Hi,
I understand this is a support forum, but I have never seen any other controller’s support forum, that is talking about crashes as much as this one! Ever other post, if not more, is about someone crashing! In other forums you see “real” support questions and not only crash reports… wow!
KMD
@kmd1984,
Maybe there are more ArduCopter equipped multicopters out there in the sUAS environment than any other flight controller resulting in a relatively higher number of “incidents”.
Also we try to learn as much as possible from each crash report tlog or data flash log in order to provide effective “support” to the members of this Forum.
Regards,
TCIII GM
I get what you are saying, but the ratio is off. If you look at other forums, regards other FC, there are no where near as many posts about crashing. They are mostly about not getting it to work. Anyhow, i am in desperate need of downgrading from 3.2 to 3.1.5 and already posted another post. Hopefully someone can help me…
thanks,
G
I have had a few crashes myself. In each case I found that the problem was me not the Pixhawk or AC.
I spent plenty of time getting ready for the FC, reading everything that was current and relevant about setting up and configuring. Maybe I just got lucky but mine flew very well on it’s maiden flight.
I started slow in manual modes with a few limited excursions in to Position Hold. Now after 6 weeks and many flights I am just beginning to try the more autonomous functions.
The range of adjustments and capabilities make this a much more complex system than many other FCs.
That is part of the draw for me, the challenge and possibilities. Part of the sense of accomplishment is found in the journey not just the final destination.
If I wanted quick and easy I would have bought a DJI.
I appreciate all the hard work that has paved the way for my fun, even if it means another crash sooner of later that is not my fault.
Nobody takes time to write about "just another successful flight"
I’ve been flying Arduplane and Arducopter commercially for years.
Never had a crash, flying with payloads between US $5…40k.
[quote=“parkgt”]… If I wanted quick and easy I would have bought a DJI…[/quote] Really?! You must not have a family, a job, or stuff to do then if you are happy to spend your time with something like getting a Multirotor to work, ha ha. Hey, whatever rocks your boat!
thanks,
KMD
[quote=“Andre-K”]Nobody takes time to write about "just another successful flight"
I’ve been flying Arduplane and Arducopter commercially for years.
Never had a crash, flying with payloads between US $5…40k.[/quote]
I believe you are missing the point. I am not going to a junkyard and are surprised that all the cars are… you guess it - JUNK! I am comparing this forum to other forums. In other forums you find many other topics OTHER than “I crashed”… Here is just seems to be very lopsided…
Anyhow, happy to hear that you have no doubts about your machine…!
thanks,
KMD
The nature of Ardupilot (open source) makes it very accessible to many - there are thousands of controllers flying.
Many of those that prefer to not read instructions, are also likely to do a sloppy job putting things together, skip testing, barely understanding what different modes do, they crash - and write…
Then you have a whole lot of those that read , test, and understand - and do it properly - sometimes they ask questions too, but often search for an answer first. This group , should they crash, are also able to do some basic log analysis, because ardupilot have great(est?) logging options. - so they don’t write that much.
KMD, do you have a question, or just came here to complain?
I think your statement that you don’t see crashes with other systems is either because you aren’t looking in the right places, or you’re biased. I monitor other forums for other systems, and there are plenty of crashes. I think one difference is that our users can come here and get actual support, and actually find out the root cause of the crash. Other systems have little to no support from the people who actually know how they work. Users don’t bother asking the cause of the crash, because they know they will never find out.
For example, this crash which cost about $8000:
[attachment=0]15267606173_3d06bb93fd_o.jpg[/attachment]
Was never figured out, that I’m aware of.
Some of the other systems have a policy where, they simply do not talk about crashes. It’s an Apple mentality, that if you just don’t talk about them, they don’t exist. Users quickly learn that complaining about it is pointless as you never get anything out of it.
That being said, yes, Arducopter is more complicated and easy to use than other systems. It has WAY more features. And since it is also one of the lowest cost systems available, with some users buying clone hardware for only $100, we attract a lot of new users. So, is it a problem with Arducopter? Or is it that we are one of the most accessible (both in cost, and access to developers) that leads to this appearance that it is unreliable?
[quote=“Andre-K”]The nature of Ardupilot (open source) makes it very accessible to many - there are thousands of controllers flying.
Many of those that prefer to not read instructions, are also likely to do a sloppy job putting things together, skip testing, barely understanding what different modes do, they crash - and write…
Then you have a whole lot of those that read , test, and understand - and do it properly - sometimes they ask questions too, but often search for an answer first. This group , should they crash, are also able to do some basic log analysis, because ardupilot have great(est?) logging options. - so they don’t write that much.[/quote]
I agree with everything you say, but wouldn’t this apply to other pilots, with other FC’s as well. I think it would. However, I think I got to the bottom of this… see my next post.
KMD
[quote=“Rob_Lefebvre”]KMD, do you have a question, or just came here to complain?
I think your statement that you don’t see crashes with other systems is either because you aren’t looking in the right places, or you’re biased. I monitor other forums for other systems, and there are plenty of crashes. I think one difference is that our users can come here and get actual support, and actually find out the root cause of the crash. Other systems have little to no support from the people who actually know how they work. Users don’t bother asking the cause of the crash, because they know they will never find out.
For example, this crash which cost about $8000:
[attachment=0]15267606173_3d06bb93fd_o.jpg[/attachment]
Was never figured out, that I’m aware of.
Some of the other systems have a policy where, they simply do not talk about crashes. It’s an Apple mentality, that if you just don’t talk about them, they don’t exist. Users quickly learn that complaining about it is pointless as you never get anything out of it.
That being said, yes, Arducopter is more complicated and easy to use than other systems. It has WAY more features. And since it is also one of the lowest cost systems available, with some users buying clone hardware for only $100, we attract a lot of new users. So, is it a problem with Arducopter? Or is it that we are one of the most accessible (both in cost, and access to developers) that leads to this appearance that it is unreliable?[/quote]
Rob,
First things first. Sorry about your crash. Second, I am not biased. Third, I don’t have a question, nor do I complain.
I came here to check out this forum, since I have a Pixhawk and might be in need of some help, sooner or later. That’s when I noticed that pretty much every other title has the word “crash” in it. So I made a comment about it. Nothing wrong with that.
Having said that, I figured out why [I thought] there are so much more titles saying crash in them, in this forum, compared to other forums. I went to do a simple post/title count to proof my point, on rcgroups and that’s when I noticed that rcg is simply structured different that this forum. Over here you click APM:Copter, then 3.2 and you are right in the middle of the action! At rcg you have to go to Multirotor Helis -> Multirotor Electronics -> e.g. “Witespy RTFhawk 2.4.5 for APM” and then you finally get to see some links about that particular FC. So in other words; it is way more spread out over there, than it is over here.
I believe that is the reason why my first impression was that there are way more crash related posts over here, (and as such with the Pixhawk) than anywhere else. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
KMD
[quote=“kmd1984”]
… but wouldn’t this apply to other pilots, with other FC’s as well. I think it would. However, I think I got to the bottom of this… see my next post.
KMD[/quote]
Yes, it kind of does.
Again, I think Ardupilot is extra accessible, because of cheap hardware, and cheaper clones.
Also, this forum is very open, any kind of AP related rant gets to stay, few manufacturers that have something remotely similar , as any bad post would be deleted. How many other systems do you see publish logs to have a comunity help them with looking at it ?
Developers read this forums too, and we all learn from others mistakes and things that logs prove to need improvement.
This is a great resource for those who need high realiability. If any part of tha AP/software may be suspected of failing, and maybe need more testing - it’s easy to spot it.
So I say “much more users, some of whom are less careful due to cheap solutions, and a open , uncensored forums.” - is a reason for what you see.
[quote=“kmd1984”]
Rob,
First things first. Sorry about your crash. Second, I am not biased. Third, I don’t have a question, nor do I complain.
I came here to check out this forum, since I have a Pixhawk and might be in need of some help, sooner or later. That’s when I noticed that pretty much every other title has the word “crash” in it. So I made a comment about it. Nothing wrong with that.
Having said that, I figured out why [I thought] there are so much more titles saying crash in them, in this forum, compared to other forums. I went to do a simple post/title count to proof my point, on rcgroups and that’s when I noticed that rcg is simply structured different that this forum. Over here you click APM:Copter, then 3.2 and you are right in the middle of the action! At rcg you have to go to Multirotor Helis -> Multirotor Electronics -> e.g. “Witespy RTFhawk 2.4.5 for APM” and then you finally get to see some links about that particular FC. So in other words; it is way more spread out over there, than it is over here.
I believe that is the reason why my first impression was that there are way more crash related posts over here, (and as such with the Pixhawk) than anywhere else. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: [/quote]
Yes, RCG tends to have only a few, ginormous threads about each flight controller, and crash reports are spread throughout. But since this is a manufacturer run support forum dedicated to just one or two controllers, we prefer and encourage users to open a new report with every crash or issue or question, so that it is easier to track. I know I certainly find it easier to track issues with them separated into manageable chunks, instead of one giant thread that just flows.
But trust me, read through any of the giant threads for other systems, and maybe search within them for “crash” or “flyaway” and you’ll see plenty of problems reported there too.
APM 2.6 has worked flawless from the first flight on. Autotune, loiter, RTL, Alt Hold, Auto and Stabilize have not had any issues, with 2 different quads up to an 850 size with 16" props. Both are scratch built frames and COTS components.
Did I mention I have never had a crash with the 3DR APM 2.6 