Hoverfly Switching from MK to HF - is it worth it?
- Thread starter Imothep
- Start date
Photronix
Pilot
Actually, the AL, AH, PH, and RTH work very well. If you look on the RCGroups forum where most of our users have been active in the past (I encourage people to come here as well) you will find that issues have been resolved. It is also important to point out that only about 30% of our customers use the forums and most we talk to directly. Professionals around the world our using our FCs, with the advanced features, and are very happy with the results. Most of these people switched from MK to HF.
You simply cant go by one users review.
You simply cant go by one users review.
jforkner
Member
Just out of curiosity...what would a HoverflyPRO give me that I can't get from my DJI Naza? Previous comments in this thread imply "tweaking" is necessary with non-HF FCs, but I haven't experienced that with my Naza. I did need to adjust the gains a bit when I transferred it from my F450 to my Hexa; but once set, there was no tweaking necessary.
Last night I read thru the HoverflyPRO Users Guide and watched a few of the build videos. It appeared there was just as much "tweaking" necessary to get the HF FC to perform properly as there was with the Naza. When I first got involved in this hobby seveeral months ago, I looked at Hoverfly, but ended up with the F450 kit (including the Naza) because it was an integrated solution. When I built my Hexa, I simply moved the Naza to it because I was familiar with it and it worked well for me. I have no experience with any other FC.
I'm now considering resurrecting my F450 and returniing the Naza to it. That would require me to acquire an FC for my Hexa. What would the $450 HoverflyPRO do better than a $230 Naza.
It seems to me that an FC is simply a "means-to-an-end." It's simply a way of getting the MC frame & camera to the appropriate site for the required image(s)---assuming you're taking images. I fail to see how one FC produces better images than another. From my experience, it's the camera, platform, & photographer that gets the picture---the FC simply enables the photographer or pilot a means of getting the platform to the right spot. Sure that's important, but it doesn't in-and-of-itself produce a quality image. That said, I do believe that the FC may play an important role in operating the gimbal; thereby making the image gathering process easier.
Anyway, I know there are differences in all the FCs out there and there are the fanboys for each. But really, doesn't it simply boil down to personal preference & reliability?
Jack
Last night I read thru the HoverflyPRO Users Guide and watched a few of the build videos. It appeared there was just as much "tweaking" necessary to get the HF FC to perform properly as there was with the Naza. When I first got involved in this hobby seveeral months ago, I looked at Hoverfly, but ended up with the F450 kit (including the Naza) because it was an integrated solution. When I built my Hexa, I simply moved the Naza to it because I was familiar with it and it worked well for me. I have no experience with any other FC.
I'm now considering resurrecting my F450 and returniing the Naza to it. That would require me to acquire an FC for my Hexa. What would the $450 HoverflyPRO do better than a $230 Naza.
It seems to me that an FC is simply a "means-to-an-end." It's simply a way of getting the MC frame & camera to the appropriate site for the required image(s)---assuming you're taking images. I fail to see how one FC produces better images than another. From my experience, it's the camera, platform, & photographer that gets the picture---the FC simply enables the photographer or pilot a means of getting the platform to the right spot. Sure that's important, but it doesn't in-and-of-itself produce a quality image. That said, I do believe that the FC may play an important role in operating the gimbal; thereby making the image gathering process easier.
Anyway, I know there are differences in all the FCs out there and there are the fanboys for each. But really, doesn't it simply boil down to personal preference & reliability?
Jack
Photronix
Pilot
Jack-
First, if your camera is fixed mounted to your craft then the flight controller makes a big difference. We have spent countless hours coding and flying to provide the smoothest flight motion possible from a range of craft. It is not difficult to simply change the speed of several motors to keep the platform stable. What is difficult is doing this in a way that does not result in robotic like movements in the video.
Second, if your camera is using a gimbal then you can't compare the Naza and HoverflyPRO because the HoverflyPRO provides Tilt and Roll compensation outputs for your gimbal.
Another feature that the Naza doesn't provide is On-Screen Display (OSD). The HoverflyPRO has a built in OSD that I am very proud of and our customers like very much.
Additionally, the HoverflyPRO enables the user to expand their capabilities with the HoverflyGPS which plugs into the top of the HoverflyPRO. This provides Position Hold, Return-To-Home, and other features.
The HoverflyPRO also includes flight data logging.
In terms of how easy it is to "tweak" our flight controllers. I am not sure what you have read but it takes about 5 minutes at the field. We build new multi-rotors everyday and it is really pretty easy to setup. In addition, if you change craft, use a different battery or hang a rock on one arm it will fly the same without having to tweak values on your computer.
Maybe this last point won't matter to you but Hoverfly products create US jobs. All of our controllers are made in Lake Mary, FL about 10 miles from Hoverfly. Our controllers are made to military standard specifications, go through 5 separate QA checks, are RoHS compliant, and our manufacturer is ISO9000 certified. You can trust that our products are made to the highest quality and we personally stand behind everything we make.
First, if your camera is fixed mounted to your craft then the flight controller makes a big difference. We have spent countless hours coding and flying to provide the smoothest flight motion possible from a range of craft. It is not difficult to simply change the speed of several motors to keep the platform stable. What is difficult is doing this in a way that does not result in robotic like movements in the video.
Second, if your camera is using a gimbal then you can't compare the Naza and HoverflyPRO because the HoverflyPRO provides Tilt and Roll compensation outputs for your gimbal.
Another feature that the Naza doesn't provide is On-Screen Display (OSD). The HoverflyPRO has a built in OSD that I am very proud of and our customers like very much.
Additionally, the HoverflyPRO enables the user to expand their capabilities with the HoverflyGPS which plugs into the top of the HoverflyPRO. This provides Position Hold, Return-To-Home, and other features.
The HoverflyPRO also includes flight data logging.
In terms of how easy it is to "tweak" our flight controllers. I am not sure what you have read but it takes about 5 minutes at the field. We build new multi-rotors everyday and it is really pretty easy to setup. In addition, if you change craft, use a different battery or hang a rock on one arm it will fly the same without having to tweak values on your computer.
Maybe this last point won't matter to you but Hoverfly products create US jobs. All of our controllers are made in Lake Mary, FL about 10 miles from Hoverfly. Our controllers are made to military standard specifications, go through 5 separate QA checks, are RoHS compliant, and our manufacturer is ISO9000 certified. You can trust that our products are made to the highest quality and we personally stand behind everything we make.
Last edited by a moderator:
jforkner
Member
Phottonix,
Thank you for your replay.
Not sure what robotic-like movements to which you refer; but to my eye, my Naza does not exhibit these.
The Naza does, in fact, provide tilt & roll outputs for a gimbal---I use them. I'd be interested to know, however, if the HF gimbal controls are smoother and/or more precise.
It's not clear to me the value of the OSD unless the MC is used in an FPV environment. Many of the features appear to only function when used with the GPS module or are not yet available. Is there a way to access the data other than using an on-board transmitter & ground-based receiver?
The add-on GPS module is a nice feature, but one I don't envision needing or using. And I see DJI has just announced a GPS module for the Naza.
So are you saying if I moved the FC from, say, a small quad to , say, a Y6, I wouldn't have to reprogram anything on the FC? BTW, the Naza does monitor battery voltage and provide a warning (flashing light) should the voltage drop below preset parameters.
Your last point is important to me---the made-in-the-USA feature. However, the fact that I don't have an unlimited budget, spending nearly twice as much for an FC with the same or similar functionality is a major consideration for me. My comments are not intended to imply the Naza is better than the HF---I've never flown an HF. I'm simply trying to find out if there's value-added for spending an extra $200+.
Jack
Thank you for your replay.
Not sure what robotic-like movements to which you refer; but to my eye, my Naza does not exhibit these.
The Naza does, in fact, provide tilt & roll outputs for a gimbal---I use them. I'd be interested to know, however, if the HF gimbal controls are smoother and/or more precise.
It's not clear to me the value of the OSD unless the MC is used in an FPV environment. Many of the features appear to only function when used with the GPS module or are not yet available. Is there a way to access the data other than using an on-board transmitter & ground-based receiver?
The add-on GPS module is a nice feature, but one I don't envision needing or using. And I see DJI has just announced a GPS module for the Naza.
So are you saying if I moved the FC from, say, a small quad to , say, a Y6, I wouldn't have to reprogram anything on the FC? BTW, the Naza does monitor battery voltage and provide a warning (flashing light) should the voltage drop below preset parameters.
Your last point is important to me---the made-in-the-USA feature. However, the fact that I don't have an unlimited budget, spending nearly twice as much for an FC with the same or similar functionality is a major consideration for me. My comments are not intended to imply the Naza is better than the HF---I've never flown an HF. I'm simply trying to find out if there's value-added for spending an extra $200+.
Jack
Last edited by a moderator: