Hoverfly Switching from MK to HF - is it worth it?

Imothep

Member
I'm flying with MKs since 2009, but I'm getting more and more troubles with the system and I'm looking for alternatives.

The problems began with a Droidworx AD8HLE and when switching from firmware 0.78 to 0.86, which gave me unpredictable I2C-bus-problems, compass errors, etc.
In my opinion the MK platform should focus on the basic features (PH, GPSH, overall stability) instead of packing more and more buggy features into it.
Now I'm stuck with a SkyJib 8 and appropriate brushless controllers, so I'm seriously thinking about switching to Hoverfly to get a stable and reliable platform which the MK isn't anymore.

I'm using the Jeti-System with telemetry, this isn't possible with Hoverfly except when using the OSD, right?
How stable is the system in the wind compared to MK? Any first hand experience here? What should I else think about before pulling the trigger for it?
 

Hi,
Happy to give you a comparison once i have my hoverfly on a frame.
regards
Anish
I'm flying with MKs since 2009, but I'm getting more and more troubles with the system and I'm looking for alternatives.

The problems began with a Droidworx AD8HLE and when switching from firmware 0.78 to 0.86, which gave me unpredictable I2C-bus-problems, compass errors, etc.
In my opinion the MK platform should focus on the basic features (PH, GPSH, overall stability) instead of packing more and more buggy features into it.
Now I'm stuck with a SkyJib 8 and appropriate brushless controllers, so I'm seriously thinking about switching to Hoverfly to get a stable and reliable platform which the MK isn't anymore.

I'm using the Jeti-System with telemetry, this isn't possible with Hoverfly except when using the OSD, right?
How stable is the system in the wind compared to MK? Any first hand experience here? What should I else think about before pulling the trigger for it?
 

RTRyder

Merlin of Multirotors
The short answer is no, not worth it, I swapped out the Hoverfly Pro I own for MK electronics mainly because the Mk works much better and has better reliability IMO. When I decided to swap out the Mk on my Droidworx AD6 it was for a DJI flight controller and I have no regrets about having done it, matter of fact after the first one I bought 3 more, another Wookong-M and two Naza. If you have no need for GPS the Naza is a great little controller for not a lot of $ and the altitude hold and autoleveling work every bit as good as on the more expensive WKM, plus the camera gimbal stabilization works quite nicely too.

If you seriously want to give the Hoverfly Pro a try I'll sell you the one I have gathering dust on the bench for a good price, I'm never going to use it again...

Ken
 

Imothep

Member
Well, that sounds not really encouraging. The Wookong-system seems nice, but with an Okto and a 3-axis-gimbal you're screwed. No telemetry and different statements according wind stability, I don't really know.
 

Droider

Drone Enthusiast
There is no comparison between MK and WKM IMO. I am sure the MK with a LOT of tuning is every bit a good if not better that the WKM.. Problem is how much time do you want to spend fiddling rather than flying?

I cannot comment on the HFP system but all I can say is RTR gave me a few words of advice over 18 months ago way before WKM appeared on the scene.. and long before this forum existed.. I have NO intention in trying a HFP.

There are some on here who have no problem with them and the new forum thread started should answer you questions if you go down the HFP route.

Good luck with what ever system you go with..

I just wish this forum had been around when I first started down the addictive bloomin roller coaster!
 

Stacky

Member
Buy Kens HoverflyPro, you wont regret it. I love my 2 boards and they dont give me any problems at all. Incredibly easy to set up and they fly beautifully. For simple basic flying you have just 1 gain setting to set and the latest firmware from Hoverfly is the best they have done. the boards are fantastic to fly. Its been about 6 months now since Ken last flew his HFP and a lot has happened in that 6 months. Hoverfly have changed their method of dealing with issues or problems and the new RMA system works very well. You have constant support on their forum and a bunch of very helpful users.
I think Ken has the green board and if you do buy it make sure you get a line filter for it. The newer black boards have a built in line filter but thats the only difference, they have the same hardware and run the same firmware.
 

Imothep

Member
Well, today I got the Aerodrive Board, will give it a try first, before thinking about a switch. Thank you guys.
 

RTRyder

Merlin of Multirotors
Buy Kens HoverflyPro, you wont regret it. I love my 2 boards and they dont give me any problems at all. Incredibly easy to set up and they fly beautifully. For simple basic flying you have just 1 gain setting to set and the latest firmware from Hoverfly is the best they have done. the boards are fantastic to fly. Its been about 6 months now since Ken last flew his HFP and a lot has happened in that 6 months. Hoverfly have changed their method of dealing with issues or problems and the new RMA system works very well. You have constant support on their forum and a bunch of very helpful users.
I think Ken has the green board and if you do buy it make sure you get a line filter for it. The newer black boards have a built in line filter but thats the only difference, they have the same hardware and run the same firmware.

This evening I dusted off the box containing the H/F Pro board, took it out, updated to the latest firmware, did all the necessary calibrations, and installed it on my testbed quad frame. I did 3 flights under the street lights with the LEDs on all four arms providing plenty of light to see the quad and follow the orientation.

First observation, it seems a little less steady in full manual mode than I remember it to be, used to almost be better in manual than it was in autolevel.

Second observation, autolevel is still quirky, it had significant drift the first time I tuned it on so I used trim to get it steady, landed and did the save the trim routine then took off again, as soon as I engaged autolevel it took off in FFF, had to switch off autolevel. Landed, disarmed, and powered off and then retrimmed the TX back to center on all controls and powered it up again, took off, turned on autolevel and it held fairly well with only a little bit of drift.

Third observation, I turned on altitude hold and while it is significantly better than before it still isn't anything close to any other A/H I have or have used. It takes WAY too long for it to respond to changes in throttle position and finding the proper throttle setting where it wants to hold an altitude is just as aggravating as it was before, only difference is it doesn't do 10 foot altitude changes at random now. Once you do manage to find the proper throttle setting it seems to stay put for the most part but it takes far too much fussing around to get it to equilibrium, especially in light of MK and DJI only needing the throttle stick moved to center and it stays at altitude. OK, maybe only the DJI does and the MK tends to bob up and down a bit, but either one is better at altitude hold and it takes a lot less work to use it.

At the end of the first set of batteries I came back inside and swapped over to a fully charged set and went back outside. Took off and flew around a bit in manual and then flipped the switch for autolevel, it leaned to the right rear and started in that direction at a moderate speed, had to hold almost full opposite control on the right stick to stop it while I flipped the autolevel switch off. Next I tried something I used to do to get autolevel to work, I landed, disarmed, rearmed, and took off again, flipped the switch for autolevel and it worked almost as well as it did on the first flight with only minor amounts of drift requiring slight control inputs to get it back to fully level again, not much has changed there I see. Flew it around for about 8 minutes and landed, back inside to let it cool off a bit and swap to the last set of charged batteries.

Back out again, took off, turn on autolevel, watch it want to fly off in a random direction, land, disarm, rearm, take off and autolevel is back to some semblance of normality, shouldn't have to do that to get it to work though. Flew the remainder of the packs switching between manual, autolevel, and autolevel with altitude hold.

Final impression, for roughly 2X the cost I have a flight controller that works as almost well as either of the DJI Naza I have and not even close to what either of my Wookong-M can do. While it's nice to see things have improved a lot since I last flew it, I am disappointed that over a year and a half down the line there are still issues with basic functions like autoleveling and altitude hold. I'll keep the board on the frame for a while and try it out in more challenging conditions than dead calm air and 70 degrees ambient temperature, I don't expect much difference from my prior experiences though.

Ken
 

Tomstoy2

Member
Great post!

I've heard so many horror stories about these that it catches me by suprise when I read stuff about how good they are. Doesn't sound better that my fy91q + nav system. Don't need another one of those.
 

Photronix

Pilot
I wanted to add a few thoughts on this topic. Professionals I talk to everyday ask me this question, purchase our flight controllers, and make the switch to Hoverfly. The primary reason is that they are tired of dealing with tweaking and just want to get a return on their investment in their aerial platform. Our customers also enjoy the professional support we provide. We of course have had firmware issues like everyone else but I am confident in what we sell. I have to be. I fly professionally on shoots with a local production company. So when I say "I" am confident what I really mean is that I know I can go out on a multi-day shoot and give the producers what they want. Those of you that do professional work know what I mean. When the director says "Get the Shot" you have to be ready and the last thing you need is worry about the performance of the flight controller. I never have this doubt. I have over 1000 flights on location and I have never crashed as a result of the HoverflyPRO I use. Now I do crash on occasion but its either my fault or an ESC, battery, or hardware in general.

I want to show a few examples.

The following was shot with our Syrph. Its a small 16" motor-to-motor X quad that we mount either a Contour+ or GoPro2 to. There is no room for a gimbal so they are fixed mount only. The first shot is a still morning and a shot I am very proud of. The second shot is tracking a flats boat around 30 MPH...the director wanted a low pass as they went out for a day of fishing. As it says in the video, this is raw video with no post stabilization. I know we all love our post stabilization but the editing house they use WILL NOT use it. They don't like the artifacts in the clouds and water so they only want the best raw video. The only thing I did was an iMovie auto-color correction.


The second was done for the release of the new Nikon D4. The aerials were shot by Mike Hagadorn. You can also watch "How of Why" which highlights Mike in action.



If you want to talk with me you can always email and we can arrange a time to Skype or talk on the phone. I believe very strongly that we make the best smoothest flying flight controllers on the market.

BTW Vimeo was down when I posted this so give a little while.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mbsteed

aerial video centric
I think what you are seeing is different perspectives from different folks and whenever you ask for comparisons or recommendations you will see differences. I have been using my Hoverfly Pro for the last 6 months. I have to say it is the easiest to setup and use (compared to MK or even DJI). I get relatively stable flight out of it - I say relatively because I do get drift with my octo configuration and the odd flinch (e.g. I can get more stable flight from my Gaui 344 in terms of hold pattern - even with the Hoverfly on Attitude hold. That said it can produce nice results. We had it out in the wind for some still shots the other day and it surprised me how stable it flew. Here is one of my first attempts at aerial video with this setup. At least one segment was raw but most needed some stabilization; - it was from a Canon S95 - The S 95 is good for stills not so good for video. Hope to get my DJI in the air shortly so I will have something else to compare it to.

I would be amiss if I didn't report a recent incident with the support folks at Hoverfly. I was having erratic flight characteristics and they looked at my flight log that I downloaded from the FC and they were able to tell me exactly what the problem was (bad RX). I replaced the RX and have had no problems since so that certainly gets a nod from me and I love their setup video tutorials - I think it is a crime for a company not to have setup videos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stacky

Member
One thing people need to consider is how they want to use their FC. I have a Naza, its a great little FC and hovers brilliantly in one spot and its AH is superb. The web is littered with countless videos of people simply hovering in one spot and showing their radio in shot and marveling about how great their machine is hands off. The best videos however are the ones where people are using their machines as moving video platforms. My Naza doesnt even come close to my HFP when using it as a moving platform, it isnot even in the same ball park when it comes to descending or handling the wind in controlled flight. In terms of flying in AL mode the Naza is just too restrictive and its not as good as my HFP for filming while moving. If you want to hover in the wind and just sit there then any FC can do that with the right expo and DR set up. My old KK could just sit there if thats what i wanted to do. People seem to be spending huge amounts of money buying every bit of kit out there so they can just hover in one spot. I come across this all the time with my job as a professional stills photographer. I see enthusiastic amateurs owning all the best and most expensive lenses and all they do with a 300mm f2.8 lens is take photos of their cat. We call them gear heads, people who own all the best kit but dont actually use it for anything meaningfull and they just end up only making use of a tiny portion of the gears abilities.

I dont work for Hoverfly, i dont get any freebies and I have been frustrated in the past with things but the improvement in their service has been exemplary. Al from Hoverfly will testify to this that he received a number of very grumpy and ****ty emails from me a number of months ago when I was very frustrated with a few issues. At the time I sent him my grumpy emails HF had already set up a RMA system for dealing with problems which subsequently I have found from personal experience works very well. Their RMA system now means that users have a numbered and traceable communication personalized line with HF and their support team. There is also their vendor forum where they are active.
Right now you can communicate directly with the actual engineers who designed the board and write the code for their firmware. I wonder how many other high end manufacturers of FC's give access to the engineers who design the products. Right now as far as I can tell no other FC manufacturer has in place as comprehensive and friendly support system in place for their users.

The point here is that HF have made a very big effort to address issues and problems relating to customer service and to firmware etc and the improvement is visible and 1st class. My loyalty to HF comes from the fact that I have seen how hard they have worked to improve their service. They have grown from just Al and George and all new companies go through teething problems, MK certainly did.

Last thing, 11 months of being a HFP user I have had 1 single problem with my HFP which caused a crash and that was a firmware issue that was fixed within a week. 99% of my problems over the last 11 months have been issues at my end relating to my build or external issues.

I think Hoverfly probably needs to develop a FC which is designed only to hover in one spot. That would keep a lot of people happy.

BYW, I have 2 HFP boards and they have bounced between a Quad, a Hexa, a Y6 and a X8 and every single time I have set up my Auto level I have had to do the settings just once for each respective machine and they dont need to be touched again, they have worked perfectly every time engaged. Thats 11 months of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RTRyder

Merlin of Multirotors
One thing people need to consider is how they want to use their FC. I have a Naza, its a great little FC and hovers brilliantly in one spot and its AH is superb. The web is littered with countless videos of people simply hovering in one spot and showing their radio in shot and marveling about how great their machine is hands off. The best videos however are the ones where people are using their machines as moving video platforms...

Agreed, the best videos are the ones showing the capabilities of a a platform so here's one of my Droidworx AD6 with Naza controller testing a new direct drive GoPro gimbal. As you can clearly see it's not just sitting there hovering, I'm flogging it pretty good at times and I see nothing wrong with the way the Naza is performing. The gimbal is a bit twitchy but that's to be expected with a single linkage direct drive mount, and by the way the entire flight is done in the Naza version of autoleveling...


I've just come back in from another couple test flights of the HF board on the quad frame. If anything in the daylight I can clearly see that the autoleveling isn't nearly as good as what the AD6 is doing in the video. I've never had to land the Naza and do the disarm/rearm shuffle to get autolevel to work right yet I consistantly have to do it with the H/F to get it to work at all, sometimes more than once in a flight, and it's on the current version of firmware with the temp compensation and accel calibration done according to the book.

So either something is radically wrong with the H/F board I have or my Naza is a freakishly outstanding performer when it comes to autolevel and altitude hold because there's no way I could get the video results with the H/F that I do with the AD6/Naza combo or my Cinestar/Wookong-m combo. Sorry, but the hands-on evidence doesn't lie and I'm just not seeing where the H/F is better in any aspect.

Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stacky

Member
Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree, Im not sure what you are doing wrong but the AL never needs to be set again after i set it the first time. I never have to land and rearm. Its perfect for me everytime. There was a time when I did have the issue you mention but the recent firmware has eliminated that completely for me. To be honest however I do think I had that problem when i was using a Turnigy Tx9. I have now got a new Futaba and there is a difference in flight quality just from that change alone.

I wonder if you have used the latest setup software and done the temperature calibrations?

My Naza in the exact same frame simply doesnt fly as smoothly in AL mode nor can it handle wind or descending as well as the HFP. However I do want to add that I think the Naza is very good and its the best value for money with its features I can see and I might add that the support I got from DJI when i had initial setup problems was helpful and prompt.

Agreed, the best videos are the ones showing the capabilities of a a platform so here's one of my Droidworx AD6 with Naza controller testing a new direct drive GoPro gimbal. As you can clearly see it's not just sitting there hovering, I'm flogging it pretty good at times and I see nothing wrong with the way the Naza is performing. The gimbal is a bit twitchy but that's to be expected with a single linkage direct drive mount, and by the way the entire flight is done in the Naza version of autoleveling...


I've just come back in from another couple test flights of the HF board on the quad frame. If anything in the daylight I can clearly see that the autoleveling isn't nearly as good as what the AD6 is doing in the video. I've never had to land the Naza and do the disarm/rearm shuffle to get autolevel to work right yet I consistantly have to do it with the H/F to get it to work at all, sometimes more than once in a flight, and it's on the current version of firmware with the temp compensation and accel calibration done according to the book.

So either something is radically wrong with the H/F board I have or my Naza is a freakishly outstanding performer when it comes to autolevel and altitude hold because there's no way I could get the video results with the H/F that I do with the AD6/Naza combo or my Cinestar/Wookong-m combo. Sorry, but the hands-on evidence doesn't lie and I'm just not seeing where the H/F is better in any aspect.

Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RTRyder

Merlin of Multirotors
Sorry but we will have to agree to disagree, Im not sure what you are doing wrong but the AL never needs to be set again after i set it the first time. I never have to land and rearm. Its perfect for me everytime. There was a time when I did have the issue you mention but the recent firmware has eliminated that completely for me. To be honest however I do think I had that problem when i was using a Turnigy Tx9. I have now got a new Futaba and there is a difference in flight quality just from that change alone.

I wonder if you have used the latest setup software and done the temperature calibrations?

My Naza in the exact same frame simply doesnt fly as smoothly in AL mode nor can it handle wind or descending as well as the HFP. However I do want to add that I think the Naza is very good and its the best value for money with its features I can see and I might add that the support I got from DJI when i had initial setup problems was helpful and prompt.

Yes, I downloaded the latest versions of setup and firmware update before I did anything and made sure to do the calibrations properly, doesn't seem to have made much difference. If anything the board is wonderfully inconsistant, occasionally it will work relatively normal but the majority of the time it simply refuses to not be problematic.

Believe me, I would like nothing more than to NOT have $400 worth of hardware sitting on the shelf, it would please me greatly to have this thing work well enough to get some useage from it rather than gather dust, even if it were for an FPV basher quad. I just went out and flew another set of batteries and before I even armed it I let it sit on the ground powered up for a bit before taking off, the amount of "unlevel" when I flipped the switch was greatly reduced but still there, the usual routine fixed it...

I've flown this board with at least 5 or 6 different TX's and with my old DX7 and my much newer JR 11 X, none of that made a bit of difference in how the board acted. I've had it on five different frames in configurations from basic quad to Y6 and X8, none of those worked any better or worse than any of the other setups. I've gone up and down on the gain settings, I've changed motors and ESCs and thought about sacrificing chickens at midnight on the eve of a full moon in front of it to see if it would help. I eventually just got fed up and parked it.

Seriously, I didn't have nearly this much angst with my first MK which I still own and fly on a regular basis. In short I really, really, really tried to like this board and make it work for me far beyond what was reasonable, it still to this day and hour refuses to cooperate, and with all the hours of successful building and flying I've got under my belt if I can't make it behave I have little faith in it, period.

Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Folks,
My hoverfly boards arrived this week and I"m hoping to get a batch of ESC's in the coming week or two. I've got a build on the bench now but next will be an XY8 for the HF stack. I'll be open and honest once it's flying.
I'm anxious to see how it goes and thanks for the input guys.
I thought I had some low-budget cinema work lineed up but needed an independent gimbal controller to do what was required. In talking to Al (it was more like begging for a pre-production gimbal controller) he expressed that the gimbal has the same control hardware/firmware from the Pro so I was compelled to try the Pro while waiting for the gimbal.
I'd like to add a product review section to the site so maybe the Pro will be a good first article. Ken, how did the Blad MQX work out? Care to write it up?
Bart
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ken, how did the Blad MQX work out? Care to write it up?
Bart

I'd like to place a Blade MQX review in the correct spot for you all.
- look for a Blade MQX review later today.


ADDED LINK:
http://www.multirotorforums.com/sho...he-Staple-of-our-flight-collection.-(2-parts)


Note:
Thank you guys for all the great info on such a super sweet hobby.
I began with a Draganfly V-to pro back in 2005 and lost it in the next neighborhood...
After seeing the Blade MQX at the store and THIS FORUM, we are back "in numbers" (Nephew, friends, and I).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PaNt

Member
After 2 months what do you have to say about HFP... I saw Benjamins Video and i liked sooo much..!
 

TCGliderguy

New Member
Receivers?

I just received my HoverFly Pro board... and am about to order a Cinefly 8 airframe, camera gimbal, etc.

My question is about receivers. I spent a couple of very frustrating weeks playing with an Arducopter Quad, and in the process of trying to get it airworthy, I learned that a couple of the Spektrum/JR receivers are problematic (particularly the Spektrum AR8000). I see in a previous post here that JBSteed had issues with a receiver...

Is there any sort of concensus about what receivers work well with HoverFly Pro? (I'm a die hard JR / Spektrum guy, so I'm hoping you don't say "Futaba".... or "Graupner")

Thanks for the input!

-Taylor
 

Ron2020

Member
Photronix,

What you've described above is all manual flying. The issues that people are referring to are the automated features of flying, such as altitude hold, autolevel, and so forth. So what take home from these posts is that if im interested in a FC that i intend to do use solely as a manual flyer, then HFP is great. On ther other hand, if automatic features are important to me, then HFP is lacking in that department, and i would be better off with something like a Mikrokopter.

Ron
 

Top