One prop, two chunks of GPS mast so far!

[Motopreserve]

I've also constructed a lego container with lead fishing weights inside (built so they don't move around) as dummy weight before too!

Genius!

 

[Mactadpole]

Genius!

It worked great. I just got lazy with this last one. I would rather have legos all over than my copter covered in water in case of a crash.

 

[Motopreserve]

Agreed. And unless the full bottle of water was exactly the weight of the gimbal/camera - sloshing is going to cause some issues.

The old hard drive idea is rock solid too and will not move. Modular to match weights

 

[JoeBob]

In Mission Planner:
Configtuning / Basic Tuning / RC Feel Roll/Pitch
Make sure that your value is at or above 50%

I misinterpreted that parameter to mean that it would dampen my inputs to smooth out the yaw. What it does is add delay to stick response. I was drifting towards a wall and moved roll/pitch to move away. No response... no response... and then it suddenly hauled ass away from the wall at full speed. Your scenario when you had no throttle response sounds like the same delay.

 

[fltundra]

Don't take this the wrong way...... But hell, seems you all have to stand on your head, scratch your a**,and ride a bike to get the pixhawk to fly right.
If i had all the issues crayfellow has had, I would have returned it or smashed into a million pieces by now.
And to think I was considering getting one.

 

[Motopreserve]

I have been thinking the same thing - at least for a heavy/expensive lifter. For my confidence level, a valuable camera ship is not a pixhawk "get to know ya'" type craft

I messed with an APM 2.6 for a review and found it to be too big of a learning curve to make it a timely review. Swapped to a Naza and was done with it. But obviously this lacks the waypoints etc.

Love your gumption though!

 

[fltundra]

I have been thinking the same thing - at least for a heavy/expensive lifter. For my confidence level, a valuable camera ship is not a pixhawk "get to know ya'" type craft

I messed with an APM 2.6 for a review and found it to be too big of a learning curve to make it a timely review. Swapped to a Naza and was done with it. But obviously this lacks the waypoints etc.

Love your gumption though!

I have made around ten flights since this thread started and it just makes me not understand why all the hoops when the SuperX just works.
As too way-points, unless you have a commercial license when the regs come out. I can tell you the LOS restrictions are going to stick.
Now that I have 17 months and 100's of hours, there is no substitute for piloting skills even if you are flying way-points and something goes wrong. Example: say your flying way-points and your out a mile or so and a storm comes up and the winds change. Suddenly your mission is in jeopardy because it can't make it back to home against a 20 knot headwind without intervention.

 

[Mactadpole]

Don't take this the wrong way...... But hell, seems you all have to stand on your head, scratch your a**,and ride a bike to get the pixhawk to fly right.
If i had all the issues crayfellow has had, I would have returned it or smashed into a million pieces by now.
And to think I was considering getting one.

I think with Crayfellow its more so the KDE ESC setup causing issues. When I first built mine it flew fine on the first flight except for needing tuning, and that's with 2 kg of batteries on top and nothing underneath. Sure I've had a few issues with my builds here and there but mostly user error. There are A LOT of user adjustable parameters. Very similar to MK but way better organized and intuitive.

It all depends on what you want to do with it I think. For my purpose of mapping there is nothing better. If you just want to fly and take pretty pictures/video then there are definitely easier FC's.

 

[Motopreserve]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that way-points is a substitute for piloting skills. In the case of Crayfellow, I think it allows him a more precise movement for survey, regardless of how far away the craft travels from the pilot.

But for me, since i have no need to way-points, it's nice to have an FC that is "dumbed down" and just works.

 

[Mactadpole]

I have made around ten flights since this thread started and it just makes me not understand why all the hoops when the SuperX just works.
As too way-points, unless you have a commercial license when the regs come out. I can tell you the LOS restrictions are going to stick.
Now that I have 17 months and 100's of hours, there is no substitute for piloting skills even if you are flying way-points and something goes wrong. Example: say your flying way-points and your out a mile or so and a storm comes up and the winds change. Suddenly your mission is in jeopardy because it can't make it back to home against a 20 knot headwind without intervention.

That's why when you go to fly a mission you have to pay attention to weather for sure. I am always checking the forecast and local conditions, and closely watching the radar. In my South American work where there is no local radar I rely on satellite imagery to make sure I don't fly into storms. It just takes more planning.

 

[fltundra]

That's why when you go to fly a mission you have to pay attention to weather for sure. I am always checking the forecast and local conditions, and closely watching the radar. In my South American work where there is no local radar I rely on satellite imagery to make sure I don't fly into storms. It just takes more planning.

Don't kid yourself weather can change in a instant. I have seen thunderstorms pop in less the 20 minutes here. I check all the local weather stations right up till I lift off, and even then I had it flat calm on takeoff and 20 min later it's gusting 15 knots.

 

[JoeBob]

Pixhawk is not easy.
You have to decide if you want control over all the functions of your FC; or you want your FC to do the just the basics, and an occasional flyaway.

You may not need 14 flight modes:
http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/flying-arducopter/flight-modes/

Or want to use LIDAR, Sonar, Autonomous Missions, or Autotune.

For $199.


Pixhawk doesn't have to be hard. You can accept the basic parameters (or return to default), run Autotune if you need it, and fly.
Folks (like me) get into trouble when we start burrowing down into options that we don't fully understand (and are not explained well in the Wiki).

 

[Mactadpole]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that way-points is a substitute for piloting skills. In the case of Crayfellow, I think it allows him a more precise movement for survey, regardless of how far away the craft travels from the pilot.

But for me, since i have no need to way-points, it's nice to have an FC that is "dumbed down" and just works.

You are 100% correct! Tooting my own horn a bit, but I have had to climb into a tree and strap a piece of plywood to a branch at about 35 meters and then launch my copter from there and fly through a small gap in the canopy before getting into open sky and able to switch on the GPS. Doing the same to land all while sitting on this branch hooked to the tree by harness. You've got to be able to fly the things too! Crayfellow has a good bit of experience with his smaller copter and just needs to get settings right and all should be fine.

There is even a solution now available through Piksi for RTK GPS integration with Pixhawk at a very low cost. That is centimeter-level accuracy! http://store.swiftnav.com/. Getting this as soon as some funds come available.

 

[Motopreserve]

and are not explained well in the Wiki

This is what scares me, the info available is scattered and hard to find. After many flights with the SuperX I have yet to have a flyaway. And considering that Crayfellow's experience is about as close to the definition of flyaway as I would like to get, I'd say that it's safe to assume all FCs have their issues.

 

[fltundra]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that way-points is a substitute for piloting skills. In the case of Crayfellow, I think it allows him a more precise movement for survey, regardless of how far away the craft travels from the pilot.

But for me, since i have no need to way-points, it's nice to have an FC that is "dumbed down" and just works.

I'm just saying in general when it comes to those flying way-points.

 

[Mactadpole]

Don't kid yourself weather can change in a instant. I have seen thunderstorms pop in less the 20 minutes here. I check all the local weather stations right up till I lift off, and even then I had it flat calm on takeoff and 20 min later it's gusting 15 knots.

Not trying to start a fight but if your not aware that there is even the potential for pop-up thunderstorms then you haven't checked the weather well enough in my opinion. The situation is certainly a little different in coastal areas where there is always the potential, especially Florida and the Gulf Coast. I don't fly if there is even the slightest possibility here in Central Texas and West Texas where I have been doing most of my research, don't have to worry about Amazon research sites as the copter will never make it close to people if it flies away or goes down unless it comes back at me.
But like you said, things can flare up instantly and there is certainly the possibility your not getting it back to takeoff. I think most of us try to be as safe as we can when flying waypoint missions. For example, I have long range telemetry and am able to set the copter down somewhere "safe" via Mission Planner if something comes up, except of course for those instant mishaps. I make sure when planning a mission that I don't come close to losing telemetry signal. Of course you can always end up doing something dumb like I did last week or have some other issue and it falls from the sky (and luckily into a tree limiting damage). That's why I only do missions where I lose LOS in very rural areas over our designated research properties or where I have been given permission. You also have to be willing to accept the fact (and take into consideration) that there is ALWAYS the possibility they are going to drop out of the sky.

Sorry for the off-topic explanations. Back to getting Crayfellow in the air, stable and safe.

 

[Old Man]

There are many mission profiles that require automated way point flying to obtain the precision necessary to fulfill the mission requirements. Agricultural and mapping activities are two that pretty much mandate such use. The operator still maintains the ability to over ride the system and take manual control. In truth, those flying high end missions using software from Pix4D and hardware from people like 2D3 (now a Boeing subsidiary) are likely among the more capable of operators because they've had to learn how it all works, which is not a fast or easy process. During that time they've had to fly their systems manually much of the time because of errors in understanding system software functionality.

As for Pixhawk, it's a great FC but you have to go slow learning how it all comes together, and be willing to make a few mistakes along the way. It's only of late the Wiki has started to be transformed from the language of engineering to one used by us more common folk.

 

[crayfellow]

Don't take this the wrong way...... But hell, seems you all have to stand on your head, scratch your a**,and ride a bike to get the pixhawk to fly right.
If i had all the issues crayfellow has had, I would have returned it or smashed into a million pieces by now.
And to think I was considering getting one.

Based on your understanding, I must have really seriously misrepresented my experiences as well as my intentions.

For the record I have had numerous excellent experiences with APM and Pixhawk, running both Rover and Copter. The entire purpose of this project is experimentation and research. So things that might seem "difficult" or unwise to a hobbyist may be par for the course for me, in order to learn and explore new opportunities. It might sound like a strange way to operate but it's worked well in the past

This particular rig is a challenge for me because I am doing this research in my free time and that is extremely limited and restricted for me based on family and business obligations. So you might see weeks of "failure" but I see a few minutes here and there of exploration and constant learning about new opportunities for technology contributions.

I will be clearer in the future about the fact that I am purposefully testing ideas in a controlled, professional environment and that I have many years of engineering experience including commercial avionics, electronics, firmware, and software. I just have an overly casual, aloof tendency that throws people off sometimes.

Coming from never having flown anything or even seen a multirotor until a few months ago, how much I can figure out and what I can get to work is also part of the experiment.

I hope this adds context to the greater discussion.

 

[crayfellow]

In Mission Planner:
Configtuning / Basic Tuning / RC Feel Roll/Pitch
Make sure that your value is at or above 50%

I will check that, thanks. reviewing the logs (which I will post shortly) it did indeed see RC3 input, the throttle channel, go to 0 yet the desired altitude and the motor outputs definitely did not do what I thought 0 throttle channel input would do.

 

[crayfellow]

I have been thinking the same thing - at least for a heavy/expensive lifter. For my confidence level, a valuable camera ship is not a pixhawk "get to know ya'" type craft

That is precisely why I started with a rover, and have other smaller craft to validate ideas without the risk.

I messed with an APM 2.6 for a review and found it to be too big of a learning curve to make it a timely review. Swapped to a Naza and was done with it. But obviously this lacks the waypoints etc.

Love your gumption though!

Haha, thanks.
Yes. Pixhawk has things that I need as an engineer and explorer, and is the only one that does. I don't buy the learning curve argument; that is ultimately the cost of flexibility with any new technology. Once it is overcome, you have the tools you need to move forward in a wide variety of scenarios. To each his own. Power and flexibility are almost always directly proportional to level of effort to implement.

I helped develop air data computers (essentially part of the flight controller) for commercial aircraft which took input from laser gyros and GPS which led to auto-landing in 0 visibility and many other interesting things. It is good we didn't let the learning curve scare us off, because that is an awful lot more complicated than APM Perspective, gentlemen!