Super, thanks Tridge.
Who can update it in the MP? If you do this set in the Standard Parameters screen, you can select the name (Quad), not the number, then the MP will try to set 0. If you go to the Full Parameter List, or Full Parameter Tree, the option column tells 0:Quad. I am sure it will confuse other beginners as well 
Laszlo
that is strange, as MP should be getting the docs from the same place as the online docs:
http://ardupilot.org/plane/docs/parameters.html#q-frame-class-frame-class
if you do have the latest version of MP, could you open an issue?
I pushed the Check for updates button in the help menu, and I have the latest MP. Do I have to check for BETA update?
you shouldnât need to, no
Iâve just checked with MP here, and it is indeed incorrect. Iâll open an issue.
Iâve opened an issue:
Ok, thanks. I will not open then.
@Tridge and all pilots of VTOLS with tiltable motors:
What do you think of a function to tilt the motors back horizontaly without the need of switching back to Q-Mode:
The reason for this demand is my mistake using a bad battery in a vectored tailsitter VTOL:
I can imagine enough reasons for an unexpectedly vacated battery inflight and where the possibility to make a glider landing in FBWA or MANUAL mode is the better choice than the risc of a voltage breakdown during Q-Mode landing.
But VTOLs with tiltable motors usually have large propellors with high risc of damaging the tiltmechanic at touchdown while conventional landing due to ânegativeâ ground clearance of the props.
What do you think of such a kind of emergency function that would make it possible to land VTOLs with tiltable props as a glider with horizontally tilted motors while flying in a plane-mode ?
Such a function would have to switch off the motors also.
When switching back, the motors would have been able to accept throttle again in case of performing a go-around.
Regards
Rolf
what would trigger it? If it is by a transmitter switch then wouldnât that be equivalent to switching to QSTABILIZE at zero throttle?
âŚ
hmm, thinking about this a bit more, I see what you mean. Not enough coffee before last answer.
Basically you want it to be like landing gear retract. Have a switch that âretractsâ the motors for a glide landing. I think that does make sense, yes, although the pilot would have to have the situation awareness to know that itâs the right thing to do (and have set it up on the TX beforehand).
[quote=âtridge, post:430, topic:8805â]
hmm, thinking about this a bit more, I see what you mean. Not enough coffee before last answer.
[/quote]Sorry my bad english and awkward description.
[quote]
Basically you want it to be like landing gear retract. Have a switch that âretractsâ the motors for a glide landing.
[/quote]Yes thatâs true.
[quote]I think that does make sense, yes,[/quote]thx
just as stupid pilots like me would have to have the situation awareness not to change flightmode from QHOVER to MANUAL 
Anyway, such a function would be helpful to fly more relaxed - especially with expensive equipement.
Flew the FireFlyY6 again today, doing some tuning on the multicopter control. Then after struggling to get the yaw a bit more responsive I noticed that I had the rear-bottom propeller upside down! It flew much better after fixing that. Truly embarrassing!
I hadnât removed the props since the auto missions it did last week, so that means it did the missions with an upside down prop. Itâs amazing what a flight controller can hide
Probably the cause for the high power consumption.
Congratulations on your achievements as responsible firmware developer(s).
Tridge,
Thanks for the continued work and progress reports. I am eagerly following your work. Iâve had terrible luck with BirdsEyeViewâs tirgger mechanism and miss many of the fucntions they stripped out of Mission Planner. Canât wait to switch over to arduplane.
Thanks,
Dave
no worries, Iâm glad it will be useful.
The tuning resulted in a bit higher gains for the multicopter code:
previously I flew with these gains:
The yaw in particular needed a lot more gain to have decent yaw control. It is also worth looking at the PIQY and RATE logs to see if there is a yaw bias. If there is then you will need to make fine adjustments to the tilt of the motors to remove that bias. A quite small error in the orientation of one of the motors leads to quite a large yaw bias which both makes yaw control difficult and reduces available power for roll and pitch.
The lack of yaw control also means the firefly canât automatically weathervane into the wind, which can greatly reduce stability.
Iâll do some more flights this weekend.
Thanks Tridge,
I havenât switched over yet. This is a whole new ball game for me, so I am waiting for this to progress a bit more before I switch. Would log files from recent FF6 flights help you with the gains?
Here is a link to three recent flights.
Thanks for all the great work,
Dave
thatâs quite understandable. One thing I donât know is how much things will differ between the 3S and 6S setups. It will be interesting to see how different the tuning is between the two - I suspect it will be similar, but I donât know for sure.
Hi Tridge,
Can you re-post your new .param file for 3S setup using the new PIDs please?
Iâm preparing my Ranger EX and mini Talon QuadPlanes for testing this weekend along with adding the Ultimate LRS to an old Skywalker which uses a 3DR 915MHz telemetry link from my Taranis to the laptop for Mission Planner. Combining the R/C link with the telemetry link is fun stuff!
The FireFLY6 conversion to APM will be nextâŚ
Tridge,
Congratulations also from me.
After your firmware works perfectly and a 99% horizontal transition is guaranteed, a small recommendation.
A fast and low transition saves a lot of energy. A climb in plane flying is much more efficient.
Since the reverse transition requires more than twice as much energy as the takeoff, this also increases the safety of the landing.
It also looks more spectacular.
Regards
Walter
A fast and low transition saves a lot of energy. A climb in plane flying is
much more efficient.
Since the reverse transition requires more than twice as much energy as the
takeoff, this also increases the safety of the landing.
It also looks more spectacular.
Yeah, weâd like to say we did this on purpose:
Walter
Yours,
@peterbarker
Yeah, weâd like to say we did thisâŚ
Ok, that looks good. But whatâs with the antitransition in 4 m straight on the center-line of the runway, stopping directly over the start position
Cheers
