Not sure I agree here, back in the day it may have been tricky to learn and setup but now, It's FAR easier than even the NAZA. It does not have to be exactly centred, when we setup our systems, it takes 10 mintus from loading the code to in the air, the misison planne GUI is brilliant and easy to use and understand, and as you've mentioned the extra advanced features is well worth any initial setup learning curve. I'm nont trying to sell the APM here, altough we use it, our product is the actual airframe etc, but APM2.5 is the best thing out there if you look at what is does, performance and price.
I dunno about this... In some cases, such as if you buy a 3DR Quad, it is very much plug and play. I just went through the process again, started from scratch, and didn't have to spend any time tuning. I just turned down the roll/pitch gain a smidge because I was running on 4S instead of 3S.
But then if you have a setup that is not a standard, it can be much more difficult. I don't think our setup and wizard is anywhere near close to DJI. This is one area that really could be improved.
However, the cheap and easy to use telemetry system is brilliant, and definitely makes it much easier to tune the system. That can't be ignored either. Especially Ch6 tuning. Awesome.
So, it can be super easy to use if you have a 3DR quad. Or it can be tricky. Easy once you know what you're doing, due to telemetry, but figuring it out is a lot of work.
Ok, hijack. How much programming expeiernce do you need for apm? I have messed around with an andrino kit before but that's it.
Pretty much none. Most people won't have to look at a single line of code. It's all done in the GUI/Mission Planner now. As I say, it can still be a lot to learn but, if you're the type of guy who can figure out how to wipe and rebuild a PC, or root a phone and install a new ROM, you'll have no problem.
The movie footage from onboard shows the apm wobbling around in your own flick non stop,
Can you show a similar video from another system, where the quad is flying around that fast and dynamic, but is more smooth? Or what timestamp in Duran's video is the quad sitting still for more than 1/2 a second where you could judge it's ability to stay motionless? Do you know the wind conditions of the day? Or what the pilot's inputs were? You made a similar complaint about my FPV video, but the fact is, the way that it looked had nothing to do with the performance of the system. It was
my first FPV video. I was not inputting the smoothest commands. No flight controller can magically figure out what the pilot
really wanted it to do, and then smooth out the inputs. I mean sure, you can WAY overdamp the controller, or filter the inputs, and it will look all nice and smooth, as long as there's no wind... but that doesn't mean the thing can respond dynamically, for high speed flight, or fight a wind.
Simply put, you cannot judge a system based on a single video. Nor can you judge a system based on the feelings of a single user. It could very well be that that user just couldn't figure out how to make it work for him.
