Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to disable failsafe in orange

[Refik Sever]

Hi,

@eduardo:
Actually we bought the orange openlrs 433Mhz receiver from HK and we haven't
change the firmware yet. I learned from your email that the receiver can
give ppm output. Maybe we can try to program it later when we have time. 

@gerard:
I tried your suggestion and it works. Now, when I switch off the
transmitter, it goes to auto2. However, it does not go into RC_LOST state.
Do I need to change the radio xml file in order to do that?

Another problem is, when I re open the transmitter while the receiver is in
failsafe, it goes to auto1 and gives 35% throttle for 2 seconds. Then it
goes back to auto2. It seems that in the boot sequence of the transmitter,
it sends undesired values. Is there a way to avoid it?  

Best regards,
Refik


Message: 2
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:56:51 -0300
From: Eduardo lavratti <address@hidden>
To: Paparazzi developer forum <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to disable failsafe in orange
        openlrs 433Mhz receiver
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

First of all, way not you use the CPPM of openLRS ?

From: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:46:40 +0000
Subject: [Paparazzi-devel] how to disable failsafe in orange openlrs 433Mhz
receiver







Dear all,



We are using orange openLRS 433 MHz Tx and Rx module with ER9x transmitter.
We also use 8ch ppm encoder. When we switch off the transmitter power, the
receiver goes into failsafe. Therefore, the autopilot does not understand
that RC is lost.



Does anybody know how to disable failsafe in this receiver?



Regards,

Refik





_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130723/c
dce8ace/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:07:32 -0300
From: Gerard Toonstra <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to disable failsafe in orange
        openlrs 433Mhz receiver
Message-ID:
        <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The Orange saves a failsafe position, correct?

You can distinguish failsafes by increasing tx range to -125% or less on
throttle, such that the throttle value is something under 1000us.
This is then set as failsafe. Then decrease the range to the normal -100%.
When you set throttle to zero, it works as normal.

When you turn the radio off, the failsafe value is sent, which then triggers
the AP for RC lost condition, assuming you have it configured correctly
there.

G>


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Refik Sever
<address@hidden>wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
> We are using orange openLRS 433 MHz Tx and Rx module with ER9x 
> transmitter. We also use 8ch ppm encoder. When we switch off the 
> transmitter power, the receiver goes into failsafe. Therefore, the 
> autopilot does not understand that RC is lost.
>
> Does anybody know how to disable failsafe in this receiver?
>
> Regards,
> Refik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130723/4
466ae83/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:45:02 -0600
From: Stephen Dwyer <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
Message-ID:
        <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hello,

I would definitely back up what everyone else has said, especially about
starting with a "cheap" practice plane. Not only will that reduce startup
costs and recurring costs/time that occur after a crash, but it is also far
easier to transport and find a smaller space to fly in. Having to load up a
big gas aircraft and its equipment just for a quick test of a new autopilot
feature is a pain. I have built smaller and larger camera planes, and each
have their advantages, but definitely nice to start smaller. The smaller
electric aircraft also tend to have lower maintenance requirements. One
thing to note, be wary of going with a very cheap plane. If you are pursuing
a serious project, I think it is usually worth the extra money for a quality
product that is more reliable and has better performance. Trying to save a
bit of money in the short run often leads to more issues and frustration in
the future, resulting in more fixing/debugging than flying.

I would also agree that purchasing will likely save money over
designing/building your own (unless perhaps you are building in quantity and
setting up a manufacturing process), especially for smaller ones. It also
means you will likely be able to repeat the performance of an aircraft. One
disadvantage is some may require extensive modification. Even small
modifications can take some time.

We are currently using an electric Multiplex Mentor loaded a good 500-600+
grams of payload (not sure exactly at the moment). This is pushing the
limits of the Mentor, and we don't have enough payload left for longer
flight times. We typically only get 10-12mins on 3s/4400mAh to give you an
idea. However, it is still small enough to hand launch and then recover in a
very small clearing in remote forested areas. Landings are still very scary
when trying to hit the spot given the heavy wing loading.

In the past I have used a Sig Mfg Rascal 110. This aircraft is a traditional
balsa/plywood/film covering aircraft in a traditional high wing tractor
configuration. We flew this aircraft up to a gross takeoff weight of around
12kg and 26cc gas engine. With careful vibration isolation on the engine and
camera (nothing extreme) we were able to achieve very very good imagery and
flight time of 1 hour on 700cc of fuel (the capacity can easily be
increased, increasing fuel quantity is relatively easy because of the
extremely high energy density of gasoline, adding a bit of weight really
increases flight time, when compared to electric). We used a Nikon D3000 or
D60 on this aircraft with a fast prime lens set at a fixed focus and a very
very high shutter speed (this is how we beat the vibration issues...).
There was also lots of other payload onboard including high powered wifi for
6km+ 18Mbit links to move the images down in near realtime, a gumstix
computer to control the camera (with libgphoto2) and manage the datalink,
and lots of vibration isolation/EMI/RF shielding and enclosures (one major
disadvantage of gas, everything must be protected from vibration, even if
you don't directly see the effects). However, this aircraft required several
hundred feet of runway to takeoff and land, and landing occurred at around
70km/hr when fully loaded.

I have also seen the Senior Telemaster Plus used with good results as a
larger workhorse. It can fly very slowly if lightly loaded - in a light wind
you can almost land it vertically. It is also fairly inexpensive for a large
aircraft. Be aware it is not the most sturdily built, to keep it light.

I haven't tried a glider type aircraft, but would really like to.

While a parachute seems like a good idea, one concern is weight. I have seen
that typical parachute recovery systems may consume 15% - 20% of the total
aircraft weight, which is very significant. Haven't tried any net recovery.
Certainly agree that it adds complexity, and requires very careful design
and test to implement properly. It will not be trivial.

One thing to consider is that if you end up with a decent smaller aircraft
that can handle your payloads and handles your launch/recovery requirements,
but simply doesn't have the endurance you are looking for, is you can
consider simply accepting a lower endurance and planning your flight
campaigns to get around this. For example, breaking a survey into several
parts, and landing to swap out batteries in between. This is what we do with
the Mentor. This only works if your range is small; having to fly a long
ways away to reach the region of interest won't be helped by this approach.

Just my thoughts, perhaps they will be of use.

Thanks,
-Stephen Dwyer


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Reto B?ttner
<address@hidden>wrote:

> Hi Alonso
>
> I recommend a three step approach:
>
> 1. Test plane to learn Paparazzi
>
> Take a simple generic plane, focus on good manners. That is achieved 
> by average size (between 1m and 2m wing span) and in standard puller 
> configuration (propeller on the nose). Choose electric propulsion for 
> simplicity. Multiplex EasyGlider or a Multiplex TwinStar might be good 
> choices.
>
> 2. Plane for 150g vertical camera with 50min endurance
>
> I recommend electric propulsion for simplicity and reliability. As 
> already stated one hour flight time is easily achieved. If you have 
> very experienced people in model gas engines in your team, you can try 
> that as well. With gas you can get very long endurance, oceans have been
crossed.
> Be aware that you will have to deal with vibrations, poor reliability, 
> noise and maybe even interference with the RC, if you choose an 
> electronic ignition.
>
> I recommend a glider configuration. They have outstanding aerodynamics 
> to achieve long endurance and are well mannered.
>
> Multiplex Cularis or Hobby King ASK21 EP Glider 2600mm Fiberglass 
> might be good choices. Your camera should fit in there. They have four 
> flap wings for optimal performance and precise landings. The first you 
> need for your required endurance, the second for landing in difficult 
> terrain in your field missions. Use a large battery and a small 
> propeller (rather high
> pitch) to achieve your required endurance.
>
> 3. Plane for 600g camera with optional forward view
>
> Think about this once you have mastered step 1 and 2.
>
> General considerations:
>
> I do not recommend building a plane from scratch. There are more than 
> enough options on the market in any price range (also veery cheap). It 
> is not likely that you will save money by building from scratch. You 
> should use your time to learn Paparazzi and for flight training. In 
> addition, if you crash, you can easily buy a new airframe and continue 
> flying soon instead of spending hours in the workshop rebuilding from
scratch.
>
> Forget about a landing gear. You will not be able to use it in your 
> field missions. In addition it is more difficult to start and land, 
> heavy and deteriorates the planes aerodynamics.
>
> If you don't need forward view, don't choose pusher propulsion. If you 
> need forward view, the hobbyuav Techpod or HobbyKing Skywalker X-8 
> might be good choices.
>
> I don't recommend Bormatec Maja, it simply doesn't fly well enough. I 
> tried it.
>
> I don't recommend parachute or landing net. That adds complexity to 
> the system and is rather for professionals. Using a good airframe and 
> a good pilot you will be able to land on small fields.
>
> Best regards and good luck
> Reto
>
> 2013/7/23 alonso acu?a <address@hidden>
>
>> Thanks to all the people that have responded, this is a great discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>> > - How large is your payload (camera)?
>>
>> We have 3 cameras: a multispectral, a Canon Powershot ELPH 320 and a 
>> DSLR. The first 2 are small and weight is less than 150g. The other 
>> one is bigger and could go over 600g.  Primary goal is to use the 
>> first 2 and the other one would be bonus or would be served later by a
different plane.
>>
>> >
>> > - Do you need vertical view only?
>>
>> Initially yes but oblique photo would be a bonus (would be done with 
>> the heavier camera and perhaps with a different plane).
>>
>>  >
>> > - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>>
>> > - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>>
>> I am working with very experienced people in building planes, 
>> electric and gas, and flying them manually. I think I would prefer
electric.
>>
>> >
>> > - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>> >
>> I am working with people experienced in programming (including me) 
>> and electronics. We will be investing whatever time it takes to be 
>> able to answer yes to this question. We are just starting.
>> We might use a smaller cheaper plane with no camera for flight 
>> testing and learning and then move to the primary plane when we feel
confident.
>>
>>  > - Do you have a runway available?
>> >
>> For testing yes. For real work we will be taking photos at multiple 
>> locations all over our small country so perhaps a dirt road or a 
>> grass field is all we'll find. I would like to know how big is the 
>> space needed to takeoff and land and whether designs can be adapted 
>> to do shorter landings. We might consider parachutes or nets or whatever.
>>
>>
>> 50 minute flight would be OK.  The Bormatec Maja is advertised with 
>> 50 min endurance with 3S/6000mAh and 500W motor with 1,5kg payload 
>> inclusive of batteries. As seen on 
>> http://conservationdrones.org/hardware/
>> My plan is to build our own airframe as these are too expensive to 
>> buy and we have the guys who can build planes from scratch if 
>> necessary. They don't have experience with this kind of application 
>> or automated flying, so we are unsure about the design to use.
>>
>> Thanks again for all the help.
>>
>> Alonso Acuna
>>
>>
>> On 23 July 2013 11:02, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > The question about the runway is very relevant indeed as you can
>> achieve a
>> > long flight duration either by having a relatively high wing load, 
>> > for instance with a 2 m plane with a landing gear packed with 
>> > batteries
>>
>> I am curious how long a runway you need - and also if paparazzi 
>> handles landing or whether that's something that has to be done by 
>> hand? (I'm still very much a paparazzi noob!)
>>
>> > or if
>> > you don?t have a runway you will need a plane with a nice 
>> > aerodynamic
>> and
>>
>> > less wing load (I am thinking for instance of f3j gliders) but you 
>> > will
>> have
>> > more problems with wind?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > De : address@hidden
>> > [mailto:address@hidden De la
>> part de
>> > Hector Garcia de Marina
>> > Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:53
>> >
>> >
>> > ? : address@hidden
>>
>> > Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi C?dric,
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > would you mind to show such setup? I am curious about the flight
>> autonomy,
>> > payload, total size and weight of the plane etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Reto also points out a good remark, it seems that you will need a
>> runway for
>> > this kind of airplane (or at least, a nice big launcher :P).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, C?dric Marzer (priv?) <
>> address@hidden>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I would use an electric plane every time it is possible : less
>> vibrations,
>> > better reliability, less noise.
>> >
>> > 50+ minutes flight isn?t difficult to achieve with the right plane 
>> > 50+ and
>>
>> > enough batteries.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > De : address@hidden
>> > [mailto:address@hidden De la
>> part de
>> > Reto B?ttner
>> > Envoy? : mardi 23 juillet 2013 11:24 ? : address@hidden
>>
>> > Objet : Re: [Paparazzi-devel] how to select an airframe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > There are countless options for your application. To give an 
>> > appropriate advice we would need some more information:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - How heavy is your payload (camera)?
>> >
>> > - How large is your payload (camera)?
>> >
>> > - Do you need vertical view only?
>> >
>> > - Do you have experience in RC planes?
>> >
>> > - Do you have experience in model gas engines?
>> >
>> > - Do you have experience in Paparazzi?
>> >
>> > - Do you have a runway available?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards, Reto
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2013/7/23 Chris Gough <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > I agree with Hector that petrol engines are the cheapest way to get 
>> > endurance, and probably a good fit if you really do need 50+ 
>> > minutes endurance. I would add a suggestion that you consider 
>> > stepping up to longer flights after mastering short ones on a plane 
>> > that forgives crashes. For example:
>> >
>> >  * a cheap plane with replaceable parts, e.g. skyfun, bixler, etc
>> >  * a rugged flying wing, e.g. EPP core with a stressed plastic skin.
>> >
>> > It's less critical if you are already an experienced RC pilot, but 
>> > still probably a good idea.
>> >
>> > In the paparazzi source tree, have a look at 
>> > "conf/airframes/examples", but please understand that you almost 
>> > certainly will have to understand and edit your own configuration.
>> >
>> > Chris Gough
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Hector Garcia de Marina 
>> > <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> In my opinion, you should aim for a gas hi-wing plane if you want 
>> >> more flights of more than one hour.
>> >>
>> >> On 23 Jul 2013 04:41, "alonso acu?a" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello. I am looking to build a UAV to take photos to make maps. I 
>> >>> need stability and endurance around 50min or more with a small 
>> >>> camera. I
>> have
>> >>> seen so many options and don't have an idea of which one would be
>> better
>> >>> for
>> >>> use with paparazzi.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also I am wondering how difficult is it to get paparazzi working 
>> >>> with
>> a
>> >>> new airframe.
>> >>>
>> >>> Even if I try to stick to one that has been tested I am not sure 
>> >>> how
>> to
>> >>> select one that is in active use so I could request help from 
>> >>> other
>> users
>> >>> and give feedback.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> Alonso Acu?a
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/paparazzi-devel/attachments/20130723/e
47088a8/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


End of Paparazzi-devel Digest, Vol 112, Issue 66
************************************************