We'd like to share with you a study around the current state of UI related to drone flights to find positive aspects and improvements areas on them.

14 tools were analysed through video tutorials, technical specifications and actual usageAny tools and applications, mobile or desktop, which deal in some way with flight planning and monitoring. They are not necessarily Ground Control Stations. The experience were evaluated accordingly with how they support users achieving goals.


It was done on September, 2015. The features evaluated were the ones available until that. If you find any mistake on this document, please report it to us.

We are intending to release studies like this regularly, so if you think it's useful for you someway, please give us any feedback. 

Here you can access the entire report and here you can access an interactive graph with the findings.

Hope you enjoy!

Views: 1675

Comment by Winston S. Aquino Zabala on February 5, 2016 at 10:23am

Totally agree with the results of the analysis, impressive.

Comment by JB on February 5, 2016 at 10:46am

Um out of interest what does "pretending to release studies like this" mean? Was this just a "test" study?

Cool grphics btw.

Comment by Beatriz Palmeiro on February 5, 2016 at 10:51am

@JB I mean do more studies like this. Maybe focused on some task or feature. Does it make sense?
@Winston Thanks!

Comment by Bill Bonney on February 5, 2016 at 11:58am

For iOS, how come no data on MAV Pilot or iDroneCtrl but you have Hover (Hover must improve on all aspects of being a GCS as it's not a GCS! It's news and weather app with a log timer)

Comment by Beatriz Palmeiro on February 5, 2016 at 12:17pm

Hi Bill! For sure we will include these apps into our next study. Thank you for the references. About Hover, yep, some other tools on our research isn't GCS but some UI used during flight to help with some information or something else what means that not necessarily if a UI isn't able to achieve a task, it isn't a good UI, it isn't a judgment. In some cases it just mean that the specific tool doesn't attend this proposal. Does it make sense?

Comment by Bill Bonney on February 5, 2016 at 12:32pm

@Beatriz Yep, that make sense (well Hover doesn't make sense ;)) I'd like to see your critique of the other apps I listed. 

Also, there's no Weather component in QGC, or Follow-me functionality in APM Planner 2.0 (I think it would be good to double check the features that are available, QGC is very much a moving target at the moment as they are speedily doing upgrades and improvements to that code)

Comment by Beatriz Palmeiro on February 5, 2016 at 12:35pm

I'll check the information. Thanks!

Comment by James Wright on February 5, 2016 at 8:48pm
Very interesting, it looks like your team did a lot of work! May I ask why the research was carried out? I noticed Intel on the report. Is there plans for a new ground station software to be created?

Also another major feature of ground stations in my opinion is video intergration. All my uavs use digital data links and hd video, tower for example allows me to display the video in the program! (Analog systems I feel need to be replaced!)


Comment by Gary Mortimer on February 5, 2016 at 11:29pm

Which ones are STANAG compliant? One might argue some of those GCS are for the toy market only....I see Intel sponsored the study if the branding is to be believed. 

Comment by Bill Bonney on February 6, 2016 at 10:02am
The study was done by people from Intel in Brazil


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

Join DIY Drones

© 2020   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service