"AeroMagellan" is a play on a well-established land-based robotic competition called RoboMagellan, and I assume they named it after Magellan because A) RoboCook could confuse people as to its purpose and it doesn't matter anyway because Magellan sailed the seas and these robots cover over grass and dirt. (Besides, standard practice is to name an expedition after its founder or leader, even if that person dies en route.)
Ted, The HoverFly Sport board isn't really conducive for use in fully autonomous flight. The Pro board might work as it has an on-board accelerometer, as would your own concoction, whereby you could attach any manner of sensors to provide the type of feedback you want. It's no accident Parallax now sells updated versions of the necessary inertial guidance sensors for this type of thing. They follow similar form-factor, electrical connection, and physical attachment methods.
I'm certainly not disputing that Magellan shouldn't be credited with commanding the first circumnavigating voyage. Ferdinand Magellan, as an individual, did not circumnavigate, although many people if asked who was the first person to go around the world, they would answer with his name. I guess no one knows of any other name to use...
I think if Buzz had set foot on the moon first, it would be his name remembered, not the commander's. Most likely because people were watching it happen.
Perhaps for an autonomous competition the namesake should be that of the first to solo circumnavigate. RoboSlo___ would be even worse though.
I am certianly no expert yet, but what you describe sounds like an EPA GAIN issue. Check page 49 of the HoverFly Users Manual (.pdf) on TUNING GAIN. I could be right... Then again, my nick name is chief dumb thumb, don't blame a crash on me... lol.
The HoverFly Sport cannot ever achieve a stable, level, sustained hover or autonomous flight because it has only a gyro on board. Without an accelerometer or compass, that gyro can be used to correct for unwanted rotations, but it will never know where "up" or "north" are. There's no measurable reference, and that's why it can't hover on its own.
The Open board could have those additional components added, and the Pro board comes with them.
And I'm not knocking the idea of the competition in any way - The Elev-8 can be fitted with other boards, and I'm working on making mine fly itself.
I thought I would try to find out specifically who was the first to circumnavigate. We know that Magellan did not, he stayed in Cebu. The only vessel of Magellan's fleet that completed the Voyage was the Victoria commanded by Elcano. But who was the first to set foot back on the mainland? He would rightfully be called the very first to circumnavigate. It is unlikely that the captain of the ship would be first so that leaves one of the other 17 men aboard the Victoria.
"AeroMagellan" is a play on a well-established land-based robotic competition called RoboMagellan, and I assume they named it after Magellan because A) RoboCook could confuse people as to its purpose and it doesn't matter anyway because Magellan sailed the seas and these robots cover over grass and dirt. (Besides, standard practice is to name an expedition after its founder or leader, even if that person dies en route.)
Ted, The HoverFly Sport board isn't really conducive for use in fully autonomous flight. The Pro board might work as it has an on-board accelerometer, as would your own concoction, whereby you could attach any manner of sensors to provide the type of feedback you want. It's no accident Parallax now sells updated versions of the necessary inertial guidance sensors for this type of thing. They follow similar form-factor, electrical connection, and physical attachment methods.
The HoverFly Sport cannot ever achieve a stable, level, sustained hover or autonomous flight because it has only a gyro on board. Without an accelerometer or compass, that gyro can be used to correct for unwanted rotations, but it will never know where "up" or "north" are. There's no measurable reference, and that's why it can't hover on its own.
The Open board could have those additional components added, and the Pro board comes with them.
And I'm not knocking the idea of the competition in any way - The Elev-8 can be fitted with other boards, and I'm working on making mine fly itself.
Gordon - Jason,
Thank you both for the more detailed description of the HoverFly capabilities. Compiling all of the required knowledge is half the battle. I am learning something new everyday concerning the ELEV-8.
I will suggest again here just in case it gets missed: How about QUADCOM?
-QUADCON?
-ParaFly?
NO NO CHRIS, PICK ME! I PROMISE I CAN MAKE A SWEET CRATER WITH THIS THING... You have not seen me fly yet, and I say fly in jest!
oooh, cow tippin with ELEV-8s. Now thats a redneck competition!
I based my comment on this whiteboard the tech support guys have that shows all the various "accidents" they have had with the various units they have built/tested. Last I knew Kevin Cook was in the lead and not at risk of losing his spot on the charts. Uh-oh, I think I hear Kevin coming...
I think if Buzz had set foot on the moon first, it would be his name remembered, not the commander's. Most likely because people were watching it happen.
There's an old saying that goes "If the Queen had _____ [use your imagination to to fill in the blank], she'd be the King." Armstrong was the first to walk the moon *because* he was mission commander. Had he somehow died enroute, the mission would have been renamed the "Armstrong Memorial Moon Landing" or some such, and Buzz would still come in second place, even if he had touched foot first. Them's the breaks.
Perhaps for an autonomous competition the namesake should be that of the first to solo circumnavigate. RoboSlo___ would be even worse though.
Since few contestants ever successfully completed RoboMagellan I don't think the name has ever been that important, and I bet most people know of Magellan only as an explorer. You're assuming in a ____Magellan competition there is some form of circumnavigation. It's merely navigation between start and finish with varied waypoints, and it seems to me Magellan accomplished that goal while still breathing. Since there's no way of knowing who was the first seafarer who used navigation principles, Magellan is as good a pick as any.
[QUOTE=W9GFO;1074679I think if Buzz had set foot on the moon first, it would be his name remembered, not the commander's. Most likely because people were watching it happen.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of people probably remember both Armstrong and Aldrin (at least among those who remember Armstrong). But probably not Collins.
Among the three, I've shaken hands with Aldrin but never encountered the others.
Is there really any possibility for a Propeller based autonomous quadrotor contest? Except for the hoverfly pro, there doesn't seem to be any autonomous capable quadrotor out there. And I don't think most people will have the math to be able to implement their own platform. So, we can argue about the name all day but how likely is it that there will be any contestants?
Is there really any possibility for a Propeller based autonomous quadrotor contest? Except for the hoverfly pro, there doesn't seem to be any autonomous capable quadrotor out there. And I don't think most people will have the math to be able to implement their own platform. So, we can argue about the name all day but how likely is it that there will be any contestants?
Yes, there is a possibility...
There are several examples out there that are either capable or near capable of autonomous flight. Check out the Arduino Quad guys. L. Miller is coming along nicely with his plans as well over at innov8tive design.
Flight stabilization is not that big of mystery with all of the current development and hobbyists have been using GPS for about what, 10 years now. That doesn't leave a ton of hard math left to do... sure there is going to be some, but we have users communities for that.
I think, given the level of rapid growth and excitement in the quad community, that there is sure to be enough contestants to call it a competition. It only takes two for there to be a winner.
There are several examples out there that are either capable or near capable of autonomous flight. Check out the Arduino Quad guys. L. Miller is coming along nicely with his plans as well over at innov8tive design.
Flight stabilization is not that big of mystery with all of the current development and hobbyists have been using GPS for about what, 10 years now. That doesn't leave a ton of hard math left to do... sure there is going to be some, but we have users communities for that.
I think, given the level of rapid growth and excitement in the quad community, that there is sure to be enough contestants to call it a competition. It only takes two for there to be a winner.
I know Arducopter is out there. But that's not the Propeller...
Not to be antagonistic, but your argument is poor. Just because hobbyists use GPS units doesn't mean that all the hard math is done. Take a look at just one example of the control needed: Quaternion-Quadrotor Control
If you look closely, you'll notice that the authors "model only the most important elements of the quadrotor that define its behavior at hover and ignore the ones that have a significant effect at only at high speeds". So, all that math in the paper is just to get it to stay in one place... Maybe I'm just mathematically challenged, but it doesn't look like building a quadrotor is a weekend project.
As far as user communities, sure, we may eventually have some sort of Propeller based open source quadrotor control system but I doubt it will be before any of the expos, and adopting it will take even longer. So organizing a Propeller based quadrotor autonomous contest might be a bit of a moot point, without any contestants.
I know Arducopter is out there. But that's not the Propeller...
Not to be antagonistic, but your argument is poor. Just because hobbyists use GPS units doesn't mean that all the hard math is done. Take a look at just one example of the control needed: Quaternion-Quadrotor Control
If you look closely, you'll notice that the authors "model only the most important elements of the quadrotor that define its behavior at hover and ignore the ones that have a significant effect at only at high speeds". So, all that math in the paper is just to get it to stay in one place... Maybe I'm just mathematically challenged, but it doesn't look like building a quadrotor is a weekend project.
As far as user communities, sure, we may eventually have some sort of Propeller based open source quadrotor control system but I doubt it will be before any of the expos, and adopting it will take even longer. So organizing a Propeller based quadrotor autonomous contest might be a bit of a moot point, without any contestants.
Sure, it may be a poor argument... but valid. The work is being done, and published, and the mystery is evaporating daily.
I am well aware that the math is difficult, very difficult in some cases but that does not mean that I, and others, will not work through it to accomplish X goals. I do agree that it is not a weekend project.
Ummm, no one ever said this was a Propeller only contest. Matter of fact, I mentioned that in the first post I believe.
The only challenge that is a moot point is the challenge that no one accepts...
Comments
Ted, The HoverFly Sport board isn't really conducive for use in fully autonomous flight. The Pro board might work as it has an on-board accelerometer, as would your own concoction, whereby you could attach any manner of sensors to provide the type of feedback you want. It's no accident Parallax now sells updated versions of the necessary inertial guidance sensors for this type of thing. They follow similar form-factor, electrical connection, and physical attachment methods.
-- Gordon
I think if Buzz had set foot on the moon first, it would be his name remembered, not the commander's. Most likely because people were watching it happen.
Perhaps for an autonomous competition the namesake should be that of the first to solo circumnavigate. RoboSlo___ would be even worse though.
The HoverFly Sport cannot ever achieve a stable, level, sustained hover or autonomous flight because it has only a gyro on board. Without an accelerometer or compass, that gyro can be used to correct for unwanted rotations, but it will never know where "up" or "north" are. There's no measurable reference, and that's why it can't hover on its own.
The Open board could have those additional components added, and the Pro board comes with them.
And I'm not knocking the idea of the competition in any way - The Elev-8 can be fitted with other boards, and I'm working on making mine fly itself.
Of course being a certified webfooted mossback myself, I would bo good with that. Too bad it doesn't sound good.
Hmmm, how about QUADCOM? Just another idea leaving names out?
Gordon - Jason,
Thank you both for the more detailed description of the HoverFly capabilities. Compiling all of the required knowledge is half the battle. I am learning something new everyday concerning the ELEV-8.
I will suggest again here just in case it gets missed: How about QUADCOM?
-QUADCON?
-ParaFly?
NO NO CHRIS, PICK ME! I PROMISE I CAN MAKE A SWEET CRATER WITH THIS THING... You have not seen me fly yet, and I say fly in jest!
oooh, cow tippin with ELEV-8s. Now thats a redneck competition!
I based my comment on this whiteboard the tech support guys have that shows all the various "accidents" they have had with the various units they have built/tested. Last I knew Kevin Cook was in the lead and not at risk of losing his spot on the charts.
There's an old saying that goes "If the Queen had _____ [use your imagination to to fill in the blank], she'd be the King." Armstrong was the first to walk the moon *because* he was mission commander. Had he somehow died enroute, the mission would have been renamed the "Armstrong Memorial Moon Landing" or some such, and Buzz would still come in second place, even if he had touched foot first. Them's the breaks.
Since few contestants ever successfully completed RoboMagellan I don't think the name has ever been that important, and I bet most people know of Magellan only as an explorer. You're assuming in a ____Magellan competition there is some form of circumnavigation. It's merely navigation between start and finish with varied waypoints, and it seems to me Magellan accomplished that goal while still breathing. Since there's no way of knowing who was the first seafarer who used navigation principles, Magellan is as good a pick as any.
-- Gordon
I think a lot of people probably remember both Armstrong and Aldrin (at least among those who remember Armstrong). But probably not Collins.
Among the three, I've shaken hands with Aldrin but never encountered the others.
Yes, there is a possibility...
There are several examples out there that are either capable or near capable of autonomous flight. Check out the Arduino Quad guys. L. Miller is coming along nicely with his plans as well over at innov8tive design.
Flight stabilization is not that big of mystery with all of the current development and hobbyists have been using GPS for about what, 10 years now. That doesn't leave a ton of hard math left to do... sure there is going to be some, but we have users communities for that.
I think, given the level of rapid growth and excitement in the quad community, that there is sure to be enough contestants to call it a competition. It only takes two for there to be a winner.
I know Arducopter is out there. But that's not the Propeller...
Not to be antagonistic, but your argument is poor. Just because hobbyists use GPS units doesn't mean that all the hard math is done. Take a look at just one example of the control needed: Quaternion-Quadrotor Control
If you look closely, you'll notice that the authors "model only the most important elements of the quadrotor that define its behavior at hover and ignore the ones that have a significant effect at only at high speeds". So, all that math in the paper is just to get it to stay in one place... Maybe I'm just mathematically challenged, but it doesn't look like building a quadrotor is a weekend project.
As far as user communities, sure, we may eventually have some sort of Propeller based open source quadrotor control system but I doubt it will be before any of the expos, and adopting it will take even longer. So organizing a Propeller based quadrotor autonomous contest might be a bit of a moot point, without any contestants.
Sure, it may be a poor argument... but valid. The work is being done, and published, and the mystery is evaporating daily.
I am well aware that the math is difficult, very difficult in some cases but that does not mean that I, and others, will not work through it to accomplish X goals. I do agree that it is not a weekend project.
Ummm, no one ever said this was a Propeller only contest. Matter of fact, I mentioned that in the first post I believe.
The only challenge that is a moot point is the challenge that no one accepts...