Arducopter 2.7.2 is now in the mission planner and in the downloads area Some positive reports on testing can be found in this discusssion by John Hanson.

Note: just as the release was going out an issue was found re support for the all Camera Gimbals on the APM1s (it doesn't work) and with 3 axis gimbals on the APM2 (2-axis works ok but not 3).  If you're one of these people, please wait for 2.7.3 which will be out shortly. 

 

UPDATE: 2.7.3 is now in the Mission Planner

 

Functional Improvements over 2.7.1:

  • Fast waypoints (Jason) - if the turn angle between two waypoint the copter is less than 60 degrees it does not slow down
  • Navigation improvements and logging including switching to filtered location for distance calculations (jason)
  • Flip improvements - more aggressive and flexible flip code based on attitude instead of timing (Jason)
  • Improved camera control - you can now control any axis (roll, tilt, pan) with any rc channel.  it probably makes most sense that you will use 6 but others are possible too.  Unfortunately these changes required we change the set-up procedure so the mission planner gimbal set-up screen needs to be modified again.  Please refer to the AC_Camera wiki page for how to manually set-up the gimbal (Amilcar)
  • Flybar acro mode for TradHeli (Robert)
  • "Fast gains" - allows strong correction of attitude using accelerometers while the quad is stationary on the ground but relies more on gyros while flying (Tridge, Jason)
  • Baro filtering improvements (Tridge)

 

Bug Fixes:

  • DMP timing fix (Randy) - the MPU6000's dmp unit was inadvertantly turned on and caused timing delays in the main loop- xbee bricking issue (Craig / Tridge)
  • Dataflash fixes (Jason)
  • Engine ticking - was a combination of roll/pitch rate D term being too high and the dmp timing fix above (Randy, Emile)
  • Faster heading correction on start-up - resolves issue with simple mode getting incorrect heading if you took off very soon after start-up (Tridge)


Code Cleanup:

  • Increased maximum number parameters (Tridge)
  • Formatting changes to code (Pat)
  • Replaced "int" with "int16_t" everywhere (Randy)


As per usual PIDs are optimised for the 3DR/Jdrones quad with 850 motors and 10" props. If you're using more powerful motors/props and are seeing bad flight behaviour in stabilize, start by turning down Rate Roll P in 25% steps.

There is still some question on whether the default Roll/Pitch Rate P (0.175) is high enough (it was 0.185 in 2.7.1) and also some people feel the Throttle Rate should be higher (currently 0.300 but some say 0.330 or even much higher would be better).

Please feel free to report issues you find in the discussion below and/or add them to the issues list.

Thanks and enjoy!

Views: 52778

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

such a vibration may to destroy any frame.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not soliciting donations from users.  ;)

I'm mostly just bummed that I can't fly it more!  That's the first time that I actually had fun flying the quad.  Not that quads are boring but... well they are sort of. ;)  Well, they're fun but in a different sort of way.  But now I know they can be FUN!

I couldn't get the silly grin off my face all night.

Now I can't wait to try Leonards new acro mode, which isn't in this release yet, you guys will have to wait for that, but I'll be pushing to get it out in short order.

I saw that vibration too. With only one prop on one motor it did not vibrate as I did balance the props. I think the problem was two fold: 12" props were too close to each other ; Arms were too long and too thin (12mm). The combination caused the arms to "twist". I think what happened was one arm/motor finally gave up and twisted sideways. With one motor now pointing sideways the Octo went wild and died a quick death. I am going to longer square aluminum arms and may go back to 11" props. This time I will bench test the crap out of it to verify ALL 8 motors run smooth and balanced.

Sorry to hear this!

I had the same happen on my X8 with EPP props. Switched to APC props (11 inch) and they seem to run a bit smoother. Could be my imagination. The blade edges on the APC is MUCH sharper too. Be warned, but don't ask me how I know.

I had this almost happen as well. Use lock-tite to secure the motor bolts. I have also had a motor loose the outer part because an e-clip came off.

 

That being said: you are scaring me now. I just changed my OctaQuad in to an Octocopter. U channel alu arms with 11" APC props, but the props only have 1.5cm (just over 1/2 inch) of space between them. I made a mistake doing that, will this be catastrophic? Would should minimal clearance be? I have flown with the U-channel arms on the Octo before, they were longer at the time, they had some twist, but it appeared to be no problem.

I also have lots of square aluminum that I could use and start all over again.

Just finished the physical build. Have not started to fly her yet.

 

 

Thanks, Randy.

Finally, I was  modified in CONFIG.pde,

//#define MAG_ORIENTATION  AP_COMPASS_COMPONENTS_DOWN_PINS_FORWARD

#define DMP_ENABLED ENABLED

// #define SECONDARY_DMP_ENABLED ENABLED     

//#define ACCEL_ALT_HOLD 0

//#define INERTIAL_NAV ENABLED

define LOGGING_ENABLED  ENABLED

Is it OK ?

Offers aren't solicitous.  The extras aren't doing anyone any good in the cardboard box they are in.  Heres hoping ya get back in the air soon...

I used lots of lock-tite but the tube motor mounts still twisted on the carbon tube.  I am now going to longer 12mm square aluminium tube with bolts going through the tubes.  I am going to try and get at least an inch (2mm+) between the props.  Not sure what the minimum distance is...

Ok, I interpreted your initial post as U channel aluminum that warped. Now by looking at the video on your post above it appears that your motor mounts rotated on the round carbon tube. Different problem. I might still be fine....

If anyone else needs or wants these motors and props, PM me. 

Well, i have a flamewheel 450 flying 4cell with low KV motors (700). The 12" props are almost touching. This really worried me to begin with (before i flew it) but actually it seems not to really matter, as long as they can't touch of course.

I've flown this setup with ardu, naza, multiwii and kk. Yes it handles differently compared to 8 or 10" props, or with different batteries and motors, all adjustable through tuning, but the distance between the props seems to matter not. 

Whether they stay on the motors, how balanced they are and whether the motors remain pointing in the right direction through out the flight are certainly of much greater concern.

There is probably an efficiency issue related to arm length/prop size/battery cells, but i think it will be a small percentage of not very much.

[I don't know why some posts in this discussion don't allow me to Reply, so I'll do it here/this way.]

Consider a proper groundplane. There are some who denigrate the Mediatek, and maybe it isn't as good as others that cost much more, but I bet many of those people aren't using it nearly optimally. I get excellent results from it, improved results you can immediately see for next to no cost. It's all about the antenna, and the UBlox has an advantage there when stock (the Mediatek is available with an external antenna input, don't know why they didn't choose that version since otherwise is the same for how we use it).

The groundplane (GP) size is not random, it must be cut to an appropriate size like all antenna elements. There are several good sizes for the Mediatek, and I chose the smallest of the two recommended/best-performing sizes: 76mmx36mm. 76mm is the length of a side of the standard 3DR quad stack plate, so this made it easy to mount on the top of my stack. I found it important that the GPS not be too near the Rx (directly over it was very bad) or the APM (2.5 here). It doesn't make any diff (here...) if the GP is grounded. The GPS module should be mounted so that the ceramic square is centered on the GP, and such that the long side of the GPS module is perpendicular to the long side of the GP. Height of GPS module over the GP does matter somewhat, but I didn't try to find the max. I found that with heatshrink on the GPS module and Velcro mounting to the GP was within the "good" spacing distance. [Yes I tested all this stuff (indoors) to see what works best, not just me being anal...] Oh yeah, I used single-sided thick copper fiberglass board for the GP, I didn't try double-sided which might be better (or not).

Without GP, indoors: 6-8 sats, usually 6, HDOP well over 1.0 with the 6 sats

With GP, indoors: 10-12 sats, HDOP = 0.72-0.80

Outdoors with GP: 14-15 sats, usually 15 (is that the max the module can do?). Don't know the HDOP, don't recall if it's logged either.

Bottom line is for little cost and effort the performance of the Mediatek can be noticeably improved.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service