New ArduPilot methodic configurator GUI

You need to use the ArduCopter 4.5.6 speedybee-dbshot firmware.

The current speedybee405v3 has no dbshot support. So you need to use the custom firmware builder

EDIT: Sorry, the custom firmware builder will not work, because it needs a speedybeef4v3-bdshot board. And that board does not exist yet.

v0.9.7

Latest

@github-actions github-actions released this 11 Sep 19:44

v0.9.7

abb0390

Commits

Commits

1 Like

@Yuri_Rage The advance-wp instructions are up-to-date:

Now all we need is that .pdef.xml file.

Is there any documentation for uploading lua scripts at different times in the configuration process? We are using the Alpha Data link and want to upload the script using the configurator.

As far as I can tell, there are only few lua scripts which can be uploaded automatically

Hallo @WARGRaph,

yes, that is possible and simple to do. Just edit a single .json file on you computer.
Documentation is here

File name is configuration_steps_ArduCopter.json and inspiration can be found on line 389 :slight_smile:

Call me if you need assistance.

@amilcarlucas Is there a methodology to tune EKF parameters you have mentioned like we have for PID manual tuning. EK3_ACC_P_NSE and EK3_ALT_M_NSE. Can you please tell a procedure to do so.

@Brianoconner have you used the software properly this time? Which steps have you skipped?

We had a method but we did not wrote it down. Just like some users we did not fill the reason changed fields. Now I no longer remember the method we used.

Learn something here: always keep the reason changed field uptodate.

1 Like

@amilcarlucas Has the tool been used for a Q-plane? I’m setting up a T-1 ranger VTOL and working through the tool but I’m getting to file 07_ESC.param and it crashes. I’ve manually edited the file but the configurator always comes up blank when I do manage to get the ESC page open. (I have to sneak in by jumping ahead and then going back)

In the terminal window I noticed:

Exception in Tkinter callback
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "tkinter\__init__.py", line 1968, in __call__
  File "frontend_tkinter_component_editor.py", line 630, in save_data
  File "frontend_tkinter_component_editor.py", line 643, in validate_data
  File "frontend_tkinter_component_editor.py", line 420, in update_esc_protocol_combobox_entries
KeyError: 'MOT_PWM_TYPE'

I’ve tried with and without the controller connected.

Just noticed as I’m typing: MOT_PWM_TYPE should be Q_M_PWM_TYPE for quad plane.

@Allister thanks for the heads up, I will correct that.

@timtuxworth started working on Q-Plane support and has done some progress, but I have not integrated his work in the app yet.

I’ll try to create some intermediate files for you as I go, or when I’m done. @timtuxworth do you have a template going yet for a VTOL?

Not yet, just the raw material documented.

1 Like

That should be fixed now, try the latest version.

Decided to start from scratch on a Cinewhoop-style 85mm frame, using the latest Configurator.

I like the method. The instructions are fairly well written and easy enough to follow.

However, when using a template for a similar frame, it was a little tough at times to differentiate between the values I really wanted vs the saved values from the template. Experience solved that, but a new user might get rather frustrated.

It looks like the initial parameters are incorporated into the GUI, but it still sends you to MP to set the initial battery monitoring and gain settings.

Eventually, I kind of just abandoned the GUI and followed the guide on my own, using the web tools along the way to evaluate performance. As such, I probably don’t really have a complete set of template files to add to the library.

I know there’s value to be had, but it’s still kind of rough around the edges, and it’s VERY easy to accidentally upload a parameter that’s either N/A or counterproductive. I fear a new user would get rapidly frustrated vs find value in the software as is.

Additionally, ā€œMethodical Configuratorā€ is probably more grammatically correct, though ā€œmethodicā€ is technically an adjective and does work in the context. It’s just not commonly used in modern English conversation. But maybe that’s me just being a pedant…

Thanks for the feedback Yuri.

That part is hard, and I am open to suggestions on how to make it clear or improve it.

That is sad, the value of the software is not on the first steps, the value is also on the later steps, and the automation is also on later steps like autotune and sysid. As such you did not fully evaluated the tool.

N/A parameters produce warnings, if not available (after the auto-enable) but otherwise it automates the enabling and uploading of parameters. In mission planner you need to enable, refresh then, set parameters. In AMC you just need to set them. So I do not understand your point.

Can you elaborate on that?

OK, I’ll add it to the todo list.

I agree. UI is exceedingly difficult to get right.

Maybe some interactive yes/no dialogs along the way would help? Perhaps a bit more interactive mechanism to create a new template rather than the long page of initial setup?

I made it about up to the autotune section before striking out on my own. And I did end up referencing the saved files to make use of the parameters - I just abandoned the GUI because it was easier to just use MP’s compare feature and cull the ones I wanted. I found the method quite useful, but I found the software a bit rough.

I actually accomplished the PID evaluation section twice, but the online tool never displayed step response. I confirmed proper log bitmask settings. I found a post from a few months ago complaining about the same. That’s not entirely the fault of the configurator, as I think perhaps the online tool needs a bit of tweaking.

I did skip the sysid portion, as I don’t think I’ll have much need to replicate this frame in software. It’s on my to-do list someday to explore that functionality of AP, as I understand the value.

My frame is close enough to the default Taycan to use its template (or so I thought). However, I’m using a Kakute H7 Mini vs the MatekH743, which includes more IMUs. I got annoyed at constantly updating the template to rid the N/A params. I also neglected to scroll down in the initial config screen (it wasn’t that obvious that there was A LOT to configure there), so there were a bunch of telemetry and ESC params that were incorrect. I ended up fixing that later, but again, it was troublesome.

I guess the bottom line is this:
I was looking forward to using the configurator to tighten the tune on my quad. And I almost certainly achieved a very good configuration and tune via the method, but the software itself proved frustrating. If a seasoned user gets frustrated, it stands to reason a newbie would potentially be overwhelmed.

I mean none of this in an overly negative light. I’m excited about pushing ArduPilot forward and having a UI that helps do that. It’s a tough road to abstract complexity away while allowing appropriate flexibilty for advanced features and tuning.

And a minor bug report: when setting the loop frequency, 400Hz was the fastest allowable in the dropdown. I had to edit the file manually to get 800Hz, as desired.

Thanks, I will need to fix that in the ardupilot source code. The parameter metadata has a 400 in the ā€œvaluesā€ instead of just a ā€œrangeā€

1 Like

You do know that there is a ā€œDelā€ and and ā€œAddā€ Button on the GUI, right?

Yes. And here was my frustration with those features:

Deleting anything toward the bottom caused the list to scroll to the top, losing my place.

Adding anything that was assumed to be configured via the initial template setup simply didn’t work. No warning, no feedback. I would attempt to add something (like a second telemetry port, or in one case, a conflicting port option that I hadn’t recognized as already used by something in the template) that should’ve been initially configured, and it would just not get added. I figured that out after almost abandoning the tool very quickly, but there should be some feedback as to why things didn’t work.

Another positive note: this tune is TIGHT. It even threw two blades (of six…after a little ā€œoopsā€) on Motor1 and was recoverable to a landing.

I’m encouraged enough that I’ll likely use the same procedure to configure another freestyle quad this week rather then selling out to Betaflight as planned for that build. If I have the time, I’ll use today’s lessons learned to create a proper template.