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 was lying 2.4.1 at the time...i couldn't find her she is somehere in the thick brambles and based on last know location about 3km away when i lost sight of her.
so i cant even give you guys logs to check out what the F(#&# happened.
hopefully the dev team has figured out what is causing this lean and has it sorted by the time i get my next apm hopefully withtout a 8 week wait.
will more than likely bite the bullet and stick it on a droidworx skyjib......hehehe
I wonder if any failsafes would of worked for you? or use MP to replay your log using the GPS data then....WHAM there is your rig
3km is a hell of a distance, I had my Quad take off with copter control as I turned the radio off....then she shot off 200m away, I found her in a tree with 1 prop broken!
im not sure if a failsave would have work, i engaged rtl but she just kept leaning away into the yonder with not throttle response other wise i would have just dropped her out the sky like a ton of brick.....
problem would be getting the log to play it back in the first place.....
when you get your new rig working Theo, hook up the cam and go look for the other one. . I wonder if switching it into just stabilize would have worked to stop it. Last week when I flew I also noticed weird behavior in loiter similar to what you mentioned before your copter went awol, so Immediately switch back to stabilize and it was fine. One thing Ive learn is when it goes strange is that stabilize is the best option to switch to that Ive tried so far.
Glad to see that you have tested successfully my version with the latest Tridge's DCM fix and that also the auto-landing works well for you.
About your question in line 438 of th system.pde:
// debug to Serial terminal
This serial print doesn't consume too much time because it used only when the ch7 switch mode is trigged (i.e. when you switch from STABILIZE to LOITER). Of course you may comment this for saving a bit the program memory.
Marco if we are not suppose to fly 2.4.1 from the MP then why would it be allowed to download? I also must have missed that comment on the forum and I downloaded it last night on both my rigs.
My impression was that the MP version was reasonably ok and the issues were with the branch off versions. Luck today's flights went ok. But I suggest until 2.4.1 is fixed how about a popup on the MP for an alert warning of the issue at least and then onus is on the user?
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.