ArduCopter 2.9.2ß: position hold near "DJI Wookong-M" performance!

Today I did a lot of testing and tuning with the new unreleased beta version of ArduCopter code, known as "2.9.2ß" (V3 i think for the official exit), quad with APM V2.5 and U-Blox GPS by 3DRobotics.
The inertial control developed by Leonard and Randy, with the support of Jason, is finally giving the results that for over a year all we are waiting.
To be perfectly sure I've repeated this test at least 10 times in three different flight, with the same great performance.
As you can see from this image and video the max radius in Loiter is now not over one meter in windless/gusty winds and max two meters in strong crosswind, near the position hold performance of the best commercial product, DJI Wookong-M.
We are trying to improve the waypoint navigation but now we're here, the next release will be really a milestone.
We still have to solve a few problems related to the inertial control x/y/z, but I am sure that the excellent results achieved so far are to mean that we are on the right track.
I attach the telemetry log.
DJI, here we come...


-= AC Dev Team =-

EDIT: in my video you can see the version "3" of the code, nothing secret of course, is the current master branch on GitHub called at the moment "2.9.1b-DEV".
Jason Short on the dev list has proposed to move version from 2.9.1 to 3.x for the massive changes inside the code (ap_hal, PX4 support and other), and following its proposal I have appointed as such in my videos, that's all.


Views: 20783

Comment by novrizal herdananto on April 14, 2013 at 8:26pm

great news, one more step to perfection...

Comment by Graham Dyer on April 14, 2013 at 11:35pm

It's going to have to be ArduCopter v3.0!

Comment by Marco Robustini on April 14, 2013 at 11:48pm

@Robert: yes, the inertial controller were capable of holding the copter "completely" motionless, with the obvious limits of MPU6000.
On average U-Blox GPS here in Italy has an error of about 3 meters, no further, I have done tests about half an hour.
In fact without the inertial control that is the radius that I always had with version 2.9.1.
It's obvious that the error of the GPS remains but the inertial discriminates against excessive movement, the result is what you see in the log.
It would be interesting to try now with MTK.

Comment by theo van niekerk on April 15, 2013 at 12:44am

Marco would i be correct in assuming that in theory we will be able to have position hold without gps....??? within reason....

Comment by Graham Dyer on April 15, 2013 at 12:46am

Yes, there are many more APM's flying with MTK GPS's than Ublox, there will be a lot of disappointment if the new changes are optimised only for the Ublox.

Comment by Marco Robustini on April 15, 2013 at 12:52am

@Graham: to compare the performance of the new inav controller with other commercial products must have a gps to their height, DJI and Mikrokopter use U-Blox chipset in their GPS, not a cheap MTK.
@Theo: in theory yes, but it is obvious that the wind could still translate to the quad, the inertial controller can not do everything alone.

Comment by theo van niekerk on April 15, 2013 at 12:59am

@marco, agreed however that would also mean then we could of position hold indoors? with no GPS plugged in....

Comment by theo van niekerk on April 15, 2013 at 1:02am

Within reason again...

Comment by John Arne Birkeland on April 15, 2013 at 1:18am

Theo: The main problem with using inertia alone for positioning, is that the error rate builds. The position will be fine for a couple of seconds and then the error rate will start to increase rapidly. Making inertia positioning stable for longer periods of time is something even highly specialized and very expensive full-scale aircraft systems struggle with.

Comment by Graham Dyer on April 15, 2013 at 1:30am

@Marco: Yes, but there are more APM's with cheap MTK than expensive U-Blox, fact, no matter how you look at it or what you compare it to. U-Blox is an upgrade, standard APM2.5 comes with MTK so you have to make sure it works 100% on lowest common denominator.


You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service