A good laugh...
- Thread starter RTRyder
- Start date
Don't know why you persist with that Botherfly board - I wouldn't have the patience.
Ummm... because I enjoy the challenge...?
Truth is, on those occasions when everything is working right it does fly quite nicely and at the very least it makes for a pretty darn good although expensive FPV flight controller. But for use as a professional grade APV flight controller, well I'm still waiting for that to happen, meanwhile I'll keep flying my MKs for APV use.
They're announcing preorder for the GPS add-on tomorrow, I think I'll sit this one out and let someone else pay for the priviledge of being a beta tester, especially at the rumored price of around $400.
Ken
I think the thing with Hoverfly is they are effectively a couple of years behind MK in terms of features and firmware. The Open Pilot pro board will have teething problems along the way and Im sure it will overcome them. The Pro Copter control board won't be out within 3 months and even if it is it will have 1st generation firmware. I will get one when its released but I wouldn't expect the Pro CC board to be giving MK a run for its money for a year. MK are just so far ahead of everyone else and have been doing it longer than most.
The one thing with Hoverfly that keeps me using mine is that the Hoverfly guys do actively try and improve things and are active on their forum. They appear to me to be decent guys just like those working on the Open pilot project. Maybe their price point is a bit high for their pecking order in the bigger scheme of things but in terms of the flying side of things my experience has been there has been improvement with each firmware update. I haven't yet got a decent camera gimbal so haven't had to go through the problems others are working through.
Over time I may have made a mistake heading down this part but I can't fault the effort and desire of the HF guys and I hope they can get things right simply because its nice to see people succeed.
Right now for what i want to do I have a choice basically of MK or Hoverfly and while Im learning all the many aspects of AP the HF ends up being the cheaper option. Also for the most part HFP is a plug and play board. I am more interested in the quality of my images than I am in spending hours messing with PID loops and tuning a board. Some people like that sort of thing, I don't. However I have to admit I am having fun with the OP GCS.
People do get caught up in brands too much though sometimes. I am always amused by the types of photographers who will argue for ages over a Canon or a Nikon.
I have a KK board, a CC board, a t580 and the HFP. Its fun to mess around with all of them.
The one thing with Hoverfly that keeps me using mine is that the Hoverfly guys do actively try and improve things and are active on their forum. They appear to me to be decent guys just like those working on the Open pilot project. Maybe their price point is a bit high for their pecking order in the bigger scheme of things but in terms of the flying side of things my experience has been there has been improvement with each firmware update. I haven't yet got a decent camera gimbal so haven't had to go through the problems others are working through.
Over time I may have made a mistake heading down this part but I can't fault the effort and desire of the HF guys and I hope they can get things right simply because its nice to see people succeed.
Right now for what i want to do I have a choice basically of MK or Hoverfly and while Im learning all the many aspects of AP the HF ends up being the cheaper option. Also for the most part HFP is a plug and play board. I am more interested in the quality of my images than I am in spending hours messing with PID loops and tuning a board. Some people like that sort of thing, I don't. However I have to admit I am having fun with the OP GCS.
People do get caught up in brands too much though sometimes. I am always amused by the types of photographers who will argue for ages over a Canon or a Nikon.
I have a KK board, a CC board, a t580 and the HFP. Its fun to mess around with all of them.
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
and that, everyone, is why we're here....it's fun.
I was enthusiastic about Hoverfly when they first reincarnated - looked very hopeful. The forum traffic quickly burst that bubble for me!
Driven by lens choices, mostly - like the Canon 17mm TSE tilt/shift: not available from Nikon. And the Nikon 14-24, not available from Canon.
I solved that one - I use both
Driven by lens choices, mostly - like the Canon 17mm TSE tilt/shift: not available from Nikon. And the Nikon 14-24, not available from Canon.I got to the root of the problem last night, partly an issue with the MK frame the Hoverfly board is sitting on, partly an issue with the code.
Here's what's happening, after the board is powered up but before its armed the camera mount will respond to tilt commands from the TX as well as compensation commands from the board. Once the board is armed there is a difference in the state of the camera mount, it still responds to both the TX and commands from the board, but the board appears now to have a dampening effect on the output of what it sends to the camera mount when in an armed state.
Briefly, with the quad on the bench and powered up but not armed, if I tap on any part of it and induce a small amount of vibration the camera mount moves in reponse, something it will not do when armed unless the frame makes a much more substantial movement. Once the mount swings a bit when unarmed it induces yet more motion which then causes the highly flexable MK landing gear to sway a bit, introducing even more motion which the board picks up and sends back to the mount as a highly amplified command to compensate for the sensed motion. From that point it just feeds on the now steady swinging motion of the camera mount to keep the cycle going.
Putting a finger on the frame to dampen the vibrations causes the camera mount motion to stop, tapping it again will cause it to start up again. Likewise arming the board also stops the movement as the board now appears to filter and ignore the low level vibrations, not sending them on as commands to compensate for the percieved motion. No amount of tapping or banging on the frame will cause the uncontrolled swinging to start while armed. Disarm the board and I can easily start the cycle again with just a tap of the finger.
Prior to the upgrade I had been flying with an older version of firmware because I didn't like the way the camera mount was working with the latest versions. Something that was done to the code in subsequent releases increased the sensitivity of the boards response to movement to get the mount to respond and recenter quicker, the side effect is what you see in the video if the conditions are right. A classic example of how fixing something in software can easily cause unintended problems elsewhere in the system.
Ken
Here's what's happening, after the board is powered up but before its armed the camera mount will respond to tilt commands from the TX as well as compensation commands from the board. Once the board is armed there is a difference in the state of the camera mount, it still responds to both the TX and commands from the board, but the board appears now to have a dampening effect on the output of what it sends to the camera mount when in an armed state.
Briefly, with the quad on the bench and powered up but not armed, if I tap on any part of it and induce a small amount of vibration the camera mount moves in reponse, something it will not do when armed unless the frame makes a much more substantial movement. Once the mount swings a bit when unarmed it induces yet more motion which then causes the highly flexable MK landing gear to sway a bit, introducing even more motion which the board picks up and sends back to the mount as a highly amplified command to compensate for the sensed motion. From that point it just feeds on the now steady swinging motion of the camera mount to keep the cycle going.
Putting a finger on the frame to dampen the vibrations causes the camera mount motion to stop, tapping it again will cause it to start up again. Likewise arming the board also stops the movement as the board now appears to filter and ignore the low level vibrations, not sending them on as commands to compensate for the percieved motion. No amount of tapping or banging on the frame will cause the uncontrolled swinging to start while armed. Disarm the board and I can easily start the cycle again with just a tap of the finger.
Prior to the upgrade I had been flying with an older version of firmware because I didn't like the way the camera mount was working with the latest versions. Something that was done to the code in subsequent releases increased the sensitivity of the boards response to movement to get the mount to respond and recenter quicker, the side effect is what you see in the video if the conditions are right. A classic example of how fixing something in software can easily cause unintended problems elsewhere in the system.
Ken
Interesting - like a feedback howl when you get a microphone too close to the speaker. Disturbing, though, that new released are issued in such state - if they'd tested the new release themselves on the bench and in the field they would surely have observed the behaviour themselves. Seems you are paying to be a beta tester.
Interesting - like a feedback howl when you get a microphone too close to the speaker. Disturbing, though, that new released are issued in such state - if they'd tested the new release themselves on the bench and in the field they would surely have observed the behaviour themselves. Seems you are paying to be a beta tester.
Apparently they did do extensive testing with the multis they have on hand and they didn't observe this behavior, probably because there's a number of things that have to be present for it to happen and they may have only encountered some of the conditions needed but not all. Having done software QA work in the past I know it's darn near impossible to test for every possible condition that might occur with a piece of code, but I have to admit this is a funny one!
My Hoverfly quad is happy, its wagging its camera mount!
Ken
Jake Bullit
Fly,crash,glue,repeat!
It would make a good (if expensive)salt shaker
