My main concern as repeated a number of time in a number of other posts is the safety aspect needs to be a primary focus on this APM project.
So far many suggestions have been ignored to date. We really must all demand a better fail-safe functions and AT MINIMUM A WAY TO KILL THE MACHINE! if it gets out of control. This is a MUST!!
Why can we not have the 8th channel and have it recoded for multirotors so we can select this for a KILL switch function?
Let all look at and discuss some better options for better safety here.
You have a good idea - (although perhaps would be better implemented in hardware to cope with a non-responsive APM). I like it and maybe would use it for my big quad, but this would get more attention if it was spec'ed out as a feature request. Or better still coded up and submitted for review.
Usually developers who contribute to open source projects in their free time don't appreciate 'demands' or being told what their primary focus should be.
Andrew what every way you want to put it or dress it up with nice words, safety should be paramount.
We who are also users and give a lot of input of our ideas to this community are as valid as any of the other developers/team etc, so yes I think demand can be appropriate for the safety and betterment of the whole project.
This is also our free time and money as well and as much as I very much appreciate the vast amount of time others offer to this project , to me all are equal here and none are worth to bow down to as a "team god" Sorry just my view mate.
You sound like a 'team god' yourself with the SHOUTING IN CAPS and the dictatorial imperatives. It is better if you are nice around here.
I agree, but so far numerous tries at nice hasn't worked Andrew. Sometimes need to stir up the chicken.
this looks really interesting Monroe
The Millswood and standard failsafe methods have been around for years. My personal preference on a multi TX off, motors off.
Its very important to first understand exactly how your radio works just a receiver and servo connected and make it happen.
If you don't know what your craft will do when the either the signal or power glitches or fails then you probably should not be flying it.
You could connect this to channel 8 of your receiver:
Use it to switch off the +5V to the APM. That'll kill it!
Hi I use a simular device from robot shop ( a RC controlled relay ) but I put it in the speed control input to the ESC on my airplane, that way when I use left rudder (not connected on my flying wing) to control the relay I have a sure method to make certain that the motor is stopped BUT I still get the GPS data so I know where it comes down to earth and hopefully find it again.
Failsafe options are always a plus to have, giving one a piece of mind. In addition to looking at additional failsafe options, what about having the 2 APM's installed in an aircraft with some sort of crosstalk/comparison between the two and if one fails in some way (looses power, internal fault, loss of GPS signal, etc.) the software will ignore the faulty one and use the "working" APM. I know this is the "norm" in most modern aircraft, having this sort of redundancy is another form of "failsafe". Not sure about difficulty of implementing something like this but it is something I would be interested in having.
It's called "failover" and it's an excellent idea. The trick it to keep both APMs online and synched (as you don't want the backup APM to have to start from boot) but still isolate the backup unit from whatever might have made the master unit fail.
I wonder if the Millswood unit can listen for the heartbeat, take over temporarily in the event of a failure, then switch to the backup APM once verified that the 2nd unit is performing within spec.