It’s a fresh 4.6 beta4 build almost ready for first hover.
What I observed is that the motors exhibit uneven power on take-off attempt.
The drone is on a flat, level surface without propellers.
What’s your opinion?
There is no expectation of even motors outputs in that situation. That topic has been beaten to death on the forum.
2 Likes
The situation being “no props”?
yes, the situation being open control loop: “no props” and/or “tied down”.
The methodic configurator documentation explicitly tells you to not do this. It adds NO benefit, nor valid information. If you had read it, you would have known.
1 Like
I have attempted to use your software several times, but my progress has only reached the fourth screen. In my opinion, only you understand how it works, and it is far too complicated for any user, even those with experience. If you believe that a novice drone hobbyist can use it and obtain any usable results, I think you are mistaken. Most people do not even know what’s shown on the screen. Harsh words, that is my opinion. Apologies.
BTW I can’t connect using nor TCP nor UDP while all other softs like MP or QGC work well.
1 Like
Hello @Paul_Paku,
If TCP/UDP is an issue, report a bug so that I can schedule it for fixing.
With that issue, no wonder you do not get passed the first screens, the software needs a connection to work. Without it it can not configure your flight controller.
That is not the opinion of the many users that use it successfully.
It has four buttons: one to add a new parameter, one to delete the parameter next to it, one to upload the parameters to the FC, and one to not upload the parameters to the FC. If that is too complicated, are you sure the problem is the software?
The problem is not that, the problem is that configuring an FC is complicated, and involves a lot of learning. But the software and it’s usage is not complicated.
I am not mistaken, lots novice users prove me right. But you do need to be willing to invest some time.
Yes, some people are overwhelmed at first, that is why there is a user manual, mouse-hover-tooltips, use cases, an AI chat assistant and all sorts of documentation, to help them. In the end of the day it’s just a list of parameters that you need to configure correctly, before moving to the next screen, it can not be simpler than that, can it?
You are just voicing your feelings and that is ok. But do suggest ways to improve it as well. Criticism without concrete alternatives and suggestions is just trolling.
1 Like
Good!
Is it? So how I got pass 1st screen?
I do not want any software to touch my config without me.
Thank you.
Choose one of two solutions:
- Report that bug and wait for it to get fixed.
- Use a USB cable
The software clearly shows you the parameter changes before sending them to the flight controller. And the software complies with standards and best practices and is extensively tested.
Here is a comparison with other software:
| Feature | Mission Planner, QGroundControl, … etc | ArduPilot Methodic Configurator |
|---|---|---|
| full automatic configuration | No | No |
| configuration type | manual 1 | semi-automated 2 |
| explains what to do | No | Yes |
| explains when to do something | No, leaves you lost | Yes, explains the path |
| explains why do something | No | Yes |
| configuration method | a different menu for each task, some tasks have no menu, so you need to dig into the 1200 parameters | each task only presents you a relevant subset of parameters |
| parameter documentation | Yes, only on the full-parameter tree view | Yes |
| displays relevant documentation | No | Yes |
| makes sure you do not forget a step | No | Yes |
| checks that parameters get correctly uploaded | No | Yes |
| reuse params in other vehicles | No, unless you hand edit files | Yes, out-of-the-box |
| documents why you changed each parameter | No | Yes |
| tutorials and learning resources | No, scattered and not integrated | Yes, context-aware help integrated |
| auto. install lua scripts on the FC | No | Yes |
| auto. backup of parameters before changing them | No | Yes |
1 Like
In this case yes. Some have tied their craft down with props and produced the same expected results. Or flipped the props around to reverse thrust.
1 Like
Sorry, it is the recommended method, I read it in the docs.
Do not remember what was the test point, but it’s was stated to push drone with props to the floor.
The only place I have seen that is to run Compass Motor Compensation. And that’s a needless and potentially dangerous method when we now have Magfit. Which will produce better results as it’s real conditions.
Sorry, it has no place in testing motors. That’s what Motor Test in Mission planner is for as it is not in the control loop looking for sensor feedback which is static.
1 Like
Yep, it was Compass Motor Compensation.
Ok, so we are after first after 13 years hoover and the old grandpa acts exactly as it used to take-off.
First it take two right (1,4) engines of the ground then left two (2,3) gain more power.
So it’s not related to the picture above. (If numbers correspond)
It has to be a matter of engines … Anyway. Mission accomplished, it was in the air again!
(But needs new batteries)
