Version 2.4 of the ArduCopter code is now available in the AP Mission Planner and in the downloads area. Although not as big a change as the 2.3 release, it still includes a respectable number of enhancements and bug fixes.
The default PIDs are optimized for a 3DR/Jdrones quad with 850 motors and 10" props. If you're using more powerful motors/props, start by turning down Rate Roll P in 25% steps.
Thanks go to the numerous contributors including users and their detailed bug reports, developers and testers. Hopefully all together this will add up to a nice smooth release!
As per usual, please post your comments, issues in this discussion. For enhancement requests for future versions, feel free to add them to the issues list. Note: you can "star" an issue to receive emails when someone comments on the item. On the dev side it helps us because we can get an idea as to which feature requests are the most popular by sorting by the number of people how have starred each issue.
I think Marco was being a little overdramatic. 2.4.1 has fewer issues than previous versions and should be fine for most users. It's been flown by many hundreds of people, with rare issues. As always, precautions should be taken when flying code that's still early in development, but we wouldn't release it to the MP if we didn't expect people to use it.
The code the dev team is currently testing (which will ultimately be released as 2.5) is much better, but needs more testing before release.
currently the latest 2.4.1
I have a request. I read a page or two ago about 1 guy whose copter flew away. Then there are warnings about not flying with 2.4 and 2.41. Honestly, it's really hard to follow 63 pages of comments to determine what's flyable and what is not? How about making a section on the front page that gives a "current status" and says stuff like "APM2: Flyable with quad, don't fly hex, don't fly octo. Current issues include....." Without that, everyone is guessing, frustrated, and equipments gets damaged.
Dave, the code in the Mission Planner always represents our best, tested code at any given time. At the moment, that's 2.4.1, which is appropriate for all platforms. Like all code for platforms as complex as this, there are still some issues, many of which we've solved in the internal code the dev team is now testing prior to release. But this is bleeding-edge robotics, so always fly with caution.
That's not the issue Chris. Of course we should fly with caution. My point is that unless you follow it daily, it's hard to get a code status without going back and re-reading all the comments. This shouldn't be the case. The front page should have a brief overview of what works, what doesn't, and the major current issues being worked on. When 2.3 was out, following the motor numbering mess was difficult. A front page dashboard status would be an appropriate and helpful place to help people know what's going on and determine if they feel comfortable flying. 2.4.1 may be 'appropriate for all platforms', but that's not really the case if there are some major known issues that could cause problems. These issues should be highlighted on the front page -- you shouldn't have to dig through comment after comment to try to find and identify them.
Even the issues links are not posted on the front page -- and in many ways are unhelpful. The issues lists help people track bugs -- it doesn't summarize major issues in a format that is clear for everyone. ie. The issues list didn't tell people who had 2.3 that they shouldn't fly hex and octo until the motor numbers were updated. You had to look at the forums to find that. Sure, it was one first page of the forum, but then you had to read the comments to know if the front page of the forum was correct, or the wiki, or something else... because if you go back and read it now... it's still not clear and there were lots of people asking questions about it to try to understand what was going on.... once again, a simple status update on the front page would have resolved most of this.
Dave, could you give me an example of some other project that does what you suggest, so I can evaluate how it might work for us?
To begin with why not try something done here at DIYDrones before
Also a week back i suggested creating a Beginners guide so that they know the fine details of working with and flying Arducopter. It should include tips to Tune PIDs and also various features like auto trim, auto level etc. And make it as a downloadable PDF format that every user is suggested to go through before flying.
Just my 2 cents. I guess Dave C was working on something of this sort but no updates so far...
I think Dave is right.
You shouldn't need to read the whole topic to know what is going on with that specific software release.
Just update the opening post to let people know how that software release is doing, what the known bugs are and if it is a "FLY" or "NO FLY" release.
And Chris, please do not minimize any problems the software might have. I think if Marco says "do not fly", it is probably with good reason.
A multicopter flying off for 3 km is not what I would call safe... It could make a lot of damage or worst case scenario hurt someone in a severe way.
Take down any possible public downloads if a release is not safe!
You can't attribute that to a software issue if there are no logs to analyze. It's ok to play it safe, but let's not start attributing all problems to the software issues.
Jo see my earlier suggestion a few posts back.
If it is the case that some adjustments are made in between releases of the firmware, then would it difficult to have this mentioned in the popup window when Mission Planner is opened when there has been any updates done?
I think this is much better than just updating the forum,wiki,repository because then we know what was done when we click yes to update.
The info in the pop up window doesn't have to be full details, but just a brief bullet point of changes and additions. , and may be a link where to find them.
This would be most helpful, to not have to sift through the threads to try find the accurate and updated information regarding the current status of the code would be great! I second the motion :)