Pixhawk Feedback?

[Old Man]

I tend to agree. Like the UAV players that have been supporting war efforts a shake down is on the horizon. Those most capable and technologically savvy will move forward while those lacking funds and ability will start to fall to the side. The individuals that are producing great work will be challenged to perform even better to remain the cream at the top of the milk while less demanding work will become the domain of those in for a quick buck using less sophisticated equipment.

I do not believe the FAA has delayed anything. Being part of the larger sUAS industry and knowing the intent of the major players I still believe the FAA is looking to sterilize airspace to protect the interests of the big money that has been lobbying them. Lobbying is a "sleight of hand" word. One needs to consider just how much that word encompasses. From employing someone's family members in highly compensated positions they aren't qualified for all the way cash deposits in foreign numbered accounts. Low cost, low altitude hobby level aircraft are very serious competition for firms that start the bidding for their small aircraft at $500,000.00 per unit and up and then add for services.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Yep. The guy I was talking with last week with the Skyranger, is one of the biggest players in Canada. He comes from a film background which is why he got into this industry. Doing aerial filming by drone. But he's abandoned this market and moved on to much more complex problems. He confirmed the bottom end of the market is being eaten up by fly-by-night operators with Phantoms. Soon these people will have enough money to buy an S800 or something. They are operating out of regulatory compliance, but they'll never be caught as long as they operate carefully. The cost of being compliant is high, and adds significant time delays and restrictions to operations. It's really hard for a compliant operator to compete with the guerilla operators. If your business plan is to offer the same services that some kid with a Phantom or S800 with nothing to lose could do, then you're in trouble. And if you're operating an RTF-class controller, lets face it... just about anybody can do that. That is the direction DJI is heading. I imagine in another year or so, they'll have some sort of scripted filming GUI. Point out on a map what you want to film, and it just goes and does it. There's just not going to be a lot of money to be made in basic commercial photography. Unless, you are REALLY skilled and highly capable. If you're still struggling with sync problems on big motors with SimonK ESC's... this is not you. Sorry. Harsh truth. These problems have been solved already by others, you're just behind the curve.

The place to make money with be in the complicated sciences. Geomatics. Building inspections. Working machines like aerial sprayers, tow-line pulling, etc.

Anyway, remember I mentioned last week I had a glitch with my altitude control on my heli when I was demonstrated it? It's looking like a once-in-a-million error on the SPI comms bus the Baro uses. I seem to have a knack for turning these up. We'll have the code made robust to it shortly. Like I've said many times, we're not perfect, but we try.

Something else interesting actually came out of this investigation. Airplane code already has the datalog system logging all sensors data, natively, at full rate. Copter did not, so we'll be fixing that too, this made it a bit harder to find my problem. So think about that. All sensor data, native, at full rate. This allows us to actually use a "Replay" facility. If somebody has a glitch or a bug, we can take the sensor data, and replay it through "on the bench". Helps nail down *exactly* what happened, because you can follow every calculation. Very cool. Combine that with the "big data" techniques already deployed, like Droneshare, which allows us to data-mine logs... Kevin Hester joked that we'll know that you crashed, and why, before your copter hits the ground. They're already working on improving the application so that it will automatically tell you things like "Copter underpowered, hover throttle too high." or "Check Motor #1 for failure." That sort of thing. Most crashes are actually operator error or setup problems, but the logging system can be daunting for people. So this sort of automatic failure detection will help.

Lastly, Mission Planner is now capable of displaying ADS-B transponder data from manned flights on the screen. Eventually we'll even be able to report back UAV position into the ADS-B system. Pretty awesome capability.

 

[Av8Chuck]

I do not believe the FAA has delayed anything. Being part of the larger sUAS industry and knowing the intent of the major players I still believe the FAA is looking to sterilize airspace to protect the interests of the big money that has been lobbying them. Lobbying is a "sleight of hand" word. One needs to consider just how much that word encompasses. From employing someone's family members in highly compensated positions they aren't qualified for all the way cash deposits in foreign numbered accounts. Low cost, low altitude hobby level aircraft are very serious competition for firms that start the bidding for their small aircraft at $500,000.00 per unit and up and then add for services.

I guess it depends a little on how you define "delay." I think that for sUAS businesses the FAA has unintentionally, or maybe intentionally stalled the market. I can't really know what motivates them but I agree with your overall assessment of the situation.

This discussion is going a bit beyond Pixhawk feedback, but I think its relevant, I mean operators have to keep in mind how/if the technology they choose differentiates them from their competition. It would be nice if differentiation came from the fact that it said anything other than DJI on the box. Unfortunately DJI is the preferred brand of the uneducated. I'm not saying they don't work but if you want to differentiate yourself from the kid down the street with a Phantom then you'd better be using something else.

I also think those participating in this industry tend to look at it primarily from the perspective of the MR. The kind and cost of a MR is largely irrelevant to being competitive, that's determined more by the application of the MR. The problem with the Phantom is that it can only fly a GoPro, so if you shoot real estate videos, for example, as long as GoPro footage is good enough then Phantoms will be good enough. But if you really think about the process real estate photographers go through to produce videos they don't use GoPro's, most shoot with Canon 5D3's, they use maybe six to ten grand worth of equipment to shoot an $800 video and the quality of a GoPro does not compare to the quality of the rest of the video. At the moment GoPro footage is considered good enough because it provides a perspective they couldn't get otherwise but it won't be long before photographers producing property videos start flying NEX7's or GH4's which will relegate the Phantom to the hobby market.

It gets a bit more interesting when you start moving up the DJI food chain, a fully equipped S800 [that can fly a GH4] costs approximately $6500, that starts to change the equation quite a bit. Your getting into a price point where competitors to DJI can offer a competing product that can win marketshare, not simply based on features, but if it can do it more reliably, safer, easier to deploy and maintain then the guy producing property videos with the DSLR's will likely choose that over a DJI that has more bells and whistle. The MR is incidental to the photographers business and so will measure its value based on how it effects overall profitability. Which is a long winded way of saying that if you want to compete for that business you'd better really understand the challenges these photographers are confronted with and offer a solution that fits well into the existing workflow with the potential to improve both the quality, so they can differentiate themselves and the efficiency so they can be more profitable. DJI can certainly do that, but its unlikely they will.

That scenario will be true for every vertical. I shouldn't expect to be able to compete selling solutions into the agricultural or geological survey markets without understanding how they do what they do. As a solutions provider that's my value add, I figure out how to apply MR's profitably to their business, not how to teach them to fly MR's, they couldn't care less. Its not likely the kid down the street is going to be able to do that either.

 

[dazzab]

The place to make money with be in the complicated sciences. Geomatics. Building inspections. Working machines like aerial sprayers, tow-line pulling, etc.

I suspect that you are right about this. Industrial photography has always been a good position to be in over the years as it requires technical knowledge and experience.

I'm not so sure having the bottom of the market eaten up by Phatom operators is really a bad thing. To draw a comparison with wedding photography, the best photographers still make a very good living at it even though 'anybody can take pictures'. If you want it done reliably and care about quality you pay for a professional. Or you can take your chances with Uncle Bob and his fancy Nikon with the big long lens.

I think the key here has been discussed by other pros in the past and that's to have aerial photography incorporated in to your skill set as a commercial photographer. People have mentioned it would be tough to make a living just out of this small part of the services that a commercial/industrial photographer might offer. Operating a commercial studio is about a lot more than just low level aerial photography.

Then you have people like Kloner. I don't know that much about him but looking at his work and reading his posts seems to indicate that he has no problems whatsoever in keeping very busy. There are others here too. How come so quiet SMP? I watched a public servant accountant here with no background in photography/RC (that I know of - could be wrong) develop an aerial photography service that is now doing extremely well. He is fully booked and doing fantastic work for commercial television. So it can work. I don't advertise in any way because I won't operate outside the regulations and I'm not certified yet. Regardless, I get calls from organisations looking for service. I don't know if they would be willing to pay what I would have to charge but I assume others are getting those rates.

Interesting times.

 

[Old Man]

This discussion is going a bit beyond Pixhawk feedback, but I think its relevant, I mean operators have to keep in mind how/if the technology they choose differentiates them from their competition. It would be nice if differentiation came from the fact that it said anything other than DJI on the box. Unfortunately DJI is the preferred brand of the uneducated. I'm not saying they don't work but if you want to differentiate yourself from the kid down the street with a Phantom then you'd better be using something else.
.

Perhaps this discussion has considerably more relevance than it first appears due to expansive versatility of the flight controller in discussion. There was a point where Pixhawk was suggested as not best suited for photography, which I will not attempt to debate because I'm not an aerial photographer. There's some architectural photo/video work but that's not art, just commercial visualizations, and I agree, those looking for that product have already started moving away from Go Pro. I have true appreciation for the hard work, dedication, artistic talent, and tenacity of those that conduct cinema/advertiser work. I well understand that flying along running a camera is but a small part of what's required to turn out good product. You guys have to know far more than just how to build and fly an aircraft and start/stop a camera. Far more. But that comment about a Pixhawk not being the best for aerial photography due to its differences is what makes Pixhawk perhaps exactly the flight controller people in my "specialties" are looking for.

To perform aerial surveys using non standard payloads such as Lidar for example. The grid function and waypoint capabilities are over the top for other controllers. Some of the flight modes are absolutely idea for for some agricultural purposes. One of the enables us to cover several hundred acres in far less time that what had been used before, and more accurately. Some of the outputs on the Pixhawk are perfect voltages for some of what we use. No additional BEC or step downs required. To learn that ADS-B capability is present is outstanding. That's half the TCAS equation that we're pretty certain will be made a requirement for open airspace use. Extremely accurate GPS that acquires and locks quickly just about anywhere I've used it is also of critical performance. I've experienced too many times units that did not function well where the uBlox has to date worked great. When you can mark a reference point with accurate coordinates mapping was just made easier. DGPS would be nice since I've used that down to 20cm accuracy, but if the next GPS release is as accurate as Rob suggests, wow!

Those in it for the money or career field will need to maintain some level of flexibility to survive, and their flight controller will play a large part in enabling that flexibility. Reliability is the most important feature of them all and right now no FC at our level is even close to the level of reliability we will need as things progress. The companies that slow down new feature development to focus of quality assurance, product reliability, and perhaps some AS9100 processes will win the race to airspace certification. We can trust that product certification will be an FAA requirements so any FC outfit getting in step with that will end up the product of choice and all the commercial market share.

 

[dazzab]

But that comment about a Pixhawk not being the best for aerial photography due to its differences is what makes Pixhawk perhaps exactly the flight controller people in my "specialties" are looking for.

Let me be perfectly clear here. From what I know about flight controllers there simply is nothing out there anywhere close to the Pixhawk in functionality. It's an amazing piece of technology and I honestly don't think there is anything out there that can offer what it does in many areas. It is THE choice and the only choice for industrial or scientific use. It's been engineered by researchers after all. That has always been the focus. It truly is a revolution.

People should not take my comments that in my experience the Pixhawk is not ready for prime time in relation to aerial photography as an indication that I'm not totally aware of what a fantastic piece of technology it is. It's just that it's focus was never on what was best for aerial photography. It's not set up to be mushy as Robert pointed out because the developers never understood what a photographer would need IMHO. Why would they? It's a project in development so it hits bumps from time to time that might effect someone who makes a living with their rig. That's normal and not bad but not what I need right now. Although they do have a very talented tester in Italy who has influenced them quite a bit. I was trying to add to that but was labelled passive aggressive by a cranky Aussie with attitude when I asked too many question which were interpreted as arguing. That's what I get for being passionate about it all.

Yesterday I posted a great example. A developer found a problem with Arducopter that's been there for a long time. They have been quite busy so it's just now been fixed. That's not bad, it's progress. But it makes the point that things just need a bit more time. Or as Robert mention, maybe some more funding for full time developers. I don't know if the devs will ever have time to lock the software down and come up with a highly stable production release. That's a big ask, maybe not even possible. I'm sure they would like to do that, but they are innovators who love elegant code.

If I were doing industrial/scientific work I'd use a Pixhawk in a heartbeat. Indeed, all along I've mentioned that there is no other choice for fixed wing and that's what is in my planes right now (well, actually PX4 which runs Arducopter). I have a project coming up to map sacred burial sites next summer over a 50km track. Do you think I'd even consider doing that with anything but a Pixhawk? Try that with a DJI FC? Yeah right! What a disaster that would be.

So for now, DJI gives me the most reliable flying tripod I can find for my specific needs. I live for the day when I can use something like the Pixhawk instead. However, my contribution in obtaining that had to cease so I could get on with some work. I keep waiting for someone else here to pick up on that and forge ahead. I've done what I can, it didn't work out that great but that doesn't mean we can't move on.

Let me turn this around a bit. If there was a group of photographers out there that hired developers to create a FC for them do you think it would be suitable for scientific uses? Maybe, but it wouldn't be the priority now would it?

 

[dazzab]

@R_Lefebvre - Were you involved in the hardware design of the Pixhawk?

I've always wondered why they didn't go with a separate IMU unit with anti vibe mounting like DJI and XAircraft? I'm not an engineer but I've always wondered if having the sensors on the controller board might not be optimal? What do you think? I know that vibration has always been an issue for the APM/Pixhawk and it has to be mounted carefully to account for this.

Also, what' up with OSD? That mini OSD from a third party vendor is just a pain IMHO. It would be nice if the Pixhawk had a more integrated solution for that. Do you know if there any plans for that? 3DR is usually doing some pretty interesting things in the background. I know devs can't breech NDAs but I'd be interested in your opinion about this.

 

[Old Man]

Dazzab,

I don't think anyone could be more clear than you were in your earlier post. That was good stuff to read.

I've been wondering who is the driving force behind Pixhawk. Is it 3dR, the owner of Wired magazine, a few independent engineers, or who? I think the answer to that would determine how far and how fast they can go because it would establish the funding levels. If 3dR is the prime then further expansion and refine won't come about until sales increased to a level that could support both the hobby side with their small MR's and R&D at the same time. Staffing is expensive and although they helped keep that down with the production facility in Mexico it's still a cash heavy operational requirement. I'm aware 3dR had been looking for people that had a true UAV background but don't know they ever found what they were looking for.

It's threads such as this one that can help provide the user requirements and demands to provide directional focus.DJI has their minds made up the entry level aerial photographer is who they want to service. Their product line ties their users to the DJI designs which will eventually be found to be quite limiting, and expensive when having to purchase a one off item specifically tailored to enable use of another product. This is an area that Pixhawk has an opportunity to soar if they do it right.

BTW, I agree with the OSD arrangement. It could be a lot better and I'm certain there's COTS software out there that could handle the job.

 

[Av8Chuck]

We flew a LIDAR Test a month or so ago, that thing is cool. I only got to see about 25% of the point cloud but even that was amazing how quickly you can fly a rectangular route at about 75' and the detail you can see is amazing. Its very cool to see how people want to start using these things.

I really wanted to see if I could get the guys with the LIDAR camera to be part of the demo at the Camarillo airshow but no one want to incriminate themselves...

 

[R_Lefebvre]

To draw a comparison with wedding photography, the best photographers still make a very good living at it even though 'anybody can take pictures'. If you want it done reliably and care about quality you pay for a professional. Or you can take your chances with Uncle Bob and his fancy Nikon with the big long lens.

Even this isn't so easy. At our wedding, we used a guy who ran a very small shop from a rural area, for all I know he had a "day job" working in a factory. He was very affordable. I was worried we'd get some podunk results, but he did a great job. My brother, used a high-priced professional from a big studio in the city. Paid 3-4X as much as us. The results were pretty bad. In fact, their #1 photo, the one they have framed, is a setting that *I* pointed out and actually had to push for the photographer to use. Most of the other photos are unusable.

It's just that it's focus was never on what was best for aerial photography. It's not set up to be mushy as Robert pointed out because the developers never understood what a photographer would need IMHO.

It's this part that of the discussion that I really struggle with.

I've asked many times what it is that photographers want/need, and nobody can ever provide a descriptive list. What exactly is it that Arducopter does not do well for you? Reading between the lines, the only technical thing I've been able to figure is basically, soft or mushy control. Fast is actually, we used to have softer control. It wasn't until Autotune came out that we ended up with razor sharp responses. But you can still make it softer if you tune it right. Regardless, with 3.2, you'll be able to set it up to be very soft to inputs, yet still have razor sharp stability.

DJI, do still have an edge on the performance in GPS Hold. I'll give them that. I can't figure out how they hold so well, without being "busy" like Arducopter tends to be.

But other than that... the only other thing I can see is simply easy of use. A controller designed to do only one thing, is easier to use if that is what you want to do. Arducopter does have way more features and settings, because it can do so much more.

But there's another thing... cost. It's weird, but there's a lot of people out there who won't consider it because it's simply too low cost. So much of this market is about male jewellery. "You get what you pay for". Fancy cases and high price tags make people think the system is better. Helicopter guys won't even touch it cause it's too cheap. Somebody flying a $10,000 camera, is more comfortable with a $2000 controller than a $300 controller. And their clients are too. But this isn't a rational decision making process.

It's a project in development so it hits bumps from time to time that might effect someone who makes a living with their rig.

This is what I have a big problem with. What flight controller does not have issues? They ALL do. Even the $100,000 Aeryon Skyranger does. An operator told me you have to recalibrate the magnetometer every time you change the battery. Even if flying from the same location. I also witnessed how the control link drops out all the time.

There is absolutely no solid indication that Pixhawk is less reliable than anything else. I think it is the very fact that we DO admit to bugs, and fix them in a very visible way, that make some people think it's less reliable. If we had a policy of "never admit to bugs, ever" as others do, would that make us appear more reliable to the market? Probably. Unfortunately this rewards this behaviour, which is why some companies do it.

Yesterday I posted a great example. A developer found a problem with Arducopter that's been there for a long time. They have been quite busy so it's just now been fixed.

Which issue was that? The one I just mentioned about a baro glitch? That should NOT be an example of how the system is unreliable, or not ready. That bug has been out there... pretty much forever it seems. We've never seen it before, which would indicate that it's a once in a billion problem. The fact that we publicized it and fixed it does not mean the system is less reliable than one where the system designers would simply hide the whole thing, and roll out a fix in the next release without ever saying anything. You do not hear about once in a billion bugs from closed source systems.

But it makes the point that things just need a bit more time. Or as Robert mention, maybe some more funding for full time developers. I don't know if the devs will ever have time to lock the software down and come up with a highly stable production release.

This is very wrong.

Even a $100,000 UAV system can't release a "stable production release" and have it all work right perfectly. Your expectations are WAY too high.

You don't think that Boeing has updated the software on the Dreamliner a few times since it's release? Get serious.

It's when systems stop updating firmware, that you know you have a problem. My Sony Xperia Z1, gets updated constantly. It's now running Android 4.4.4, fully up to date. Runs like a top. My Asus Transformer Infinity, hasn't been updated in a year and is stuck back on Android 4.2.1. It's a piece of crap, and barely runs. I'll never buy an Asus Android device again.

@R_Lefebvre - Were you involved in the hardware design of the Pixhawk?

No. These things tend to drop on our laps after they're pretty much done. Lately, they have actually asked us what features we'd like in the next hardware, but that's about it.

I've always wondered why they didn't go with a separate IMU unit with anti vibe mounting like DJI and XAircraft? I'm not an engineer but I've always wondered if having the sensors on the controller board might not be optimal? What do you think? I know that vibration has always been an issue for the APM/Pixhawk and it has to be mounted carefully to account for this.

My opinion on that is... it's hard to do properly. And I guess they didn't have the right person who could pull it off.

Also, what' up with OSD? That mini OSD from a third party vendor is just a pain IMHO. It would be nice if the Pixhawk had a more integrated solution for that. Do you know if there any plans for that? 3DR is usually doing some pretty interesting things in the background. I know devs can't breech NDAs but I'd be interested in your opinion about this.

I don't really see what the problem is with it?

I doubt you'll see an integrated solution. The problem is, the more things you integrate, the more the system becomes an "all things to all people" hardware. It starts to get really large, really fast. What else should they integrate into the board? A low voltage power supply? No, it should have a 12S rated power supply. Then people with a 250 quad, get stuck with an expensive 50V system. Build in the sonar? The Lidar? Built in ESC's? I think you're going to see more peripherals in the future, not more integrated stuff. A system which offers so much capability can't start building in all the hardware for all the users.

Eventually the ESC will be a peripheral, driven from UAVCAN communications just like all the other peripherals. Then we can do away with all the garbage PWM devices still in use. Fully digital, all the way. This has already been demonstrated.

I've been wondering who is the driving force behind Pixhawk. Is it 3dR, the owner of Wired magazine, a few independent engineers, or who?

The owner of Wired has nothing do with any of this. Chris Anderson used to be the editor or Wired, but quit over a year ago.

The Pixhawk design is a joint venture between 3DR, and the PX4 group at ETH, a university in Switzerland responsible for cutting edge UAV development (Rafaello D'Andrea, the guy with the crazy quad videos works there). ETH mostly does the conceptual design, and 3DR makes it a production reality. Sometimes they ask us for input or show us prototypes. We usually get beta hardware.

I think the answer to that would determine how far and how fast they can go because it would establish the funding levels. If 3dR is the prime then further expansion and refine won't come about until sales increased to a level that could support both the hobby side with their small MR's and R&D at the same time. Staffing is expensive and although they helped keep that down with the production facility in Mexico it's still a cash heavy operational requirement.

Yep. And the problem is that, well you guys don't see it here much, but there are tons of Chinese shops selling cloned hardware that undercuts 3DR's pricing. It's actually totally legal to do this as long as you follow the licensing rules. No royalties, but you can't infringe on 3DR's trademarks (the Pixhawk name, 3DR logo, etc.), you must disclose that your hardware is a derivative of an open source project, and if you distribute the code, you must also disclose that it is part of an open source project, and publish any changes you have made. There are several companies obeying the rules, but their pricing still hurts 3DR's ability to put money back into development. And these companies are not themselves contributing to development of the hardware or the software. They are leeches, IMO. This is not what open source is supposed to be about. But then you also have companies selling under the Pixhawk name, and some even put the 3DR logo on the hardware which makes it hard for people to know who they're really buying from. Then you have Walkera which is using modified versions of Arducopter on two of their RTF machines, without disclosing such.

 

[dazzab]

Even this isn't so easy. At our wedding, we used a guy who ran a very small shop from a rural area, for all I know he had a "day job" working in a factory. He was very affordable. I was worried we'd get some podunk results, but he did a great job. My brother, used a high-priced professional from a big studio in the city. Paid 3-4X as much as us. The results were pretty bad. In fact, their #1 photo, the one they have framed, is a setting that *I* pointed out and actually had to push for the photographer to use. Most of the other photos are unusable.

I'd have to see the logs before I could comment.

I've asked many times what it is that photographers want/need, and nobody can ever provide a descriptive list. What exactly is it that Arducopter does not do well for you?

My net connection dropped out after writing some notes for you so this version will be shorter.

First of all, I've been involved with Arducopter for over three years now. Until recently I haven't noticed anything from you and wasn't even aware you were a developer. Regardless, I don't recall anyone asking questions about the needs of aerial photographers. So I missed the memo I'm afraid.

Again, a bit shorter of a list now:

* A separate IMU with proper anti-vibration
* Integrated OSD is not an option. Most photographers work with a monitor on their Tx not a ground station which is too difficult to monitor while shooting
* Get rid of DF13 connectors. Even the devs shave the locks on those things to keep from breaking cables
* No tuning setup. DJI works great out of the box. Many people don't tune much at all. It's pretty much plug and play
* No more than one update a year. If it needs more it indicates to me that it isn't ready for prime time. Of course that depends on why it needs updating
* Devs that don't default to the opinion that users are idiots. Remember the bug identified by a user who was wholesale dismissed? Turned out he was a software engineer and rather than persisting he just wrote the code and contributed it. Ooops, egg on face. And if anyone wants to see how I was treated look up the thread. Then imagine yourself in that situation.
* Easier to interpret logs. Yes, I know this is happening now.
* Distributed and controlled by a commercial company rather than a band of developers that may or may not be there in the future. Arducopter excels now due to a unique combination of very talented software engineers. Had they not become interested in automated flight it would have continued to struggle as it did for years. 3DR has hired it's own engineers so I think this issue is probably well in hand though.

DJI, do still have an edge on the performance in GPS Hold. I'll give them that. I can't figure out how they hold so well, without being "busy" like Arducopter tends to be.

That wasn't my experience. I found Arducopter GPS hold much better than both SuperX and Wookong. I wonder if living down under has an effect? You'd think it would be worse down here. Oh well.

But there's another thing... cost. It's weird, but there's a lot of people out there who won't consider it because it's simply too low cost. So much of this market is about male jewellery. "You get what you pay for". Fancy cases and high price tags make people think the system is better.

Crazy isn't it? I provided an example before my first response crashed. Too lazy to repeat it. But can't agree with you more on this one. People can be so dumb.

There is absolutely no solid indication that Pixhawk is less reliable than anything else. I think it is the very fact that we DO admit to bugs, and fix them in a very visible way, that make some people think it's less reliable.

Depends on how you define reliable doesn't it? People should read the release notes and make up their own mind if the reasons for the many updates with Arducpoter are features or fixes.

Which issue was that? The one I just mentioned about a baro glitch?

Nope. The filter frequency being too low for micro copters. Been there for quite some time according to Leonard. So what else has been there for quite some time that hasn't been found?

Great post Robert. Very informative. Thanks for your time.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Dazzab, if you've never heard of me before, you aren't really that involved in Arducopter.

 

[dazzab]

Dazzab, if you've never heard of me before, you aren't really that involved in Arducopter.

I'm sorry if you took that statement poorly as it certainly wasn't intended to offend. What I meant was up to six months ago you certainly were not very vocal or public as Randy, Leonard or Jonathon. If you like we can get the stats from the forums, dev list and the commits given you do better with hard data but surely that's not necessary. The fact that you weren't as public in no way means you weren't contributing or involved in the project. Heck, there's about 50 other contributors I've never heard of before either.

And yes, by a developers standards, I am not involved in Arducopter at all. I have never contributed code.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

This is really getting ridiculous.

http://www.dronecon.org/robert-lefebvre-introduction-to-rotorcraft-dynamics/

 

[dazzab]

This is really getting ridiculous.

http://www.dronecon.org/robert-lefebvre-introduction-to-rotorcraft-dynamics/

July 9, 2014. That's certainly within six months. I watched that as well. I found it really interesting. Meant to send you an email telling you that.
Give it up Robert. It's not a big deal. No need to get your panties in a twist.

Also, I may not have picked you up on my radar because you are in to helis a bit. You know, I do seem to recall posting a comment to you once about your neighbours or something. Like I said, it's not a big deal. Any chance of moving on?

 

[Old Man]

Time for smoke...

 

[jfro]

Time for smoke...

Smoke or beer. Either would work.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

So here is an example of Arducopter being used for artistic aerial photography. This video was shot using 3DR copters and flying Arducopter, for the purpose of creating an announcement about Richard Branson investing in 3DR.

 

[Old Man]

All the recent activities at 3dR are mighty suggestive of big things coming out of them soon. Quinn and now a Branson investment? Hmmm, sounds pretty good.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Here's an example of the latest release from Arducopter. I took some time to play with Spline auto missions. Spline attempts to turn the robotic, blocky flight control from the existing auto controller, into a more fluid and natural movement.

The hardware isn't great, and the flight isn't *perfect*, but it's pretty good. What's neat is that, I ran this mission over and over, tweaking it bit by bit until I got a look that I wanted. I think this is what professional aerial photography will be looking for. Currently, you would need manual control to get this look, and every run would a little different. But with Spline, you can set up a run, tweak it until it's perfect. Maybe even using a small test quad like this to get the look you want before using the big machine. Or maybe getting it just right, and then waiting for the sun to be setting. Or get it set up and wait for the talent to arrive. And then nail the first and/or only take you get.

I'd like to make the yawing a little smoother yet. And with the automatic camera pointing (not shown here), the pitch also needs some work to make it fluid. But this is pretty good right now I think.