ArduCopter 2.5 released!
Version 2.5 of the ArduCopter code is now available in the AP Mission Planner and in the downloads area!
Enhancements:
- The first ArduCopter code release optimized for the APM 2. Leans and drift should be much reduced or even eliminated for most users. This was accomplished through a number of core improvements to the DCM implementation by Tridge like this one and this one.
- Loiter and waypoint following should be improved due to a D term bug fix, some tuning and the improved DCM performance mentioned above.
- On start-up, the yaw heading is updated with first successful mag read (so you should no longer see the slow rotation from north to your actual heading).
- Increased output rate to ESCs to 490hz. This update rate is also user selectable using the new RC_SPEED parameter.
- hexa copter stability patch bug fix (should resolve slight flattening when pitching forward and accelerating very rapidly).
- improved baro filtering
- fix to dataflash logging of Mag heading
- addition of H1 swash plate type and bug fix for proactive yaw compensation for collective pitch changes for TradHelis.
Tuning:
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.
While some testers have reported very good flights with the default PIDs, some have reported that this release is a little "sharper" due to the DCM improvements and have found they needed to:
reduce stabilize P by 10% (i.e. 4.5 -> 4.2)
reduce stabilize D by 30% (i.e. 0.15 -> 0.10)
increase rate D from 0 to 0.001
Tuning loiter can be tricky. Refer to the discussions which will appear below for more community feedback on what parameters work best.
Please post your feedback in this discussion. For enhancement requests and bug report, please add them to the arducopter issues list. When possible please include logs (tlog and/or dataflash) and tell us whether you're using APM1 or APM2 and what version of the software you're using (presumably 2.5 but tell us anyway!).
Thanks for this release go to the developers (both in the core team but also those who have provided bug fixes through the issues list) and also the community members who participated in the previous release thread and provided some great detailed information in the form of issue reports and logs which allowed us to nail some bugs!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dave C on -
Graham, one thing that stands out to me is that you are using rate_I and stab_I together. That's pretty much my only tuning no-no, always gives me strange performance. Maybe try tuning just one, with the other at zero. Let me know if you see the same benefits I did. Btw I prefer rate_I. Cheers
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by Graham Dyer on -
Thanks, I had it like that after much CH6 tuning/testing but I've now put STAB_I to 0 and will test and report back.
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by Graham Dyer on -
Have put STAB_I on 0, but I actually think I prefer having both on, gives a more locked in feeling to my inputs. Will do some more testing.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter on -
Dave could you please explain the effect Rate_I has on flight in Dummies terms. LOL
Thanks Pete
-
Permalink Reply by emile on -
Peter, the I term is a parameter that builds up while there is an error.
It is mostly used to account for external forces that are affecting the reach of the target.
To make thing simple, STAB_I is computed from the error of your stick, so if you have an unbalanced quad and keep your stick in a certain position, an error will build up and added to the control loop.
The effect if that after a short time your quad will be level without stick input.
RATE_I is computed from the error of the stabilization loop and is directly influenced by how long your quad takes to stabilize on the given input.
In my opinion at the end they almost do the same, only on different levels that's why you shouldn't use them together.
Personally I prefer to leave STAB_I to 0 and use only RATE_I.
A too high I term will lead to overshoot the target, thus creating a slight wobble after stick input.
Too low, and you will notice it will not be too reactive on error input.
Hope this helps.
Emile
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mac on
-
I have a medium-large Y6.
Any recommendations on a good starting point for RATE_I?
.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter on
-
Emile thank you very much I can now picture what I am trying to achive with the I term.
Your help is greately appreciated I have been chasing my tail with the tuning.
Regards Pete
-
Permalink Reply by Emin Bu on
-
can somebody tell me is this original or not...i do have APM2 but friend asked me where to buy,and he found this http://www.goodluckbuy.com/ardupilot-mega-v2-flight-control-purple-...
-
3D RoboticsPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on -
Emin: That's pirated. Good luck to anyone who buys it. (we won't support it)
Social Networking
Top Content
Contests
Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest has now begun. The fourth round is an accuracy round for multicopters, which requires contestants to fly a cube. The deadline is April 14th.A list of all T3 contests is here.
Groups
-
Moderators
24 members
-
ArduRover User Group
185 members
-
Documentation Editors
51 members
-
ArduPlane User Group
686 members
-
ArduCopter Italian Group
87 members
Advertisement
© 2013 Created by Chris Anderson.
Powered by
