Heli and Quad Users shout out

[John McClelland]

I know of a few people using the Heli and/or Quad code....

 

Myself Heli

Jerry Quad and Heli

Marcus Heli (don't know if he still is or not)

Justin Heli (at least he was for a while)

Bill certainly knows the codes and I think is working on a Quad

Steven is starting out on the heli code

Probably some others that I have forgotten (sorry)

 

 

If there is anyone else that is running either code, it would be great to post here and let us know.  Give as much details of your setup and experienc that you can.  There are some development tests we could use help on from time to time for "friendly" users.

 

Best,

John

[iga...@gmail.com]

My original plan was to build a tricopter first stage was to use the HK401 gyros and late to use the heli code.

I am thinking to build a quad .

2010/12/19 John McClelland <mcclell...@gmail.com>

[John McClelland]

Have you flown with the code yet?

[olly]

Hi John,
Probably a little early to jump in? I'm shopping around for a Trex 600
heli at the moment and I'm keen to get involved. My UDB v3 is in the
mail, so as soon as its all 'glued together'...
As for experience; far from a whiz I've had a 'play' with the pic18s
so I'm hopping I will be able to muddle through somehow. I've just
started a PhD in the field of controls engineering though so perhaps
this is an area in which I may be able to contribute more adequately?
I note in the MP-H Future Development Road map there was a note on
High-G control of acrobatic maneuvers. Anyone working on this at the
moment?

Fantastic project by the way!!
Many to those who have paved the way and for their ready assistance

regards,

Oliver






On Dec 20, 9:19 am, "John McClelland" <mcclelland.j...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[John McClelland]

Hi Oliver

Never too soon to jump in. I have been thinking of a 600 as well. Let me
know when you are ready to try the code.

As far as I know, noone is working on acrobatics...we are still at the level
of getting all 6 degrees of freedom stabilized, then navigation.

If you have some ideas though, love to hear them. Sounds like your PhD is
right up our ally.

Best,
John

----- Original Message -----
From: "olly" <oll...@gmail.com>
To: "UAVHeliBoard" <UAVHel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Heli and Quad Users shout out

[Marcus Fahlén]

Hi John,

Yes, I'm still with you... 

I have a defect UDB that will not be flying my helicopter anymore before it at least get's it's daughter board replaced.

I have been promised a new one by Sparkfun. After I have changed the gyro board I will continue where I left (doing initial tests on a .50 nitro). In the meantime I have been busy studying the MP3.X code and done quite a lot of HIL simulations using X-Plane to help develop the MP3.X I have also written code for supporting the 868 PRO XBee (extended range XBee's with a pesky duty cycle of 10%). These are ideal for long range telemetry (80km), but with only 10% duty cycle (10 minutes of active transmission per hour). This problem has kept me occupied but now it's solved.

Cheers!

/Marc 

[John McClelland]

Hi Marc

 

Will be good to have you flying again.

 

I'm very interested in your HIL sim work.  Do you have it working for our MP-H code?  I am putting together some ideas on navigation and flight states and trying them out on the simulator would help a lot.

 

Best

John

----- Original Message -----

From: Marcus Fahlén

To: uavhel...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 5:15 PM

Subject: Re: Heli and Quad Users shout out

[Daniel Tan]

Me too a Quad/Multi Rotor guy. Lately busy so still not going into this Quad test yet using UDB.

 

The MK that I had was having too much fun while waiting more detail on the UDB code that support Quad

[Marcus Fahlén]

John,

My intentions with the X-Plane and HIL-simulation was from the beginning to use it for helicopter simulations since I had a few nasty surprises that cost me a lot of cash that I really couldn't afford to fix. Now when the helicopter is in flying condition again I wanted a simulation environment to test all aspects of the code and hardware before trying to get it airborne again with the UDB in the cockpit.

When I started to ask around a little among the people that has written the plugin used for interfacing MatrixPilot to X-Plane I was told to first migrate the code base to the "new" standard that we have called "the 3.X" for a while. (It's the one that is built on the libUDB and libDCM libraries. This should do the work much easier and would open the doors for using some of the other great stuff that has been developed by the MP dev. crew.  I started to look at it using the guidelines given to me by Ben Levit (studying the migration of the RollPitchYaw demo for UDB.) I was rather surprised when I realized that this wasn't the common goal for the rest of the heli community, and I then understood that there is no real cooperation between the MP development team and the MP-H development (team?). I was of the impression that you had been "pushed" in that direction before, but were unwilling to go that route. 

When I couldn't get any help in developing anything for the "old" code base I concentrated on learning as much as I could about the plugin, datarefs and the "MP3.X" code base. I have since then been busy "debugging" MP3.X and the HIL-plugin. That is; I have used 100's of hours to find and point out faults in the plugin that wasn't so obvious at the first glance. Now there is said to be work going on to rectify the HIL plugin so that it works as it is supposed to, but I have no idea about the progress here. It's only a few weeks since I got my complaints classified as an "issue" or "issues" with the HILSIM plugin for X.Plane.

My understanding is that you have been busy with the magnetometer part of the project which is vital to the further development of working rotor wing code for the UDB. For a while it looked to me as there were several guys that were working on horizontal translation algorithms, but it has been dead silent in the "uavheliboard" for a long time now. My guess was that all came down to working magnetometer for control of the nose attitude, which I believe is the base for the work on translational algorithms in combination with altimeters with greater accuracy then a standard GPS. (barometric altimeters in combination with ultrasound or anyting else with millimeter resolution and accuracy.

I have had my ideas about how this should work, but since I'm not a programmer I can only speculate and do "pseudo code" for manipulating a rotor wing drone. (I was thinking vector math based on accelerometer and gyro inputs.) As I have understood the "original" Mahony papers is dealing more with vertical (helicopter type) drones with counter rotating rotors than airplanes. This was also a discussion among the MP devs to do a more "Mahonyish" code base.

I have no idea about what this really means to us,  but I guessed that the "new" (3.X) code base was a step in that direction.

Then I don't understand (based on my knowledge level) why the heli code shouldn't migrate to the same code base?

Isn't it a "relative" easy task to port the MP-Hv2 code to the 3.X code base? On Ben it sounded like even I with my VERY limited C-skills should be able to pull it off (with some help and guidance from him).

I Have not had the energy to study all the different versions of the heli code since my health is deteriorating rapidly, but my guess is that it is originally based on the "Aileron Assist". Am I right? 

Would it be a monstrous task to do this "porting" so that the helicopter specific control routines can use the libDCM and libUDB libraries?

If we were able to do this there is so much more to "leach" from the MP3.X There is virtually new functions and options coming each day. I hardly keep up with trying all the new development code being produced these days. In the last few weeks we have had added support for PPM input (8ch in and 8ch out), camera targeting that works wonderfully, Matt's CAN-Bus co-processor board that opens for some interesting possibilities, support for a bunch of telemetry protocols which of MAVINK seems to be the most sensible since it's binary, and now last we have "bumped" the speed of the telemetry UART to ridiculous speeds by using the internal (fast) clock and a 8x multiplier. (I'm currently running my telemetry at 57600 baud and had it running at 230400 just for test. 

I really can't see why we shouldn't do a move towards the 3.X code base so I would be very glad if you could describe the hurdles (in a very short format and understandable way so that even an old soldier can get an idea of what's the catch). Just point out the main problems that hides from my un-experienced point of view, so I could get a better picture of what's going on and which path is the most sensible to take.

My whole involvement in this project is to learn C programming and to create a new base for a source of living for the future.

I have some ideas that have been growing in my head for the last 10 years... Now it looks like they might become a reality in my lifetime. (A small, cheap drone that's available to almost anyone, but more importantly; a drone that actually can do some useful work.)

I'm thinking SAR (Search And Rescue) since this is what I have been dong for the last 10 years on the side of my ordinary work as a computer network engineer.  

My understanding of the MP-H is that it's your "brain child". I will no try to convince you to do this or that. My knowledge in this area is much to modest for that, and it's not my kind of being to try to "push" peole in directions against their will. I just want an (short) explanation to why the roadmap doesn't include migration of the MP-H to MP3.X code base. 

My very best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and your family.

Talk to you later

/ Marcus

[iga...@gmail.com]

As a first step i wanted to get the tricopter flying using 3 HK401 gyros for stabilization 

First attempts where to small props and underpowered tricopter 

Then it crashed a few times because of a problem in one of the ESC's and then one of the shafts bent  and the mechanical tail linkage got sloppy .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxoqAMs1GeU

Now i have ordered 2 more motors and another esc .

those are the props :

http://www.cnchelicopter.com/servlet/the-1812/Efficient-multi-dsh-axis-aircraft-specific/Detail

esc:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=2163

motors :

http://www.rctimer.com/index.php?gOo=goods_details.dwt&goodsid=123&productname=

I have 2 udb . First one is a standart red bord , The second one has rustys gyros i have used it with great succes on flying wings and going to use it for the quad.

2010/12/19 John McClelland <mcclell...@gmail.com>

[John McClelland]

Hi Marcus

 

Just a VERY short history of the development of MP-H...

 

Yes it started with Aileron Assist (this was a while back).  I wrote some code to control the swash and few a few other things to get started.  Bill and I then got a version that should work for my TREX 450.  I started testing and immediately found that the gyros on the Red Board were too sensitive to vibrations and would always saturate.  We tried various filtering and vibration isolation, but nothing really worked.  Bill sent me a Green Board with gyros with better vibration sensitivity, but limited rate characteristics.  It wasn't until we got the Invensense gyros did things start to work.

 

Once we got pitch and roll stabilization to work I had some discussions with Ben and Bill about trying to integrate with the mainstream MatrixPilot development.  There were pluses and minuses, but in the end I jumped in the deep end and got the (then) current version of MP 2.0 converted to helis.  This is basically MP-H. 

 

As MP continued to develop, I had more discussions with Bill and Ben and we decided that we had a lot of work on MP-H to catch up with even 2.0 since we still had to impliment yaw stabilization, heading hold, and navigation.  So trying to fully integrate MP-H with MP did not seem like the best investment in time and effort at this point.

 

It has always been my intention to make the jump to fully integrated MP once we had all the basics in place.  We have made a lot of progress, but much remains.  The heading hold work turned out to be a huge effort and still isn't 100%.  We are hoping that some of the residual problems are related to the glitching reported on the extra output channels (which we use for yaw).  I haven't had time to get that patch in so don't really know if that is it or not.

 

So the heli guys talk to the MP guys, but I'm sure we can do better.  Bill was a major contributor to both.

 

I haven't looked at what it takes to convert to the 3.x structure.  I'm sure Ben can tell us what is involved since it should be whatever diffs have been made between 2.0 and 3.x.

 

If Ben and Peter (and/or others in the MP dev team) are willing to help, I am willing to put in the effort...but it's just me right now with a long TODO list. 

 

Back to the original question, I take it that HIL sim doesn't work yet....even if we were to convert to 3.x if I understand you correctly.  Maybe at some point.

[Marcus Fahlén]

John,

We found out that there is is some fundamental faults in the calculations of centripetal forces, or the conversion of the coordinate systems used.  As I pointed out; I'm rather "fresh" on this subject but I'll do my best to learn.

I can cantact Ben and hear how much he is willing to help me (as a beginner) to get going with a migration. That doesn't mean that the current MP-H development has to stop, but we could build a code base to try to make the "big leap" at a later point in time.

I am as I mentioned retired, due to injuries and side effects of these. I have a lot of time to spend, but not much money to buy hardware I'm afraid . (Luckily I have a "sample account" at Microchip so I can get the basic CPU's for different projects for free.) I just got ten dsPIC30F4011 in DIL packaging meant for building a "HILSIM UDB-clone" so that I don't have to use my (later) flying UDB as bench test equipment which tends to ruin them rather quickly.

Talk to you later! 

My best regards  

/ Marc 

[ben levitt]

Hi guys,

First of all, I've bought into the plan of waiting until MP_Heli is
more stable before converting it over to the newer codebase, so please
don't take this as pressure of any kind. :) It's just my ramblings
on how I would go about updating MP_Heli to the new codebase whenever
we all decide to do that.

The first task before converting it over will be to figure out the svn
revision number of the MP code that MP_Heli is based upon, and then
running a big diff from that old revision to the current state of
MP_Heli, to see a complete set of changes that make up the heli
modifications.

Then we can figure out which changes apply to the code that is now
MatrixPilot, and which set of changes apply to the code that is now in

the libUDB and libDCM libraries.

Then we can figure out how to add the necessary new functionality to
the libraries. Since MatrixPilot and MP_Heli will share the same copy
of the library code, we'll have to decide which of these changes we
want to apply to both apps, and which changes should be optional, and
only enabled by the heli code.

After that, we'll just make a copy of the current MatrixPilot app,
call it MatrixPilot-Heli or any other name you chose, and merge all
the remaining changes into that app.

How does that sound to you guys as a future integration roadmap?

Ben

[iga...@gmail.com]

Today started to build the frame.

The size is 61 cm hope it will give me good stability because it looks small.

2010/12/20 ben levitt <ben...@gmail.com>

[Bryan Cuervo]

Hi John,

I'm also still in the mix and using the Heli code. Our coaxial
helicopter is going on a crash diet with a new, lighter frame and
battery configuration. We should be back in the air in a week to test
"heading hold".
Bryan

> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Marcus Fahlén <marcus.fah...@gmail.com>

> > mcclelland.j...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  IMG_0419 (Medium).JPG
> 107KViewDownload
>
>  IMG_0420 (Medium).JPG
> 104KViewDownload
>
>  IMG_0421 (Medium).JPG
> 102KViewDownload
>
>  IMG_0422 (Medium).JPG
> 89KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John McClelland]

Bryan

Please let us know how the HH tests go.

Best
John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Cuervo" <bryan...@comcast.net>
To: "UAVHeliBoard" <UAVHel...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: Heli and Quad Users shout out

Hi John,

> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Marcus Fahl�n <marcus.fah...@gmail.com>