The only direct request for public feedback that I have seen recently was in a google docs survey last year prior to the developer meetup. @james_pattison posted it here: Have Your Say: a short questionnaire to help the Unconference shape ArduPilot. There were quite a few comments about mission planner from users, and that was part of the reason I haven’t dropped the conversation. It’s interesting that about 50% of the users who responded are hobby users.
I shared the link to a few groups on facebook to get more appeal. The posts looked like this:
@Implicit, I also don’t understand why it’s so contentious… but I’m following this thread to understand why we all have differing opinions. Like @camti said, it’s a concrete vision that should unite us, and right now we each have a different one.
It is contentious because the different users all have different needs. But the biggest point is that there is no they out there to do this type of work. You just don’t seem to get that volunteers are what drive this type of organization beyond the core developers and it is not appropriate for the people with highly technical skill set to be managing user advisory committees etc.
I think what I quoted before remains worth noting:
For this project to be sustainable, be trusted and relevant, I believe it has to grow and look towards new horizons. This is unlikely to work without a sharpened focus.
1 Like
LuisVale
(Luís Vale Gonçalves)
Split this topic
105
Thank you for the clarification. I also hope that my stance can be clarified a little. It’s no doubt my stance on how MP should be improved, however I do not blame anyone or hold anyone here accountable. I’m not demanding that anything be dropped or re-prioritized, I can only suggest. I do, however, expect some communication to know what’s going on and what’s being planned. That helps me and everyone expand and focus their efforts without waste. If I go fully document MP right now, and then in a month it goes through this awesome change, you might see that everything must be re-done.
I think it would be great if there was more focus on finding more resources or personnel to support MP. I hope that @proficnc follows through and MP is actually focused on, but I still don’t know. Just like an unstable market, there’s little certainty without communication, and the volatility doesn’t make it attractive to invest (contribute). I don’t know if there is/was a search to have more people help on MP, and it didn’t really appear on the roadmap.
I think that we already discuss the MP makeover many times and each time we don’t manage to agree on something.
To be honest, I don’t like it for 3 reasons : C#, not really cross platform, and a big mess inside its codebase…
Instead of a makeover, I would really love a clean new GCS that people can easily contribute too… But as always, that is not the same amount of works and knowledge (without speaking about the transition for user and branding or commercial mess)
Sorry, @khancyr I splitted the thread upon request of the original poster. Perhaps, if you feel appropriate, could you repost this message to the MP thread?
edit:
I splitted again here, per request of the requester
@khancyr that is invaluable information related to this thread. You appear to know what’s going on a lot better than most of us. Said another way, I’m hearing that it’s more worthwhile to start new than improve MP. Is that correct?
Yep, that is my opinion. But as always, not everybody share the same point of view.
Moreover, the task to make people accept a lot of change at once is a real challenge… You can see that with chibios for example! People complain that it is a waste of effort, suddently find issue due to chibios(without reason), etc. Or you can still see people using old apm2.5 board…
Creating a new gui will be costly and need some guys that know gui development but should be a huge gain in future.
We do support QGC.
As a little history, APMPlanner2 started out basically being a new UI over QGC, as users (at the time) preferred the Missionplanner interface. Both APMPlanner and QGC are valid cross-platform options (as is MAVProxy).
I think there’s merit on having options for users. QGC is the option of choice if using iOS.
If this is the route that we end up going (QGC for user friendliness and cross-platform), then I’ll put more effort toward it instead of MP. I just really love MP features and wish it could really shine for everyone.
I can’t use qgc because it doesn’t support rc override so i can’t use joystick with it. It does support manual but arducopter doesn’t support buttons in manual.
Already did, they say it is arducopter that should support manual including buttons and i already asked here if it is possible to work with them to solve the issue but never got anywhere.
It looks like even is Ardupilot supports manual (for joystick) it doesn’t release the button usage, so if you try to configure joystick in QGC it says buttons are reserved for firmware.
Hello, @anon67614380 could you open an issue about that on ardupilot github. It shouldn’t be long to make a an AP_Virtual_Joystick class that implement and handle both rc_override and manual control.
I dunno. Maybe I am biased because I’ve used MP for a long time, but I don’t see it in its current form as needing a complete rewrite or makeover. Sure its not perfect and there are definitely a few clunky things, especially the control-F advanced or beta items page that could benefit from it’s own tab, perhaps some sort of ribbonized UI would also help navigate better.
But I also wonder if some of MP’s criticism comes not from MP itself, but from the inherent complexity of Ardupilot, (and as such is not MP’s “fault”), unavoidable imo because of its power and its aim at both the casual user and high end professional alike. Which explains why there are close to 1,000 parameters, many ways to connect, etc … But on that point I have yet to find a copter than won’t fly nicely (perhaps not “perfectly” without some autotune and tweaks) keeping all defaults values, and after just a few clicks in MP. In other words completely ignoring all advanced functionality where MP may get, well, complicated. And that for any kind of cheapo HK’s plastic frames with cheap motors/escs/props etc …, to 20kg octos with 30" props and 80A escs. (Heck, I even won a bet once with a friend (stupid bet in retrospect, admitedly, but I won, lol) flying an 8kg octo with a missing prop, and then no missing prop but one installed backwards. All on stock settings, and again after only a few setup clicks in MP). Hard for me, therefore, to fully agree that MP requires a complete makeover from it’s current form.
Another consideration that might be germane to this discussion is the opinion that a makeover will always leave something to be desired, and while it could benefit some users, it won’t others. If you don’t believe that come up with one program, or OS for that matter, that doesn’t have many perceived flaws by many. Win 10, MacOSX or Linux in any of its incarnations, desktop environments, etc … MS office suite, Adobe products, etc … Remember the first time you used Photoshop or Gimp, 3DS Max, or for that matter even something like Excel? etc …? Felt a bit lost if you didn’t seriously study documentation? Ramp up time? And even if you are an expert now, are you really fully satisfied with it’s UI? If you are, I’ll bet there’ll be a slew of users who will tell you the exact opposite.
In summary this is not a plea to keep things the same but a word of caution that any drastic makeover may very well end up pleasing some, yet alienate others. With the net result, after all the work, being a wash. Also explains why, as you say, “we already discuss the MP makeover many times and each time we don’t manage to agree on something”
