Still stuck

Hermione is still causing trouble with yaw control flights despite lots of refinements.  Here’s the latest.

Hermione's troubles

Hermione’s troubles

@3s she’s climbed to about a meter high and then hovered for a second.  All the X, Y, and Z flight plan targets and sensor inputs are nicely aligned.

The ‘fun’ starts at 4 seconds.  The flight plan, written from my point of view says move left by 1m over 4 seconds.  From Hermione’s point of view, with the yaw code in use, this translates to rotate anti-clockwise by 90° while moving forwards by 1m over 4 seconds.  The yaw graph from the sensors shows the ACW rotation is happening correctly.  The amber line in the Y graph shows the left / right distance target from H’s POV is correctly zero.  Similarly, the amber line in the X graph correctly shows she should move forwards by 1m over 4s.  All’s good as far as far as the targets are concerned from her and my POV.

But there’s some severe discrepancy from the sensors inputs POV.  From my POV, she rotated ACW 90° as expected, but then she moved forwards away from me, instead of left.  The blue line on the Y graph (the LiDAR and ground-facing video inputs) confirms this; it shows she moves right by about 0.8m from her POV.  But the rusty terracotta line in the Y graph (the double integrated accelerometer – gravity readings) shows exactly the opposite.  The grey fusion of the amber and terracotta cancel each other out thus following the target perfectly but for completely the wrong reasons.

There are similar discrepancies in the X graph, where the LiDAR + Video blue line is the best match to what I saw: virtually no forward movement from H’s POV except for some slight forward movement after 8s when she should be hovering.

So the net of this?  The LiDAR / Video processing is working perfectly.  The double integrated IMU accelerometer results are wrong, and I need to work out why?  The results shown are taken directly from the accelerometer, and double integrated in excel (much like what the code does too), and I’m pretty convinced I’ve got this right.  Yet more digging to be done.

In other news…

  • Ö has ground facing lights much like Zoe had.  Currently they are always on, but ultimately I intend to use them in various ways such as flashing during calibration etc – this requires a new PCB however to plug a MOSFET gate into a GPIO pin.
  • piNet has changed direction somewhat: I’m testing within the bounds of my garden whether I can define a target destination with GPS, and have enough accuracy for the subsequent flight from elsewhere to get to that target accurately.  This is step one in taking the GPS coordinates of the centre of a maze, and then starting a flight from the edge to get back there.

That’s all for now, folks.  Thanks for sticking with me during these quiet times.


P.S. I’ve got better things to do that worry about why everything goes astray @ 7s, 3s after the yaw to move left started; it’s officially on hold as I’ve other stuff lurking in the background that’s about the flower.

Diagnoses and Cures

Hermione’s “reach for the stars” was due to I²C errors; I suspected powewr brown-outs.  Her regulator for the LiPo provided only 1.5A, so I tried her passively with mains PSU of 5V at 1A and 2.5A – the error was the same – shifted outputs from the IMU FIFO without any FIFO overflow.  That suggested a interaction with the I²C with the Garmin instead.  I rebuilt the cable with two UTPs (unshielded twisted pairs): SCL with Vss / GND and SDA with Vdd / 5V as per the PX4FLOW spec for long I²C wiring.  I was stunned – it just worked, regardless of whether the 1A or 2.5A power supply was used, I no longer got any I²C corruption.  Next step clearly is to test her live outdoors and check she no longer reaches for the stars.

I also had the bottle to let Zoe loose in the play room.  She still hardly got off the ground on the first flight, so it’s not temperature drift.  However, her second run was perfect, which reminded me that her first run was always cr@p for some reason.  Here’s the stats for both.  The stats are logging both accelerometer and Garmin / Camera distances.  There’s such a tight correlation between the very difference sensors that I’m very tempted to turn the fusion on.  Just a tad more bottle needed.  The key one for each is the bottom left: how high was she according to the two sensor sources.

Flight one

Flight one

Flight 2

Flight 2

I thinkthat’s my courage bottle empty for the day.  When it’s charged up tomorrow, I’ll take the sisters outside to test the above next steps.