Transitioning from DJI to 3DR - Learning Curve?

SMP

Member
Hello Guys,

As our Services portfolio has grown so too the need for a more advanced feature set from our Flight Controllers. We're now going to be doing our small quads on 3DR for the more advanced Feature Sets provided by same. Would your recommendation be to use the Pixhawk or the newer Iris.

Can anyone advice as to what the principal Learning Curve differences are coming off the DJI WKM/Nazas?

Thanks in advance for any help!!
 

R_Lefebvre

Arducopter Developer
The Pixhawk is a flight controller, the Iris is a quadcopter (that comes with a Pixhawk installed). The Pixhawk is recommended over the older APM2.6 for sure. I cannot recommend the Iris however.

As for learning curve... there's a lot to learn, especially if you want to use the advanced features. All I can suggest is read the wiki, and then read it again.

I am available for on-contract training as well as systems integration, tuning, etc.
 

SMP

Member
Chuckling.. FC versus Airframe - Gaff 1.

Ok. Were moving forward with a small quad for precision AG. Will see how it goes when it comes back from build. Can you send me a quick email with contact information, service profile and rough order of magnitude for on-contract?

Thanks Mate!

Steven
photos@sequinminer.com
 

jfro

Aerial Fun
I had a 450 and later a 550 on Naza V2 / GPS. Have the naza on a larger 650 w/ bigger motors now and it flies like butter. I'm fighting an x8 with Xaircraft and may try the Naza for a moment. I also have the Pixhawk on the a 450 then swtched to the 550. I'll keep plugging away, but if I had to do it over, I'd have waited another year on the Pixhawk. I wanted the advance features but they aren't worth playing with right now cause I can't get the Pixhawk to fly as nicely as the Naza so far. I've done manual and auto tune. Neither flies anywhere near as nice as the Naza V2 did on the smaller quads.

I will continue to play with the Pixhawk, but so far can't imagine getting good gopro video off it based on what I'm getting so far and it's just not as carefree to fly so far and that is one thing I want on a small quad. Just 1 persons opinion, so don't take it to the bank.
 

R_Lefebvre

Arducopter Developer
What exactly does "fly nicely" mean? If you are talking about the fact that Naza filters and dampens the pilots inputs, we'll have that on the next release, 3.2. A lot of people in the market actually hate this about the Naza. Some love it. So we've added it as an optional function.

If "fly nicely" means something else, you'd have to explain more precisely what you're talking about.

And talking about GoPro footage, you mean solid mounted without a gimbal or what? If you mean solid mounted, that gets back to my first point about filtering and damping the outputs, smoothing it out. If you're having a problem getting smooth footage with a gimbal, then I don't know what problem you're having as I've demonstrated, it works great with a gimbal.
 

jfro

Aerial Fun
What exactly does "fly nicely" mean? If you are talking about the fact that Naza filters and dampens the pilots inputs, we'll have that on the next release, 3.2. A lot of people in the market actually hate this about the Naza. Some love it. So we've added it as an optional function.

If "fly nicely" means something else, you'd have to explain more precisely what you're talking about.

And talking about GoPro footage, you mean solid mounted without a gimbal or what? If you mean solid mounted, that gets back to my first point about filtering and damping the outputs, smoothing it out. If you're having a problem getting smooth footage with a gimbal, then I don't know what problem you're having as I've demonstrated, it works great with a gimbal.


1. Fly nicely means I am able to smoothly fly my f450, f550 with both plastic arms where I feel confident and in complete control. I fly mostly in ATTI mode and occasionally in gps mode. I haven't attained the same type of smooth, controllable feeling I have achieved on the Naza with the Pixhawk yet. This is after many flights adjusting PID's where I thought it flew pretty well in calm winds and later after auto tune. I have been flying with those auto tune settings lately, although I'm contemplating going back to my own PID's and trying again. The wind definitely affects this, so sometimes it hard to figure out.

2. I have a 2 axis and 3 axis go pro gimbal. Both are mounted on 4 ball type dampeners that came with the Tarot and DYS gimbals. I've also tried swapping the Tarot dampeners with softer dampeners, but went back to the originals. I'm on Tiger 900kv motors and 10 " props when on the 450 or 550. Props are perfectly balanced on an magnetic/ air balancer. I have checked them 2x in the last 8 days with no crashes. I could run the go pro video through a stabilizer and use a fair amount of it. However, it's not as smooth as I was getting on the same rig w/ the naza nor when I put either gimbal on my 650 quad.

That being said, I am well aware of Alexmos gimbals being a challenge and will probably put the dys back on my 650 quad and give it another run to make sure it hasn't come out of tune or balance. I'm also considering, putting the Naza back on the 550 quad and do a few flights with the gopro to compare the footage. It's always possible that something else is amiss.

I'm waiting for apm 3.2 to be release, but understand that may be a while. They seem to have suspended the first beta version while they are testing a 2.15 bug or something. I am hoping for the best and can wait. I am very much aware it may be me, but checking out youtube video to see how others are doing, I don't see a lot of high quality videos up there yet, so it makes me wonder if maybe I'm not that incompetant.

I'm going to hang in there and keep trying, but my post was just about my experience so far. I have a small & medium quad, and large x8. The small, which is now the Pixhawk, is the MR that I'd fly most for logging flying time, some scouting of shots, or putting it in places where I don't want to put my more expensive MR's. I was hoping to play with the waypoints, circle flying, follow me etc. but I haven't done those yet because I'm still trying to get my Pixhawk to fly in way that I enjoy and am confident in as well as get some stable video.

I can't master flying in stabilize mode on the Pixhawk. I'm constantly going up and down like a yoyo with or without expo on my sticks fomr 15-40. I end of flying in alt hold. I've found GPS (loiter) mode to be good for sitting there, but I have to push on the sticks a fair amount to fly around and don't really like the way it works, so don't use GPS for anything but holding in place or a rescue hold when orientation is lost. It jumps around abit in GPS mode and wind. The Naza, I fly mostly in ATTI mode, with an occasional GPS hold for video work and an occasional gps lock to rescue myself when I lose orientation. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I just enjoyed and feel very confident flying my 450 and 550 with the Naza. I'm also very pleased with the Naza that is now on my KDE 3520 based quad.

If I can ever get the Pixhawk to fly to my liking, I will try it on mny 650 quad and probably on my x8. My x8 flies great in calm winds, but not so good in wind.
Until I can achieve nirvana on my 550 with the Pixhawk, I'm not going to try it on anything bigger or more expensive.
 

dronemania

Member
The DJI is indeed easier to control, thus, making it an unfair scale.
But if you're already a seasoned rc pilot, then the transition wouldn't be too tough to manage.

As with all things, I'd advice you to practice, practice, practice.
I'm sure you'll be flying like a pro in no time!

Good job getting your feet deeper into the waters bro.
Keep it up :)
 

I love the NAZA but I really like what i have seen from Open Pilot as well. I would say get a pixhawk and an OPRevo then see what you like better.
 

dazzab

Member
Hello Guys,
Can anyone advice as to what the principal Learning Curve differences are coming off the DJI WKM/Nazas?
Thanks in advance for any help!!

I think one of the biggest differences is that Arducopter (the mulitrotor specific software running on Pixhawk/APM) is that it's always a moving target. You need to make sure to read the release notes carefully as each new version will have more functionality and slight changes. Personally, I'd like to see a final 'production version' but that's not the nature of open source. They constantly push the envelope and improve.

Another thing to be aware of is that Arducopter works best when adopting the principle of always using a flight control station to plan, execute and monitor flight. This will be a laptop or tablet that has radio contact with the copter. It's really quite impressive and very slick. You may also want to become familiar with how to work with the extensive logs that the system maintains as you'll need to know how to analyse them if things go wrong or if you want to tune things.

If I had to summarise the Pixhawk/Arducopter experience I'd say it's one of being far more technical/professional than DJI which I'd summarise as more focussed on flying. The 3DR platform is more about research than it is about a flying tripod, if that makes any sense. Fortunately I cut my teeth on the APM and know a developer that I work with on other projects so I'm quite at home with the whole experience. However, when I moved to DJI flight controllers life became much much easier for me as I just started concentrating on flying and filming. There's good and bad in both approaches.

I feel very fortunate to have gone down the path the way I did but it certainly involved some pain and expense. But overall I feel much better informed and knowledgable which gives me a great deal of flexibility to apply different approaches to different situations. That sounds like what you are doing now. If I can help in any way please feel free to contact me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Top