Whether ’tis easier for the macro-blocks to track
The clovers and daisies of contrasting colour..”
The answer is no, I shouldn’t have mown the lawn. With the kids’ toys moved out of the way, and any ungreen contrasting features slain, there was nothing to distinguish one blade of shorn grass from another and Hermione drifted wildly. Reinstating the kids’ chaos restored high quality tracking over 5m.
The point of the flight was to compare GPS versus macro-block lateral tracking. Certainly over this 5m flight, down-facing video beat GPS hands down:
My best guess interpretation of the GPS graph is that the flight was actually from the 2 – 7m diagonally heading north west. The camera POV doesn’t include compass data, so it’s correctly showing her flying forwards by 5m. The compass code is not working accurately yet – it needs more investigation why not – it was showing ~90° (i.e. East) rather than the true 45° (i.e. North East) shown by the GPS and a handheld compass.
I’ve done some more refinements to scheduling the sensor reads, and also accuracy of GPS data streamed from the GPS process. It’s worth viewing this graph full screen – each spike shows the time in seconds between motion processing loops – i.e. the time spent processing other sensors – 10ms indicates just IMU data was processed. The fact no loop takes more than 0.042s* even with full diagnostics running means I could up the sampling rate back to 1kHz – it’s at 500Hz at the moment. More importantly, it shows processing is nicely spread out and each sensor is getting it’s fair share of the processing and nobody is hogging the limelight.
As a result, I’ve updated the code on GitHub.
*42ms is the point where the IMU FIFO overflows at 1kHz sampling – 512 FIFO size / 12 bytes sample size / 1kHz sampling rate