Awesome, thanks! Then I think I’m all set!
I’ll be throwing my money at the hardware this afternoon. Hopefully I’ll receive it soon so that I can start simulating, flying and writing custom auto pilots (which is what I’m actually after… 
).
Thanks again!
Just to cover all the bases there is a way to use a cheap Flight Controller running Betaflight with an Rx connected to use the Transmitter wirelessly with the Simulator. This was a good option when these boards were $15 and you had an extra Rx laying around. Today if the USB cable is not a problem for you just do that as Yuri says.
I’ve taken to using the TX16S with an external ELRS module that has Bluetooth onboard as a wireless joystick. But that’s probably a little beyond the scope for now.
I’m fine with using the usb-cable, but thanks for the suggestions anyway.
I’m actually quite overwhelmed by the enormous amount of options. I’m also following tutorials on mavproxy and simulations now. I’m still pondering which package I’ll use for that; Gazebo, X-Plane, Flightgear or Realflight. I’ll probably first test the free ones (Gazebo and Flightgear) and if needed I can always upgrade to one of the paid packages. There’s lots to learn!
For just getting started, Mission Planner’s built in simulations will probably provide much of what you need.
I’m on Linux, so Mission Planner is not an option. But QGroundControl is good enough for me.
The reason I want one of the other packages is because I want to see in 3D (instead of 2D) what is going on. What I’m actually going to try is to simulate (and later fly) a plane on a tether, similar to how Makani and Ampyx power used to do in order to generate power. Here’s a short video of another company doing the same: Wind Energy 2.0 Explained (TwingTec 2016) - YouTube
Both Makani and Ampyx went bankrupt, but I’m fascinated by the technology, so I’m going to try to build the same thing (but better of course… ).
Mission Planner runs on Linux - with either Wine or Mono.
In some ways it works better, since various security things try to stop the simulator from downloading and installing on Windows for me.
I run Mission Planner on several Linux machines. There are quirks but it runs. I use Mono and it does the trick.
@tsm1mt and @Allister - I didn’t know Mission planner can easily be run on Linux, thanks for that info. Is Mission Planner that much better though, that it is worth the quirks you refer to?
I’ve never used Mission Planner. What do you think is better in Mission Planner as opposed to QGroundControl? Are things missing in QGroundControl?
Mission Planner is the native application for Ardupillot. IMO QGC is best used as a Ground Station on some devices once you have the craft setup, configured, calibrated and tuned using Mission Planner.
I have never had it working properly on Linux. I use QGroundControl on Linux with plot.ardupilot.org/ to view logs.
Mission Planner is native to windows so I feel it’s more stable there. I use it on Linux because some of the computers I use are Linux, and so it goes.
I agree with @dkemxr , and Mission Planner is better for setup, but QGC is useful once the drone is up and flying. QGC is a more user friendly program, but MP is more useful for setup.
On Linux, the other thing to consider is MavProxy and MavExplorer. I use MavExplorer now pretty much exclusively for looking at logs. To the point I even have it on my Mac and Windows boxes.
@dkemxr and @Allister - So Mission Planner is better for setup and QGroundControl better as a Ground Station. Can you help me understand what all the things are that you can/need to set up (I didn’t fly yet). Every airplane has a long list of params that can be set. Are you referring to those when you talk about “setup”? Or are there other things that you use Mission Planner for in the setup?
Regarding log analysis. Since I didn’t fly yet I don’t have any logs, but I’ll probably be using that extensively. Thanks for the tips on MavExplorer and plot.ardupilot.org @arduouspilot and @Allister
Mission Planner is better for Ardupilot for Setup, configuration, calibration and tuning and GQC is an alternative Ground Station not necessarily better. There are tools in MP for Ardupilot configuration and tuning that don’t exist in QGC.
Maybe the main point to take away here is you don’t need to decide. Really you can use both. Once you have your hardware then try both MP and QGC. And if you’re really up for an adventure, MavProxy. You can always go back and forth between the programs so give them a shot and see what you think.
Personally, like @dkemxr I’m going to recommend MP for initial setup and configuration. After that, what ever works for you and the hardware you’re using.
Thanks for your insightful comments @Allister. I’m actually experimenting with using MavProxy in the simulator for the past couple days. In fact, I’ll probably want to set up a companion computer (or use a navio2 to run on the same device) because I want to write a companion application in Golang which updates waypoints in realtime (I’m just more comfortable in golang than in c++).
I ordered most of the hardware, but I’m on a holiday (in Spain) now, so next week when I’m back I’ll be diving into the hardware, which will probably force me to dive into the setup, configuration, calibration and tuning, like you’re mentioning @dkemxr. I’m actually still kinda unaware what all those things are. Do you have any good sources where I can learn about the basics of setup, configuration, calibration and tuning of fixed wings?
You can start here:
Arduplane
The biggest mistake new users make is to throw it together and get it in the air. Some craft are more forgiving than others but default parameters rarely will fly well if at all.
But you won’t be getting decent telemetry with ELRS on Mavlink, will you? At least not the same amount as with - f.i.- ACCST / SPort FrSky protocol…
One issue is perhaps drowning in the stream of control/telemetry information, and that is the plane selection and how to get flying. A plane is very different from a rotor aircraft in that way that you cannot park it in the air and consider your next move. This WILL affect your launching, flying, and landing. An old rule of thumb used to be that you should set up the plane to fly manually (and learn to do that as well) BEFORE adding FCs and FPV systems. I still think that is a valid point.
I don’t know the EasyStar 3, but I own both the 1 and 2 and a number of clones. The docile flying characteristics and the pusher configuration are nice for a beginners plane, and the EasyStars are quite efficient, too. But they may not be the most roomy or well layed out for electronics. The Bix 3 may be a better choice.
Visit RCGroups and find the thread with beginner’s (FPV-) guide, there’s a lot of good information there.
I can vouch that a volantex asw 28 will fly nicely with default tuning in arduplane, of course this is provided that the plane is well setup and balanced and flying nicely in the first place before you add the fc.