Mission Planner "Makeover"

[proficnc]

Yes it was 4 months ago…

We released hardware that the developer team can now make firmware for.

I’m not sure what else you want to hear. If the community feels that CAN is the priority, then it will get done.

One of the biggest sticking points with CAN, was the fact that there isn’t much CAN hardware in the hands of the community, so therefore, motivation to get CAN done was low.

So we have released CAN hardware with a fully functioning CAN boot loader.

It’s 100% ready for can firmware.

And the OMD team are working on that.

And now we have hired 2 full time!

So please, help the community.

[anon67614380]

So in the release note i posted up in this thread the phrase “UAVCAN is on its way” what you meant was “it’ll come when the community will develop firmware for it?”

If so, maybe it should have been a bit clearer to customers. The way it was put i read it like your company was developing UAVCAN support for it to be used with AC 3.6 (wich already supports UAVCAN).

So just to make things clearer, who are the people supposed to develop the support for UAVCAN for Here2?

This is a quote from your press release:
“Out of the box, HERE2 supports standard serial port + I2C transmission data, just plug it in as you did with the previous generation. With support for CAN bus on the way, the HERE2 can be switched through the built-in mechanical switch and the included CAN cable.”

Now if the truth is that UAVCAN will arrive when the community will pick up interest in it than the press release sounds a bit misleading, no?

[Naterater (Nathan E)]

This doesn’t need to go any further off topic here and we do not need to be picking sides or even discussing if we are for or against making changes to Mission Planner. It APPEARS that Hex/ProfiCNC have agreed that further improvement of mission planner is important.

If this thread and it’s derivatives are seen as significant criticism, then WOW there are a lot of critics. The original Facebook poll and ardupilot survey do not lie. Requesting changes and providing valuable feedback and suggestions is NOT criticism. I would think criticism is more along the lines of saying the program and its developers are total garbage and everyone should steer clear of the program and focus elsewhere.

I know how most of the community feels about Mission Planner, and I hope that hiring the 1 maintainer of Mission Planner achieves the goal of improving it. I fear that the Ardupilot team has little control over this critical software, and now that “money talks” we have to trust that Michael’s employer will cater his work to their customers requests.

I have seen plenty of marketing and promises here without follow-through in the past, and I’ve learned not to trust everything that I hear. Hopefully this works. I also hope the app comes soon (2 years soon).

[Quadzilla (brandon macdougall)]

I not sure if this is good news or bad news. How will this effect Open Source if MP is under the control of a Chinese manufacture that would naturally control the software to best suit it’s agenda or will HEx follow the open source bylaws. Sound like this could be a DJI knows best scenario.

[camti (TI)]

Firstly, the FAQ about this forum states:

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion
Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. [emphasis mine]
[…] keep this a clean, well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

This is put right at the start of the FAQs, and for good reason, I believe. So I encourage to keep this civil and respectful, in word and in attitude.

(If there are concerns with hardware sold, they should probably first be addressed to the vendor, who in turn will (hopefully) solve them with their supplier.
Generally being an “early adopter”, I have also on occasion found (in any space of tech), that when hardware is released, firmware and OS support is not always up to speed on initial releases.
I agree that it would be desirable if the adverts/ announcements of anything released to any market fully matches the expectations of paying users. Yet I also have come to learn over time with a wide variety of products, that to smoothly coordinate the entire process of development, production and distribution/ delivery, along with support and good documentation is not a trivial thing to achieve. In this some grace and patience is helpful - and from the supplier side a realistic time line and rather under-promising needed. But let’s keep this thread on track.)

As far as Mission Planner is concerned, it seems like it has a really wide-spread use - whenever there is a video or other images, whether in a hobbyist context, in research or in a commercial setting, very often MP can be seen. And it can do a lot! There are even many features that allow to do helpful things that are hardly/ not yet documented or polished.
Yet I would also agree, that the usability could definitely be improved/ streamlined in various areas, as well as helpful features be added.

For that, I think it is helpful to think beyond purely a software and instead come from a perspective of an overall workflow, and view this more as a tool to accomplish a task.
In that, MP is a pivotal piece for many users, but one that should enhance the overall process; it is unlikely an end on its own (for most users).

I believe today already Mission Planner is used in various settings to accomplish a variety of tasks. Ones that gather data by the use of a UAV, bring value and ultimately aid in decision making.
With all it’s capabilities, MP is well set to continue to be this very crucial component. Yet there is room to grow to bring it to full potential.

Therefore, I think it would be wise, when discussing a “Makeover” rather than already concretely looking at which features should be changed/ added/ improved/ adapted, to first take a step back. And instead to take a well-moderated, good and deeper look at where this GCS, at a higher level, could and should lead to, taking into account user needs and use-scenarios.

And to then lay out a road-map, so users know where this is all headed, as well as communicate the progress.
After this has been gathered and is clear, concrete input on how to achieve this in a user-friendly way may make more sense.

But before that it would be very helpful to leave the silo and look how this all fits into the developing UAV world at large, taking trends and the needs of emerging verticals into account. I would not be surprised if a more modular approach for the GCS would be one outcome, to satisfy user needs.

Lastly: I realize that what I am about to say may be a somewhat touchy subject in an Open Source community. I do see the work and experience that somebody has put into a project as valuable! And if this software/ service/ support helps me to do my tasks faster, safer, more efficient, I don’t have a problem paying something adequate for it either.
(I can gladly (continue to) contribute with donations, suggestions for helpful or desirable features, or point out bugs or other shortcomings and improvements - yet I simply don’t have the knowledge, skills or time to contribute with code/ PRs… and I think I am not alone.)

While software programming is certainly a creative challenge and can be enriching for the sake of just that and it can simply be fun to develop something that “works”, I want to suggest to look also beyond enthusiasts and take into view those members in the community that want to/ need to/ do employ the tools offered here in a commercial context. If they gain value, they may be open to buy a license for a premium version with special features and prime support, thereby contributing funds for more effort to go towards more development and continued growth. (Not every company (MP-user) is large enough to sponsor a larger feature development.)

I don’t have an answer or an exact model as to how to practically and fairly do this, but consider this quote:

No large open source company has successfully survived solely on donations. Nonetheless, these other four business models—and the successful companies that have adopted them—are the proof that open source software can be at the heart of a sustainable and profitable business https://opensource.com/article/17/12/open-source-business-models

[anon94298870]

@Naterater, can you please provide us with where you found that information? I have looked on this forum high and low to no avail!

I sure hope this new app and the work that @proficnc is paying Michael to do is going to also follow the open source way. If I were a business and “hired” developers to make a new software that they the company “paid” people to build I can see them making it closed source or at least a paid for product just like UGCS and the others, they need to make their money back some way or another.

@proficnc
I may be wrong but we purchased a cpl of your original pixhawk cubes and I never on any website or even my invoice saw a place where it said this is beta, I did however see some places metion an alpha releases.

I do however see that the new herelink clearly states that this is a beta version. Have never seen that stated on your website for any product before.
This by no means is “hate” as you state and this is by no mean nasty as @camti made sure we knew about rules. No names have been called and although you can take typed words as whatever attitude you’d like! This is simple constructive criticism (albeit a bit straightforward and no sugar coating.) If I would have taken all the times I was criticized as “hate” then boy I wouldn’t have gotten very far. You are in a business and being in a business opens you up to constructive criticism (and nonconstructive criticism, its how folks respond to that, that makes the difference) and also customers that are not happy with products simple as that. I think one thing that may have put folks off is that you stated its the communities responsibility to come up with docs on products you make. I would say yes and no. In my opinion (again everyone is entailed to one) it is not wholly the responsibility for the community to come up with docs about specifics on your products, but I would say it would be part of the communities responsibility to come up with use case scenarios that were not clearly defined in your docs or specifications. Could I seek clarification on who is proficnc and who is hex are they the same entity or separate? You know how many people have asked simple questions about the new mini carrier board such as pinouts, how to change voltage from 5 to 3.3, how to switch from PWM or specktrum, or what simple pins are simply because of the lack of documents that the original seller provided, this to me does not seem like a community responsibility at all as we did not design it or engineered it.serial 4/5 on mini, ppm vs spek, 3.3v vs. 5v just a few example of simple questions I believe the folks that make it should answer.

Sorry @Naterater for making this so off topic but this also has relevance with your issues with MP.

[Naterater (Nathan E)]

Those posts were on Facebook in various groups. I think “The Cube Autopilot by ProfiCNC/Hex”

The original poll was from the ardupilot.org group.

[proficnc]

if you do not know that ProfiCNC is Philip Rowse, then I do not know where you have been.

I Also do not know how you even found out about the first batch of the cube black, if you were not on one of the forums where we announced it. the first batch was ALWAYS announced as a BETA.

As far as being in business… I have been doing contract designing for many companies to supplement my income. 90% of what I have don here has NOT been paid… Thankfully, Hex has been kind enough to support me and go out on a limb and make all of these products. they have up till very recently been running at a loss on all of this.

Now that we are finally seeing a return, they are paying me half a weeks wages, and we have now just hired 3 more full time developers…
So If you wish to attack us for keeping this all going with no external support… great… keep it up.
But I’m off to celebrate Christmas, and will be offline toll the 6th of January. feel free to take this time and think about how you would like to use my time, and yours…

I.E. if you are finding that there is information lacking in the wiki… feel free to ask me for the information… and then feel free to put it in the wiki!

I have provided pin-outs and pictures of the mini carrier for those that asked… any of you could have put it in the wiki.

[anon67614380]

Still taking it personally and still using the poor guy attitude, no answer yet on the precise questions about press release uavcan support “on the way” statement.

No one is attacking here, lets put it this way, i bought an Here 2 believing your statement about “support is on the way”, after 4 months still no support, when is it coming?

All the stuff about producing at a loss and all the rest is a free choice, it can’t be turn on to customers.

[mike (mike kelly)]

In my mind there is a difference in making suggestions, requesting changes or features and harping on it. It is totally appropriate to request changes, to want fixes. But this community is not a big corporation like DJI. I am sure Philip worked hard just to find a company that would manufacture his cube designs without a guarantee of large volume. If you don’t get that DIY is all about experimenting, using the ideas that others have shared. There are seldom guarantees. The innovators are small groups of a couple of people working to bring an idea to fruition and they often have to do the engineering and fill the orders. There are often production problems that must be overcome. I am not saying that perceived poor customer service is good or OK. But i think the reality is that these people are doing the best they can and have ups and downs.

A lot of you don’t seem to realize that good documentation is the most expensive part of the development. A one man show developer can choose to write great documentation or work on the debugging the design. Good documentation writers are hard to find.

I think it may just seem a little ungrateful to a developer when they are working their butts off to try and achieve something with very little resources and someone creates a thread that seems like it is saying “you are ignoring my requests and I think these points are more important than anything else you are doing at the moment so why are you not responding?”

I think you need to come into this community giving the players a little slack. These are passionate people really doing the best they can. Are they gong to make mistakes? Sure. Are they going to fall behind and not get something out when they thought they could? Yes. Are they going to have to take a paying contract to do something else for a few weeks to get the bills paid? Probably.

It is just the way it is on the bleeding edge of new ideas. Not saying it is good just saying it is that way.

[iampete (Peter Hall)]

I think your exactly right, Devs either do something because there getting paid or because there solving a problem there experiencing or adding a cool new feature or to help someone out.

‘Make overs’ such as this take ages and do not actually add and new features. Therefor is hard to get anyone motivated to take on the job.

The make over would definitely be good for new users but offers little to people more familiar with mission planner. Hence anyone with the money or experience to make such changes would gain little.

You could put in a request to the funding committee to pay for someone to make the changes or I guess collect some up some donations from the community.

[Naterater (Nathan E)]

@mike

A lot of you don’t seem to realize that good documentation is the most expensive part of the development. A one man show developer can choose to write great documentation or work on the debugging the design. Good documentation writers are hard to find.

I think the number one reason that nobody from the community is giving documentation is because things change so often… literally overnight without warning. No release notes, no nothing. I am 100% willing to work on documentation, but at the moment I’m pretty sure that I would be wasting my time.

@mike

I think it may just seem a little ungrateful to a developer when they are working their butts off to try and achieve something with very little resources and someone creates a thread that seems like it is saying “you are ignoring my requests and I think these points are more important than anything else you are doing at the moment so why are you not responding?”

This is about the only feedback I’ve received from Michael on this topic, so I don’t know if it’s going to be a priority in the future or if I should start documenting now. There’s been pretty consistent feedback from the community that the GUI needs improvement (not features). There’s no roadmap, and there’s no communication. We literally have no idea what’s going on or what development is taking so much time. That’s unlike the rest of the ardupilot project that gives community members an idea of what might be coming in the next year and why developers are busy (think of the move to ChibiOS and need for testing). I’ve tried to be very public about this conversation to request feedback from many users. It appears that that type of conversation is not welcome based on the feedback here. That’s sad. Really sad.

I’ve published numerous ideas and started lots of conversation about what a good path forward looks like. Evidently my path forward isn’t good enough, even though I’ve proposed broad and specific changes that I would like. I am putting my full effort to this. I guess it’s just a waste.

@mike

I think you need to come into this community giving the players a little slack.

@mike

Making a suggestion about changes to any aspect of Ardupilot is fine but acting upset that no one has jumped on your suggestion or that the devs are purposely ignoring you is wrong

This purposeful ignoring is wrong. It’s counter-productive. And I’m not upset. I’m trying different methods of communication in an attempt to get things moving. It’s been a year since this conversation started. I guess even that is not enough.

The HUGE assumption that everyone is making is that this takes a TON of effort and time to make these changes. Does it really? Do my list of changes really take more than a few hours? Nobody has answered that question, and everyone is assuming that this is some monumental request.

You might also understand that there is some give-and-take where we can all win here. If GUI’s and layouts are improved, I will document them - publish full wiki pages with the information, etc. That’s not the technically difficult part.

[mike (mike kelly)]

Nathan, I think Peter did a better job than me above. Thousands of people use Mission Planner. You have 89, from a non-technical forum, who would like it different. The makeover just does not appear to have “legs”. There are lots of requests for change. They can only do the most popular.

[Naterater (Nathan E)]

If you want to ignore the majority of users (and not just slightly over 50% - closer around 80%), then go ahead. That’s why inav and vector are still so popular. They’re easy and ardupilot’s face (primarily Mission Planner) isn’t. It’s not rocket science, and I refuse to believe that the history of thousands of downloads means that it does not need significant graphic/workflow changes as numerous users above have said.

[MartyMcFly (MartinKeilloh)]

I dont normally get involved in these debates Nathan,but have been around Inav,Vector for a few years,firstly Vector has a decent OSD,and easy to set up,next Inave is a lot more difficult to navigate and when it comes to its way points its a joke and finall we have Mission Planner that is just simply ausume more features than any thing else,constantly being updated and Ardupilot getting more features regularly a winner for me,if you are not happy with the heat in the kitchen move to a cooler kitchen or write code to help out,a simple choice really

[anon67614380]

It almost always ends up like this, everything is already perfect and if you think different you just don’t give enough respect to the Gods devs.

It is very sad but that is the way it is.

[Naterater (Nathan E)]

@MartyMcFly

if you are not happy with the heat in the kitchen move to a cooler kitchen or write code to help out,a simple choice really

Oh I’m happy with the heat. I personally don’t have any skin in the game, but others do, especially new people, and I think the project does too. I’ve dealt with MP for years now, and I know where just about everything is… unless it’s hidden like most of the advanced features. The simple features that I use are fairly accessible, even if the logic to get to them doesn’t make sense. Most advanced programs with tons of features start to make more and more sense as you continue to use them. Unfortunately I don’t think this is the case with MP - the logic doesn’t flow in my mind, and I agree with the following:

@camti

Yet I would also agree, that the usability could definitely be improved/ streamlined in various areas, as well as helpful features be added.

For that, I think it is helpful to think beyond purely a software and instead come from a perspective of an overall workflow, and view this more as a tool to accomplish a task.

On the topic of me doing it myself (with no Visual Studio, C++, or Windows API), I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. Right from the developer wiki, and the complexity is a topic all on it’s own:

Mission Planner is a very complex including and making changes is not for the faint of heart. Here are the basic skills you will need to make reasonable progress with MP changes:

• C# programming skills and experience (at least or C++ experience).
• Experience with Microsoft Visual Studio (VS) development environment. MP is not the application to begin learning VS.
• Experience using Windows API (Application programming Interface) - including understanding of streams, processes, threads.

[dkemxr (Dave)]

Where are the “numerous users above”? This thread has been alive for almost a year with 5 or 6 people posting in the affirmative. As you said in your post a couple days ago that resurrected this thread from the dead “Overall, there has been little attention given to this topic”. Right.

Submit your desired enhancements as PR’s and wait and see if they are taken up.

[Naterater (Nathan E)]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ArduPilot.org/permalink/1701371449886041

[anon67614380]

There have been 2.8K views, not bad, actually one of the most viewed in the all forum. Maybe people don’t feel like writing anything because of the “everything is already perfect” mood that is around here.