Working through the (very confusing) process of tuning my quad. Custom lots of things to make it different from the "stock" frame that a lot use here. That being said I know that the motors, props and frames will fly well given the right tuning and autopilot platform.
I had 2.5.5 set up on this frame, and it was flying relatively well, with the exception that yaw performance was what I would describe as exceptionally poor. Bad response time, and the other axis of motion would be affected when yaw was commanded (yaw input caused significant wobbling). Acro was what I would describe as unflyable. While I was working on the yaw issue, 2.6 became available.
2.6 has brought a whole new series of behaviors and tuning stabilize is far more difficult than it was before. So I'm back retuning, but having issue getting back to where I was. The other platforms I've used insist on tuning Acro first as a base, then moving up to stabilize. Why is that not the case here, is the control loop such that it doesn't matter to sabilize? I can fly an acro quad quite well (as well as a multitude of CP helis), and I've never had issue tuning them. Can anyone shed any light on any of this?
Motors are Hacker 20-26M's
150W 1130kV (I know this is a bit on the high side, and again they have been proven to work well
Props are APC 9x4.7,
APM 2.0
Replies
At this point, the yaw rate is directly controlled by Yaw_Stab_P parameter. The higher it is, the faster it will turn. Unfortunately, this also controls the autopilot control loop, and tuning it up too high can lead to oscillation.
I plan to seperate these functions out at some point, hopefully soon.
You can try the simulator. Yaw is pretty low since we use it mainly as a casual flyer and Autopilot. You can increase the Yaw gain to get better performance. Robert has a new Yaw control scheme that is intended to give more performance. It didn't make it into 2.6, but it is being tested now.
Sim is at www.jasonshort.com