed their findings on the RC group and certainly did not act as advertizers on RC Groups. A quick review of postings by beta testers on this will reveal a very practical and realistic evaluation of the AttoPilot.

Dean has been very forthcoming with the advancement of the Attopilot on this forum and has never claimed performance which has not been fully backed up with very thorough practical flight demonstration.

The Beta Testers have been more than fairly dealt with, but are not supported to the extent that we have sold our soul to the extent where we would make unwarranted claims for the AttoPilot.

I believe that Dean has taken a novel and productive approach to the AttoPilot development, and all Beta testers maintain their confidence in the significance of Dean's developments.

John

John O'Sullivan

Apr 13, 2009, 05:30 PM

OOPS!!
I postesd the earlier message to this thread instead of the AttoPilot thread. However since most of you are monitoring both, its presence here is not really off topic.
John

patrickegan

Apr 13, 2009, 10:29 PM

So, I guess we know why everyone talks up their products here...

zlite

Apr 13, 2009, 10:53 PM

So, I guess we know why everyone talks up their products here...

Patrick, needless to say that's ALL of RCgroups. The UAV forum doesn't get more than a few hundred visitors a day.

Please try to compare apples to apples or we're going to think you're, gasp, pushing an agenda.

patrickegan

Apr 13, 2009, 10:58 PM

Same could be said about the last site comparison... No agenda here...

clolson

Apr 14, 2009, 12:28 AM

We should all take the "what is your agenda" quiz on facebook. Curt just took the "what's your agenda" quiz and now someone else has access to all his pictures and friends list.

eddymoore

Apr 14, 2009, 07:01 AM

Just because someone likes to see if your arguments stack up, it doesn't mean they have an agenda. Critical thinking is not a sign of the enemy.

Mark Hanson

Apr 18, 2009, 09:43 AM

Scarlett: 64" wingspan, 25oz, AXI2208/26, PICOPILOT-NA
32 WP flight, 30min duration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXQ_L6jxQY

Tom Harper

Apr 18, 2009, 10:20 AM

Mark,

Nice job!

Tom

ios

Apr 18, 2009, 11:41 AM

Mark Hanson

Apr 25, 2009, 09:59 AM

Scarlett has been one our veteran "working birds", with over 50 autonomous flights. As you can see in the video, PICOPILOT-NA flys Scarlett very smoothly, which is exactly what you want for camera missions. With a 2500maH-2S pack, Scarlett has flown missions up to 50min. carrying a video camera. The camera we use is the SpyCam from RCHotDeals, its about 1/2 the size and weight of FlyCam and we've taken 60 minutes (640x480) with it. The only problem with SpyCam is that it has a fixed camera head and the most aerodynamic mounting is on it's side, so the video image is rotated 90deg. Not a big problem since we usually edit the video and capture stills of interesting images.

In the real world, a working UAV autopilot needs to be easy to setup, easy to use and most of all reliable.

Mark Hanson

Apr 25, 2009, 10:20 AM

Mark,

Ditto - Very nice video. I also liked your other video showcasing the 3500. Can you give us any further details about it? I understand that Telemasters used it last year at the Outback Challenge, can you share any feedback or story regarding their experience?

Nick

Yes, one of our 3500FW autopilots placed #1 in the 2008 Australian OutBack, Search and Rescue contest. The 3500 is a "Pro" UAV autopilot with a full-duplex telemetry link (groundstation), including a built-in camera stabilization system among it's many features. Team Telemaster (Simeon & Aaron) installed theirs on an 8ft Telemaster powered by an electric motor. Simeon got the plane flying with very little tech support from UNAV and reported "the plane flys like its on rails". Unfortunatley Simeon and Aaron live 1000km apart so they didn't get a chance to do much test flying. In fact, the first time they tried their radio modem was at the contest. They actually won (by points) during the qualification flight. The day of the contest, they had to abort their flight because a connector came loose.

There were many "Pro autopilots" at the contest, MicroPilot, CloudCap and Procerus but none of them qualified. Obviously there is much more involved in getting a UAV to fly a mission besides the autopilot. It looks to me like the contestants need to spend a lot more time testing their planes before they show up at a contest.

Simeon and Aaron's success also demonstrates that a well designed, well documented autopilot (and well qualified users) don't require much tech support. In fact, less than 25% of PICOPILOT customers ever request tech support and 50% of those usually ask questions about issues that are covered in the manual or on the FYI page.

carguy84

Apr 25, 2009, 11:26 AM

Oh cool, question and answer session, this I like.

Why does the 3500FW cost $3000? What's the difference between it and the PicoPilot-NA?

zlite

Apr 25, 2009, 01:12 PM

In fact, less than 25% of PICOPILOT customers ever request tech support and 50% of those usually ask questions about issues that are covered in the manual or on the FYI page.

Yes, welcome to the real world. Customers don't always read the manual perfectly. The trick (hello Dave!) is not to insult them and treat them like annoying idiots when that happens.

spitfiremk9

Apr 25, 2009, 02:59 PM

Oh cool, question and answer session, this I like.

Why does the 3500FW cost $3000? What's the difference between it and the PicoPilot-NA?

Its because the thiry five hundred has, ( alegedly ), more features. I was going to buy this unit after discovering that the picopilot NAT was insufficient ( bad advertising ) for my needs, but after the apaling and rude treatment I received from
" tech support " I went to Cloud Cap and ultimately decided that the extra couple of K was better spent on their Picolo. Compared with Unav, Cloud Cap are "the business", I have spent 30 years in aviation engineering and their friendly walk though, talk through approach to system integration is what customers expect, rather than the, I've got your dough now approach that seems to be most popular with Unav, theres one guy, sales-man-come-techy, who could not answer technical questions!

workshop

Apr 25, 2009, 03:02 PM

spitfiremk9

Apr 25, 2009, 04:01 PM

It seems to me that there are learning curves on both sides of the transaction. Since micro-UAV is a relatively new industry, the customers and vendors are at the cutting edge and should adjust their temperament accordingly.

Users need to self study more. Not to single carguy84 out (only because his post was most recent) but most of the information you seek is on U-NAV’s website. Micro-UAV companies need to focus intently on customer satisfaction so not to suffer bad customer feedback. Again, not to single out PicoPilot or spitfiremk9 but it is a most handy example.

I personally have had good and bad experiences with almost all of the companies servicing the micro-UAV industry. Sometimes I’m an idiot customer, sometimes I’m not. The point is that we are all in the same club and we should all give each other more kindness, understanding and patience.

Jeff ;)

Jeff, I have read 98% of your posts ( Please forgive me for the 2% I missed ) and I have a great respect for your involvement and achievement in the UA comunity, but I am surprised to find that you do not think that someone spending upward of 3K has failed to " study " the product, or be aware of what he is doing!! We all have good and bad experiences with every company we deal we deal with, be it washing machines or aircraft, but most obviously the innformation that the majority of customers require is NOT ON THE PAUCING WEBSITE! or even available from the the " tech support " . You say that micro Uav companies need to focus more on customer satisfaction! This is what i tried to point out in my last post, that you seem to want to " single out ". If I had experienced even the slightest amount of kindness, understanding or (please wait, until I finnish laughing)
" patience " with that POS company then me and the many others would have NO reason to gripe, cutting edge or no cutting edge!

tekrunner

Apr 25, 2009, 11:04 PM

Yes, welcome to the real world. Customers don't always read the manual perfectly. The trick (hello Dave!) is not to insult them and treat them like annoying idiots when that happens.

Reminds me of a horrible teacher I once had. I asked her a question and she said "You're smart, you've got a book, go figure it out and leave me alone". She treated all students this way.

workshop

Apr 26, 2009, 03:00 AM

SpitfireMk9,

I think you may have misunderstood. The “study” comment was not aimed in your direction and I used your example for the “vendor” side of my observation. I think your understandable reaction to the way U-NAV treated you made my comments less clear and that IS my point.

The way we treat people AND the grudges we hold when treated poorly ourselves, make a difference.

Thanks for your comments about my work.

Jeff

Mark Hanson

Apr 28, 2009, 10:08 AM

Oh cool, question and answer session, this I like.

Why does the 3500FW cost $3000? What's the difference between it and the PicoPilot-NA?

The 3500FW competes with other "Pro" UAV autopilots like MicroPilot, CloudCap and Procerus. This class of autopilots typically costs $5000 or more.
The current "state-of-the art" of this class usually includes an IMU, groundstation and a wide range of other features like camera mount stabilization. These autopilots are commonly advertised as "full-featured" autopilots". For years, the autopilot vendors have been competing with each other with more and more exotic features. Lately, we've been hearing from airframe suppliers who say they aren't interested in special features, what they are looking for is a simple, robust system that's easy to use. In fact, the most common complaint we hear about the other "Pro" autopilots is that they are too hard to set up and too complicated to use. We've spent a lot of effort making our autopilots user friendly.

The original design criteria for PICOPILOT was for a "minimum feature" autopilot for the Raven class UAV. The Raven is probably the most successful of the small tactical UAVs to date, with 1000's used being in IRAQ and Afganistan. Like most small military UAVs, the Raven has no ailerons and is steered by rudder.

With new FAA regulations looming, most sUAS (small UAV) operations will probably be conducted within visual range. That means that many features like progammable speed and altitude and long range radio modems won't be needed. What will likely be required is a full-duplex telemetry link with a groundstation and a variety of mandatory safety features.

Gary Mortimer

Apr 28, 2009, 10:15 AM

Is it in the Raven then??

If not thats merit by association not reality?

small_rcer

Apr 28, 2009, 01:09 PM

With new FAA regulations looming, most sUAS (small UAV) operations will probably be conducted within visual range. That means that many features like progammable speed and altitude and long range radio modems won't be needed. What will likely be required is a full-duplex telemetry link with a groundstation and a variety of mandatory safety features.

Is that statement not contradictory?

Isn't long or short range radio modems really not just telemetry by another name? You say simple devices and then say a variety of mandatory safety features.

Programmable speed is a given on anything with smarts. Having speed programmable makes photo and other missions much better. Timed photo intervals are much more productive if the speed is constant either airspeed or groundspeed. It eliminates gaps or excessive overlap. Being within VLOS does not diminish the need for capabilities and communication. Unless of course you are trying to flog a product that does not have them at a marketable price.

The fact that the Raven did not have those features when introduced does not mean the features we as hobbyists look for, should not be included. And we look for speed and altitude hold. We want these features in wind capable aircraft that may or may not have inherent stability. We want to use aircraft other than the high wing glider types that are the most suitable aircraft for some of the autopilots on the market.

We want change in altitude to be programmable so we can follow terrain of varying heights. We want to dash to a photo site and then slow down to take photos over an area and then dash back to launch site. This requires programmable speed and altitude. We want photo or other sensors to be selected and actuated in many ways, time intervals, GPS location, number of shots or samples taken, or any other creative ways. We do not want to have an expensive but feature restricted device.

Having a radio modem enables a ground station. A ground station and a radio modem require each other to be effective. Alone neither of them completes the command loop.

VLOS ( Visual Line of Sight, for those not following ) does not imply simple or incapable devices. In fact due to the distance restriction, devices with far more sophistication may be required to achieve useful results in spite of the bureaucratic restrictions.

Imagine if you fly over a narrow valley. In theory you are restricted to 400' AGL. If the peaks on either side are 200' above you, then to cover from peak to peak legally you may require drastic changes in altitude to be legal or effectively cover the ground to complete the task.

So Mark, you are making a valiant try, but it appears your perception of users needs or wants is incomplete at best, and way off the mark at worst. Speed, altitude, sensor activation, radio modems etc are reqd. They are wanted.

Your product just does not seem to have them.

Small_rcer

Mark Hanson

Apr 28, 2009, 03:02 PM

Is that statement not contradictory?

Speed, altitude, sensor activation, radio modems etc are reqd. They are wanted.

Small_rcer

Try reading my post again. What I said is that we expect the new FAA regulations to require operations LOS and under 400AGL and require mandatory safety features (with telemetry). Our 3500 autopilot features an IMU, groundstation and telemetry which supports the commonly recommended safety features. Most operators do not agree with your assessment that pre-programmed speed and altitude will be necessary in a LOS enviornment. Long range radio modems are obviously not required if you are operating LOS.

We have an excellent perception of the UAS market place, we've been in this business since 1995. It's just that we are focused on the commercial market not the hobby market.

Gary Mortimer

Apr 28, 2009, 03:15 PM

Mark.

Was your device used in the Raven??

You sort of infer it was.

dmgoedde

Apr 28, 2009, 03:22 PM

I thought Raven used Kestrel2

Mark Hanson

Apr 28, 2009, 03:31 PM

[QUOTE=Gary Mortimer]Mark.

Was your device used in the Raven??

/QUOTE]

No, I said "Raven class UAV".

Gary Mortimer

Apr 28, 2009, 03:33 PM

Oh no I was just reading like Google does

Gary Mortimer

Apr 28, 2009, 03:57 PM

Don't get me wrong Mark, less is more in my book.

But unless your devices are used in military mass market airframes please don't attach their name to them.

My RCAP3 can turn a rudder on an FMA stabilized airframe and it cost blow all. With the Althold it also does that altitude holding thing.

Many ways to skin cats.

You guys need to start winning friends, perhaps a user forum on your own site would allow us to peer review how well your autopilots work.

Its all about the story.

As I see it there are a couple of AP manufacturers that nobody moans about and you hear very little of.

My best guess is that they have made products that work and are quietly getting them out there!!

small_rcer

Apr 28, 2009, 05:44 PM

Try reading my post again, you obviously misunderstood what I said (or you're just interested in bashing).

What I said is that we expect the new FAA regulations to require operations LOS and under 400AGL and require mandatory safety features (with telemetry). Our 3500 autopilot features an IMU, groundstation and telemetry which supports the commonly recommended safety features. Most operators do not agree with your assessment that pre-programmed speed and altitude will be necessary in a LOS enviornment. Long range radio modems are obviously not required if you are operating LOS.

We have an excellent perception of the UAS market place, we've been in this business since 1995. It's just that we are focused on the commercial market not the hobby market.

Why don't you read my post correctly? I re-read yours several times before replying. Telemetry is sent via a long or short range modem. So if telemetry is a requirement as per your suggestion, then a long or short range modem is required. Then a GCS is reqd to deal with the telemetry. A radio modem is the means of transmitting telemetry data. Wether it is long or short range, it does not change the method of transmitting the data. If you cannot deal with the data in real time via a GCS or similar function device with whatever obfuscating name you wish to apply to it, then telemetry is a waste of effort.

And further, you now are comparing functionality and features to your 3500 model and not with the PicoPilot which was the subject of this thread.

Picopilot does NOT appear to have modem support (aka telemetry ), speed control, or programmable altitude. So as a device for a sUAV it is not in its' present form any where close to meeting requirements of what you suggest will be the FAA's requirements.

You suggest that your reading of the clients needs is simple and easy to use. PicoPilot may be simple and easy to use. The trick for having a product in this market is to have capable, feature rich, AND easy to use. Having simple easy to use and no features, is not likely to make much of an impression.

I am not bashing the PicoPilot. All I understand about your PicoPilot is what I read on your web site and in yours and your proxy posters, here in RCG. What I am doing is pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in your assertions. Such contradictions, inferences, and inconsistencies should be pointed out to ensure the information presented is clear, and accurate, and able to be understood by those who may be new or unfamiliar with the various products discussed.

Small_rcer

ios

Apr 28, 2009, 06:26 PM

And further, you now are comparing functionality and features to your 3500 model and not with the PicoPilot which was the subject of this thread.

To be honest, I should take the heat for changing the topic. Back in post #35 I made a comment against what I consider to be baseless claims, and suggested to Mark he improve his PR on his own product. The very next post he made (#52) was positive in nature, despite a stream of negative posts following his earlier comments, so in post #54 I followed Tom Harpers lead and praised Mark and asked a question about the 3500, and then there were a couple more questions about it,...

I'm not a picopilot fan myself, but I do have the sense (no insinuations implied) to give everyone a fair go,... and I think it would be good if you were a little less aggressive in your responses small_rcer and let Mark engage with the community.

:cool: Be Cool :) :D ;)

spitfiremk9

Apr 29, 2009, 04:59 AM

To be honest, I should take the heat for changing the topic. Back in post #35 I made a comment against what I consider to be baseless claims, and suggested to Mark he improve his PR on his own product. The very next post he made (#52) was positive in nature, despite a stream of negative posts following his earlier comments, so in post #54 I followed Tom Harpers lead and praised Mark and asked a question about the 3500, and then there were a couple more questions about it,...

I'm not a picopilot fan myself, but I do have the sense (no insinuations implied) to give everyone a fair go,... and I think it would be good if you were a little less aggressive in your responses small_rcer and let Mark engage with the community.

:cool: Be Cool :) :D ;)

Back in post 34, I made a comment that seems to have dissappeared, it says "this post is temporarily hidden while spitfiremk9 edits it. That statement is not true, my post has been removed ( This has happend before to others having a gripe about Unav ). It appears to be perfectly acceptable to post missleading and baseless claims, while having an opinion and telling the truth has to be censored? I suspect the KGB, "No agendas here then", Patrick. ios, I am convinced that everyone on this forum would be delighted and eager to have mark take a break from reading Victor Kyam and engage in the community, but one only needs to revise over all his previous posts and a clear pattern emerges, ( steady now spitfire, remember the KGB ) I can not see a need for you to take the heat? There are far more recalcitrant members than you, some of their posts still remain!

Mark Hanson

May 02, 2009, 10:14 AM

.... engage with the community.

I think its fair to say that the dozen guys that regularly post on this forum don't represent the UAV community. Get a sense of what's going on in the UAV community here: auvsi.org (http://www.auvsi.org/)

In the past couple of years, the project threads on this forum have been about aerial-robotic autopilots. There's been a lot of discussion about autopilot features and what the "market" wants. They are obviously refering to the aerial-robotic (hobby) market which is still rapidly evolving.

Aerial-robots are usually defined as air-vehicles used to experiment with and demonstrate autonomous technology and features. Aerial-robotic users typically include university students and advanced RC hobbiests. DIYdrones, for example, promotes aerial-robotics. Personally, I've been waiting for someone in the aerial-robotic community to come up with an autopilot that performs 3-D manuevers !

The generally accepted definition of a small UAV (sUAS) is "an unmanned air vehicle designed to perform a mission", usually aerial photography ... in other words, a working bird.

So, how did PICOPILOT, originally designed for UAVs (working birds) end up being so widely used by aerial-robotic operators? In a word - price. Until recently, UAV autopilots cost $5000 or more and PICOPILOT systems sold for under $1000. PICOPILOT is still widely used by both aerial-robotics and sUAS operators.l

zlite

May 02, 2009, 03:24 PM

spitfiremk9

May 02, 2009, 03:54 PM

Mark
Yes, excellent post, i'm clapping here too, wonderfull stuff, I love the "robotics" cliche like Chris
But, do you honestly think its as many as a "dosen"?

brakar

May 02, 2009, 05:59 PM

This is an interesting statement Mark:

So, how did PICOPILOT, originally designed for UAVs (working birds) end up being so widely used by aerial-robotic operators? In a word - price. Until recently, UAV autopilots cost $5000 or more and PICOPILOT systems sold for under $1000. PICOPILOT is still widely used by both aerial-robotics and sUAS operators.l

The way I see it, by lowering the price for a UAV system (a bit downgraded from your regular systems) to under 1000$, UNAV wanted to take a shot at the hobbyist market. That must have been a few years ago. But what have happend afterwards? Several competitors have come to the playing field, naturally with big ideas and little content at first , but lately at least a few of them must have become real competitors.

All along, UNAV have had superior product in their shelfs, (I think), an probably could have released new downgraded hobbyist products - still more advanced then the competitors. That has not happend. This imply a change in policy.

If I am at the right track with this, could you be kind and explain what has made you change your mind about the hobbyist market?

Regards,

brakar :rolleyes:

spitfiremk9

May 03, 2009, 02:52 AM

This is an interesting statement Mark:.

If I am at the right track with this, could you be kind and explain what has made you change your mind about the hobbyist market?

Regards,

brakar :rolleyes:

Brakar
Have you not read, they don't like hobbieists, (Oh sorry, conversation back in the gutter again) Its "Aerial Robotic Users". It seems the only thing they like about hobbiests is their money and once they've had it they treat them like dirt

brakar

May 03, 2009, 03:35 PM

spitfiremk9,

It seems to me there is a kind of duality in the way UNAV communicates at this forum. First off all, I do not think of the hagging between them and competing systems, which probably is natural - and goes both ways.

What I have in mind is the way they talk about the whole hobbyist community, insinuating their activities might be on the edge with the laws, in the US, Europe, and so on. Just one example: patrickegan: 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?
I could easily have found more/similar statements at this forum.

PS: I checked what the EUROCAE W-73 effort was about, and it turned out to be some standardisation work going on in Europe. (I have participated in such work in the EU myself, and knows it has nothing to do with laws. European standards are normaly free to follow, and are ment for customers to refer to, when they want a product to comply with that particurlar standard).

On the other hand, UNAV continu to promote their products to the hobbyist marked, whitout mentioning any restrictions.

Mark Hanson; Discussion - Picopilot
PICOPILOT flys plane with ailerons (0 min 35 sec)
PICOPILOT: simple, reliable, proven
PICOPILOT-NA $550

This is what I do not understand.

(Besides, it is difficut to keep up with all the hats/roles UNAV/patrickegan holds, and which one actually on when commenting others posts; UNAV-defender, law-maker, moderator, privat person, hobbyist??).

brakar :confused:

spitfiremk9

May 03, 2009, 03:45 PM

spitfiremk9,

It seems to me there is a kind of duality in the way UNAV communicates at this forum. First off all, I do not think of the hagging between them and competing systems, which probably is natural - and goes both ways.

What I have in mind is the way they talk about the whole hobbyist community, insinuating their activities might be on the edge with the laws in the US, Europe, and so on. Just one excample:

PS: I checked what the EUROCAE W-73 effort was about, and it turned out to be some standardisation work going on in Europe. (I have participated in such work in the EU myself, and knows it has nothing to do with laws. European standards are normaly free to follow, and are ment for customers to refer to, when they want a product to comply with that particurlar standard.

I could easily have found more/similar statements at this forum.

On the other hand, UNAV continu to promote their products to the hobbyist marked, whitout mentioning any restrictions.

This is what I do not understand.

(Besides, it is difficut to keep up with all the hats/roles UNAV/patrickegan holds, and which one actually on when commenting others posts; UNAV-defender, law-maker, moderator, privat person, hobbyist??).

brakar :confused:

Brakar, it sounds like you are as confused as me

Mark Hanson

May 04, 2009, 04:08 PM

Mark, that was an excellent post and I agree entirely. I'm really glad to see that distinction (between robotics hobbyists and the UAS approach) made. Glad to see the conversation elevate to this level!

The bashing campaign not working out for you Chris ?... getting some negative feedback?.. so you're going to try the nice guy approach now? OK, lets all be nice guys, in fact lets all act like adults, maybe more guys will want to join in on this forum again.

While I can't take responsibility for some people's misperceptions or percevied insinuations, I can try to clarify specific questions people have (if they are nice about it).

We've consistantly maintained that PICOPILOT was originally designed for the commercial UAV market. The decrease in PICOPILOT price over the years was due to product life depreciation rather than competitive forces. There's a difference between designing for a specific market and selling to a specific market. As I pointed out on this thread several times, PICOPILOT has been popular with hobbiests for years simply because it was the cheapist autopilot available.

I don't know where this misperception came from: "... they talk about the whole hobbyist community, insinuating their activities might be on the edge with the laws" ...let me just say that UNAV has always advocated following applicable laws and regulations regarding autopilots. That wasn't because of our moral convictions, its because we are a manufacturer and we have to.

We have pointed out that some (unnamed) websites have publically promoted definace of regulations (and the regulators) and we simply can't be associated with that kind of talk (no business in their right mind would).

We do, however have some strong opinions about the availability and use of amatuer built autopilots but that discussion can best be done on a different thread. :)

jglenn

May 04, 2009, 07:50 PM

Do you mean amateurs can never be as good as professional suppliers?

Why would that be? Funding? Software skills? The Atto seems up there with
the best, with the exception of an IMU. Even the Arduino may get that. With
open source development, the quality may even exceed nasa or "real" companies. :)

zlite

May 04, 2009, 08:30 PM

The bashing campaign not working out for you Chris ?... getting some negative feedback?.. so you're going to try the nice guy approach now?

Sigh. So much for good will and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

ios

May 05, 2009, 01:57 AM

Sigh. So much for good will and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm disappointed too :(

spitfiremk9

May 05, 2009, 07:16 AM

Well I'm shocked, to find that none of you expected it !

spitfiremk9

May 05, 2009, 08:31 AM

. With
open source development, the quality may even exceed nasa or "real" companies. :)

I think this is the single most profound statement made so far and personaly, its the basis for all the anti DIY UAV AUTOPILOT PRODUCERS, the comercial guys are fearfull of them because they do it for pleasure, they have tremendous passion for what they are doing and collectively, they have more skill, resources and hours to spend, for them it is not just "the next buck" they are enjoying what they do, open source is the largest UAV Autopilot company in the world, so it is not difficult to see why a geriatric bottom of the ladder comercial enterprise that is blinkered by arrogance is so upset and paranoid.
Dean and Chris are looked upon as the MD's of this huge global movement, so they are going to be first at the receiving end of any disenchantment.
Over the last 18months that I have taken an interest, I have seen a hundred fold expansion in skill and tecnological advancement and I suspect that there are quite a few of the smaller companys that are duly concerned,,, Imagine where it will be in another 18months? Flourishing? or squashed by legislation helped on by an Asp among it.

EddieHaskell

May 05, 2009, 02:34 PM

I doubt if Micropilot, Cloudcap or Unav are very threatened by these hobby autopilots but I'll bet the Feds are.

Gary Mortimer

May 05, 2009, 03:08 PM

Groan, look down shake head.

jglenn

May 05, 2009, 06:05 PM

Spitfire:

Interesting comment. I am trying to learn about this field from the 2 forums, besides some mind blowing math I had to turn over to my physics friend, most of the info is useful. Just a tinkerer RC flier and electronics type, have helped do embedded work for mil systems and even a nasa contractor. I was a little shocked when I learned the Atto uses the Propeller chip, recently I razzed our engineer at work who uses Freescale CPUs, saying they don't have anything like the Prop.

Hoping to get some good electronics in the air eventually, have been trying some simple CPU's and sensors on a couple birds. Would like to try the Arduino, but am C illiterate, doing only assembly and basic.

My comment on hobby systems possibly being as good as pro someday, results from the idea that having a bunch of designers all improving the product continuously, might have an advantage over a normal corp team that has limited budgets and schedules. Plus, I've seen some pretty shoddy engineering at "pro" firms. AND, a few hobby types I know are actual aerospace eng, rocket scientists, software geniuses, etc. So it really matters who is on your team that determines if your co is pro. Plus money and good ideas of course. Gov contracts help, but they are difficult to work for, often. Nasa in particular, for me, was like a cult, they did not seem to like new ideas. And they paid me to learn spacecraft wiring and soldering, but then would not buy the prescribed eqpt for quality control. Something about they had underbid the last contract... :confused:

brakar

May 09, 2009, 06:31 PM

Quote Mark Hanson:
We've consistantly maintained that PICOPILOT was originally designed for the commercial UAV market. The decrease in PICOPILOT price over the years was due to product life depreciation rather than competitive forces. There's a difference between designing for a specific market and selling to a specific market. As I pointed out on this thread several times, PICOPILOT has been popular with hobbiests for years simply because it was the cheapist autopilot available.

Fair enough Mark, my educational background is partly from markething, so I didn,t think of the possibility that a "product" wasn't designed for a spesific market. (A bit brainewashed you might say).

What other manufacturers often do, is to strip-down their more advanced products and offer them to markets with reduced budget, (pro-market vs consumer market). This way they increace their income, since the production cost usually is relatively small compared to the development costs.

Personally, I hope UNAV will se the world this way one day, and also taylor products for the hobbyist market.

Best regards,

brakar ;)

Gary Mortimer

May 09, 2009, 11:19 PM

With your marketing hat on Brakar, if UNAV were to release later this year an IMU based $1000 dollar system for as they put it the...Hobby Market... Do you think they could regain the goodwill that they once enjoyed??

How many times greater than the next product would it have to be in order for the, buy, call to action to happen??

They must be getting ready to launch something, or else why all the noise??

Mark Hanson

May 10, 2009, 11:15 AM

What other manufacturers often do, is to strip-down their more advanced products and offer them to markets with reduced budget, (pro-market vs consumer market). This way they increace their income, since the production cost usually is relatively small compared to the development costs.

Best regards,

brakar ;)

... good point and one we have considered. As you may know, our 3500FW autopilot has been on the market for two years now and won first place in the 2008 Outback, Search and Rescue contest. The 3500 IMU is rock solid, you can see it in operation in the videos here: http://www.u-nav.com/gallery.html
However, the 3500FW is intended for the "pro market" @ $3000. Maybe it is time for a replacement for the aging PICOPILOT series.

We have considered offering a "reduced feature" version of the 3500 for the sUAS market. With new FAA regulations right around the corner, the reality is that sUAS operations will probably only be permitted LOS @ <400AGL. Most of the advanced autpilot features won't be needed in that enviornment.

We like to say that small autopilots will be getting back to basics when the new UAV FARs come out. Of course the FAA still has the option to only allow "certified systems" to operate in the NAS and that would be the end of both amateur and (most) sUAS operations.

Gary Mortimer

May 10, 2009, 11:28 AM

What has to be done to get a unit certified??

Perhaps the Ardupilot community would be big enough to pool resources and do that??

brakar

May 10, 2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer
With your marketing hat on Brakar, if UNAV were to release later this year an IMU based $1000 dollar system for as they put it the...Hobby Market... Do you think they could regain the goodwill that they once enjoyed??

Difficult question Gary, and one I do not know the answer to. Bear in mind, I haven't been on this forum to long. Besides they have mostly given polite (but a few times a bit confusing) answers to all my questions asked to them.
Being in danger of revealing myself as an old cynic, my guess is that we humans tend to forget/look away from our original stands when benefiting from it. So, yes, I think a new UNAV autopilot will sell - if released/good, and yes I think they could regain goodwill - if they want to and put their harts in it.

brakar

brakar

May 10, 2009, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Hanson
With new FAA regulations right around the corner, the reality is that sUAS operations will probably only be permitted LOS @ <400AGL. Most of the advanced autpilot features won't be needed in that enviornment.

We like to say that small autopilots will be getting back to basics when the new UAV FARs come out. Of course the FAA still has the option to only allow "certified systems" to operate in the NAS and that would be the end of both amateur and (most) sUAS operations.

This is only valid for US residents, right? If so, there is allways the rest of the world. . .

By the way Mark, (since the marketing hat suddenly went on after years of dust-keeping). I think quite a few of us hobbyists are hobbyists because we have to. We see possible applications for sUAVs in our work, but can hardly justify purchase of costly equipment difficult to use for most people. If we can prove usability and ease of use, this will change. So, if you would, you could look at us hobbyists as Microsoft looks at students, as possible advocates for their products.

brakar :rolleyes: