Gimbal Control in 2.5.x

My APM2 quad flies very well.  My gimbal control works well also, and with the advanced settings have calibrated it to stabilize my gopro OK.  But the movement is slower than other FC's I've used, more noticeably around the center position.  It acts as if there is a "D" value slowing it down in the center.

Is anyone else using a gimbal and doing well?  Maybe it is my setup.  I have abandoned my NAZA in favor of the APM2, but the NAZA was very quick in gimbal control.

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Email me when people reply –


  • What is needed is simply a linear system.  Right now the gimbal control is too slow to keep up with the movement.  If I roll the quad and then return, the gimbal slowly returns to center, it creeps the last little bit.  No dampening is needed here.  Much of the strength and speed of the gimbal is dependent on the servos, mine are designed for gimbals and are fast.  But the APM2 is slowing the response given to the servos compared to quad movement.

    I was hoping someone else was using the gimbal control and will let me know if they had the same response. 

  • would the D term not improve the rate not make it worse?


    Im no engineer or anything but this is how i thought it tied in together - proportional is how big the gap is, integral is the gap over time, and derivitave is the rate of change of the gap. If you look at it like

    Proportion => Distance (m) => how far from where you want to be

    Integral => Speed (m/s) => how fast you want to get there (if your not moving fast enough in a boat the current will take you the other way) this eliminates the offset over time

    Derivitave => Acceleration (m/s/s) => if your drifting really fast you can give a big burst of acceleration to get you headding the right way faster, this gives a faster response.


This reply was deleted.


David Hori liked Isabella Domi's profile
Jan 12
gotham liked gotham's profile
Dec 3, 2020