|Aug 17, 2012, 01:15 PM|
|Aug 17, 2012, 05:41 PM|
Joined Dec 2010
I'm not sure of your experience and what your comments are based on but despite your accusations I don't offer baseless opinions or just mouth something I read. If I have no experience with something I mostly keep my opinions to myself unless I clearly state it's just an opinion not based on reliable data. Unlike some, I'm not looking for praise and worship. Just having fun and love technology. I try to be polite but like all of us from time to time I'm not always successful . Wasn't my intent to get your hackles up
I own and have used virtually everything I discussed. I'm sitting here looking at no less than 20 different FC's including some that I built myself as well as all the major FBL controllers for trad helis along with 7-8 multis and 20+rc helis. Yes, I have used Align FBLs and their gel - not a fan of either. The mounting material I was referring to ships with the Vbar, SK720, and BeastX. The BeastX is a bit more stiff so I prefer the material that comes with Vbar and SK720/520 and have had better results with it. Especially the Skookum material. It really is just about the correct density and resilience.
My comments about that being a good material for vibration isolation are based on my actual use and research from engineering sources not something I read here. I've actually used the stuff (and a bunch of others) have five or six ships with VBar and another 5-6 with Sk720 and a couple of BeastX not to mention all the multis with various popular FC's. I've experimented with them all Currently, I've got flying multis based on HoverFly, Naza, APM 2, APM1, FreeFlight, Naze32, Cruis AIO Pro, plus a bunch of Arduino boards with IMU's. (be glad to send you photos). I've tried quite a few experiments for vibration isolation and have studied the science around it more than a bit and have a pretty good idea of what works well and what doesn't. Before you tell me I don't know what I'm writing about you might consider a bit of study on vibration isolation and filtering first. Then maybe we could have a useful conversation rather than you slinging mud at me. Here is a good start for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration_isolation
and also here:
Both are relevant to FBL and multicopters.
As you will find if you read the articles, there is no one size fits all. Vibration isolation is like an electrical filter in many respects. The density, resilience, and dampening characteristics of the isolation material relative to the mass of the device needing isolation determines the pass band - otherwise known as transmissivity for a given frequency. Gel is a very dense material with relatively high dampening so it's going to be really good for reducing the transmission of large impacts and that's what it is primarily on the market for - protection in crashes and the like. It's just too stiff to filter out a significant amount of the relatively low level and higher frequency vibrations that a gyro or accelerometer sees as noise from motors and props. It might help a bit if it's really thick but at standard thicknesses it's high density naturally passes a lot more high frequency, low inertia vibrations than softer materials. Perhaps that was enough for what you've used it for or the object you were isolating was relatively heavy (mass is part of the equation) and that's why you recommend it. I don't know, you didn't provide any data - only a nasty response. A simple test stand with an FC running Arducopter, MPNG, or MW connected to their respective ground stations can easily give one an idea of the vibes making it to the accelerometers and prove that gels don't help us very much in our applications. If it were all that important to me to prove it to you I'd set one up and take photos but it's not. If you are truly interested in anything but being "right" you'll do it yourself. The spectrum analyzers that are part of the configuration tools for the VBar and SK720 are invaluable for this kind of testing.
In any case, given the relatively low masses of the boards and devices we use something far less stiff will do a better job and it's no coincidence that all the higher end FBL and copter controllers ship with a similar foam type material that is relatively soft compared to gel materials and actually does a pretty good job. Don't you think companies like Mikado, Skookum, and other companies generally acknowledged to have products that give good results might have done some testing before they ship? Even if you don't, in practice, the material they recommend works reasonably well and you can prove it to yourself with a test stand.
WRT multicopters. Yes, I have a couple of Naza's but though you insinuate I am a fanboy, I'm actually not a big fan simply because of price and the lack of programability. They are experts on their technology but also on their marketing and have priced and featured their products to get them maximum ROI. The Naza could be so much more but it's de-featured so as not to compete with their WK-M product. DJI appears to be doing quite well as a company so they must have found the sweet spot of price/performance that get's them maximum return. Despite their pricing one must give them credit though. When one witnesses the stability of a properly setup Naza one can't help but consider it impressive compared to most of the stuff on the market. Because of the stability though, it seems not to be as responsive as a well tuned MW system for sport flying applications. Anyway, too expensive in my opinion and I'm more of an open source/hardware fan.
So, no, despite your rather rude and baseless comment, I"m not just mouthing what you call "guru's comments" (or whatever you called it). Fact is I'm actually doing something with the stuff and spending money and time to use and research as much as I can get my hands on. For instance, I have Roberto Navoni's Cortex3/4 32bit port of Arducopter running on one of the cheap GLB STM32 boards as well as TimeCops 32 bit port of MultiWii running on his FreeFlight clone (and a couple of other boards) and also the 32bit version of AeroQuad running on a Maple board with a FreeIMU 0.4 and a board of my own design. I also have a couple of the AutoQuad beta boards which I'm experimenting with currently and am building an octoquad copter using it (photos below). I also have quite a number of 8 bit Ardupilot, MW, etc. former projectrs lying around. I've contributed software to various of the open source projects and have written documentation and software improvements. How about you?
So, anyway, I'm not trying to impress only defend my integrity. I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you and don't know who you are or why you choose to lash out so harshly but I don't mind apologizing for obviously hitting a nerve as I did. I assure you it was unintended but I'm quite sure it didn't deserve the harsh response you gave. Rather than respond with something useful you hurled insults - can't make much progress that way. In any case, let's say peace and move on. I have little time for mudslinging - it's all about the technology for me and having fun with it and stuff like this wastes time when we could be doing something with it. And... I spent way too much time writing this.
|Aug 17, 2012, 08:30 PM|
Are you sure that GPS work ok on MP2.7 r4 only with the defining UBLOX in APM_congig.h and nothing else and and the picture is ok (Rx from GPS go to TX2 on S02 and Tx from GPS go to Rx2) ? Sure ? Cause to me the GPS dont work anymore !
|Aug 17, 2012, 09:53 PM|
I've got the same issue. If I connect directly to the GPS I have a 3D link, but nothing in the mission planer.
|Aug 18, 2012, 02:53 AM|
Joined Oct 2011
I've decided I'm going to use the CRIUS AIO pro as an autopilot for my FPV plane. I want to use an OSD with it. I'm trying to decide if I want to go the Remzibi route or the Minimosd route http://code.google.com/p/arducam-osd/wiki/minimosd Has either or both options been demonstrated to work with the Crius AIO pro? Either option is fine with me I just want to know what is compatible. Thanks in advance for your help
|Aug 18, 2012, 04:29 AM|
|Aug 18, 2012, 04:54 AM|
You connect RX from GPS to TX2 & TX from GPS to RX2
|Aug 18, 2012, 05:12 AM|
any ideas why it seems that both servos (pitch/roll) seem to be mixed together?
|Aug 18, 2012, 07:39 AM|
|Aug 18, 2012, 08:41 AM|
Joined Feb 2010
I managed to compile MPNG and flash it to AIOP and it works in APM Planner.
Now wanted to change some settings in config.h and saved and then tryied to flash again but now get this error:
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void update_yaw_mode()':
ArduCopter:1641: error: 'get_acro_yaw' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1665: error: 'get_stabilize_yaw' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1686: error: 'get_stabilize_yaw' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void update_roll_pitch_mode()':
ArduCopter:1715: error: 'get_stabilize_roll' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1716: error: 'get_stabilize_pitch' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1725: error: 'get_acro_roll' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1726: error: 'get_acro_pitch' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1737: error: 'get_stabilize_roll' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1738: error: 'get_stabilize_pitch' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1762: error: 'get_of_roll' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1763: error: 'get_of_pitch' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1769: error: 'roll_pitch_toy' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1774: error: 'reset_rate_I' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1775: error: 'reset_stability_I' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void update_throttle_mode()':
ArduCopter:1853: error: 'get_angle_boost' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1890: error: 'get_throttle_rate' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1895: error: 'get_throttle_rate' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1905: error: 'get_throttle_rate' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1913: error: 'get_angle_boost' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1925: error: 'get_throttle_rate' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter:1928: error: 'get_throttle_rate' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void do_takeoff()':
commands_logic:267: error: 'reset_I_all' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void execute_nav_command()':
commands_process:152: error: 'reset_nav_params' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void trim_accel()':
control_modes:234: error: 'reset_stability_I' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void roll_flip()':
flip:41: error: 'get_stabilize_yaw' was not declared in this scope
flip:44: error: 'get_stabilize_pitch' was not declared in this scope
flip:54: error: 'get_stabilize_roll' was not declared in this scope
flip:76: error: 'get_rate_roll' was not declared in this scope
flip:85: error: 'get_stabilize_roll' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void init_arm_motors()':
motors:137: error: 'init_z_damper' was not declared in this scope
motors:146: error: 'reset_I_all' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void startup_ground()':
system:427: error: 'reset_I_all' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void set_mode(byte)':
system:608: error: 'reset_nav_params' was not declared in this scope
system:610: error: 'reset_wind_I' was not declared in this scope
system:612: error: 'reset_throttle_I' was not declared in this scope
ArduCopter.cpp: In function 'void update_throttle_cruise()':
system:652: error: 'reset_throttle_I' was not declared in this scope
Any idea what´s wrong now ?
|Aug 18, 2012, 08:46 AM|
Did you find some time to veriyfy the motor mappings? In the meanwhile I've documented the behavior of my Quad8X with MPNG 2.7 R4 and the latest Mixer which is: Quad8X BLUC FLUW FRUC BRUW BRDC FRDW FLDC BLDW
It behaves like this:
This behaviour has been observed in ACRO mode - so ACC does not make any correction inputs.
When switching to STABILIZE mode the ACC inputs seem to behave the same incorrect way.
All channels correspond nicely in Mission planer (mapping OK, direction OK).
In APM_Config.h I set the following:
#define PIRATES_SENSOR_BOARD PIRATES_CRIUS_AIO_PRO_V1 #define FRAME_CONFIG OCTA_QUAD_FRAME #define FRAME_ORIENTATION X_FRAME
P.S: How much °Celsius do you have in Minsk today? Here in Cologne germany we have 36°C ... damn HOT!
|Aug 18, 2012, 08:56 AM|
Read the warning on the config.h header.
Chnages should be done on APM_config.h
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Discussion New updated Crius Multiwii SE flight controller||SGsoar||Multirotor Electronics||72||May 15, 2013 09:36 PM|
|Mini-HowTo Arduino and HobbyKing Multi-Rotor Control Board V3.0 or KKmulticontroller v5.5||pprioverde||Multirotor Talk||29||Nov 21, 2012 10:58 PM|
|Discussion Jim, any plans for more multi rotor flight controller?||chris24g||Xtreme Power Systems||12||Jun 25, 2012 09:11 PM|
|Sold One New, one used ArduPilot 2560 APM1.0 Flight Controlls/autopilots||wingspinner||FPV/RPV - Equipment and Vehicles (FS/W)||3||May 28, 2012 01:55 AM|
|Question Quad Build Using HobbyKing Multi-Rotor Control Board V3.0 (Atmega328 PA)||SJackson||Multirotor Talk||27||Apr 30, 2012 09:51 PM|