Couple things here, first I believe the problems with the WKM and wobbling have little to do with the ESCs in use and a lot to do with their firmware and the priority they give to keeping the multi in the same spot both horizontally and vertically. To do that requires the controller to be very aggressive with commands to change motor speed to maintain spatial orientation and that is the root of the problem. Secondly they apparently have only tested with smaller and lighter quads and therefore the software is optimized to that platform, obviously you don't know how any other size and weight of frame will perform unless you specifically test the same software with it.
The fact that professional APV users might actually be flying something else entirely along with having a different set of priorities than what they designed for apparently either never crossed their mind or they did realize it and decided to sell the controller as they built it knowing full well that it would not work the same as say an MK or Hoverfly Pro thereby making the buyer dependant on using an all DJI technology platform to achieve the best results which would be a somewhat clever marketing decision if it worked.
The main problem is that a lot of, or more realistically, all of the PWM ESC's now on the market were not designed with multi rotor use as part of the design criteria. The software they are using is optimized for use primarily in airplanes and helicopters where the rpm remains relatively static compared to the constantly changing motor speeds required to keep a multirotor flying. Because of that the vast majority have it built into the software to deliver smooth progressive throttle response which is not exactly what the flight controller of a multi is telling the motors to do, it wants the speed change to happen right NOW, not in a few milliseconds from now. The end result manifests itself as a wobble, often very slight, but still perceptible to the naked eye when watching the craft fly. This is somewhat of an oversimplification as there are a lot of other things that contribute as well and is one of the reasons why it is important to match the motor/prop combination to the weight and power consumption of the intended platform.
Bottom line, one of the reasons an MK flys so well is the BL controller was purpose built and optimized for use on a multirotor, using the Mk flight controller with an I2C converter you can see the difference between the two and it is very noticeable. Some of the more expensive PWM ESCs like Castle have programmable parameters that make them unsuited to use on a multirotor, the software gets in the way and performance is nothing like you would expect from a high end ESC. Fact is the Turnigy Plush type ESCs are just smart enough to allow some degree of configuration but generic enough to work as well as anything short of a purpose built device like the MK on a multitrotor. So don't rush out and spend a lot of $ needlessly trying to get the fastest response time ESC you can find to try and solve the WKM problem, chances are it will do no good at all and could actually make things worse.
I believe that right now the best thing to do is get the platform working as best you can, pay special attention to making the camera gimbal work as best it can with the settings you arrive at for the WKM, and wait at least until the firmware release with more tuning options is available before throwing any more cash at it. I still think the MK BL controllers have the best chance of working the way we expect, I just don't want to tear apart my AD6 heavy lifter at the moment to find out. If the new firmware doesn't totally resolve the current problem then I will give the MK BLs a go, it may take a combination of software and hardware to get to where we want to be. If they happen to work out then I'll spend whatever amount to outfit the WKM platform with a set, but I'll wait for some less expensive options first.
Ken
