Which sonar to get MB1200 or MB1260 ...

I just did 2 flights on 2.0.36 with the MB1200 flight 1 and MB1260 and 2.0.36 code changed to scale the MB1260 sonar on the 2nd flight.

Flight 1. The MB1200 worked well as I tried previously with 2.0.37. Altitude hold worked well at all altitudes and the data was very clean. There were a few drop outs as the quad got up near 700 cms but alt hold held together.

Flight 2. The MB1260 with doubled samples (for VCC/1024/2 scaling) did not fly as well. Alt hold did hold but there was some weird jumps at 6 ft altitude. At lower altitudes the sonar worked as well as the MB1200. At higher altitudes where it was mixing with baro, it wasn't holding very well. I looked at the data and there was sonar noise at the higher altitudes. I wouldn't call the MB1260 a clean replacement with scaling added. The reported altitude values did line up with the baro altitude indicating that the scaling seemed get the right output values.

I'll try later today just flying the MB1260 without the doubling of the sample values (stock 2.0.36) and see how it does. However right now I'll switch back to the MB1200 after my next couple of experiments.

Replies

Heino R. Pull July 20, 2011 at 11:51am

I just did 2 flights on 2.0.36 with the MB1200 flight 1 and MB1260 and 2.0.36 code changed to scale the MB1260 sonar on the 2nd flight.

Flight 1. The MB1200 worked well as I tried previously with 2.0.37. Altitude hold worked well at all altitudes and the data was very clean. There were a few drop outs as the quad got up near 700 cms but alt hold held together.

Flight 2. The MB1260 with doubled samples (for VCC/1024/2 scaling) did not fly as well. Alt hold did hold but there was some weird jumps at 6 ft altitude. At lower altitudes the sonar worked as well as the MB1200. At higher altitudes where it was mixing with baro, it wasn't holding very well. I looked at the data and there was sonar noise at the higher altitudes. I wouldn't call the MB1260 a clean replacement with scaling added. The reported altitude values did line up with the baro altitude indicating that the scaling seemed get the right output values.

I'll try later today just flying the MB1260 without the doubling of the sample values (stock 2.0.36) and see how it does. However right now I'll switch back to the MB1200 after my next couple of experiments.
Heino R. Pull July 16, 2011 at 5:44am

I have both of these sonars and have flown both on my stock quad. I bought the 1260 when I was having trouble with 2.29 and my 1200 sonar and wanted to see if my 1200 was bad (and the 1200 was out of stock). As far as I know the scaling on the 1260 is the same as the 1200 so it should work the same - but I'm not an expert on the differences. My results were a little better with the 1260 although I have gone back to the 1200 to stay compatible with the group while beta testing. The big difference between the two that I noticed was the min height was better on the 1260 (29 cm vs 36 cm). The recorded altitudes in the log on the 1260 seemed a little less noisy than the 1200 also. Ymmv but I did get alt hold to work on the 1260.

Heino

This reply was deleted.

Discussions

Which sonar to get MB1200 or MB1260 ...

Replies

Activity