Is Autoquad really for newbies ? Does not look like it

[philgib]

My perception is "it is not."

And if not... why not so ?
I mean ... I NEED all the functionalities Autoquad has and I already love Autoquad for that.

Except I am a newbie and overwhelming complexity does not only scare me, it also bothers me, giving me the feeling no-one cares, some "geeks speak to geeks only and the rest can go" feeling.

For that reason, should I stay out from the Autoquad ?
That would be limiting yourself to a huge commercial base of new comers ?

Yes, for every new thing, there is obviously a learning curve. But why not making it simple ?

[leopold1]

Your troubles are allmost over

[kinderkram]

Hi and welcome,

your perception is correct.

You need at least some skills in soldering, building the airframe and basic electronic setups.

It's not for newbs and the reason is the complexity of the FC you already mentioned. We don't do this bc we're a bunch of elitists but setting up the AQ requires patience and accuracy and a basic understanding how these flight controllers work.

Though the documentation and the development of the GUIs make it easier to step through the process it's far from being plug&fly.

Norbert

[Ruffio]

Why AQ is flying better than most controllers?
Because ... every sensor is different and has own haracteristics. Every multicopter is diffrent.

Is it possible to simplify all "befor flying steps"?
I hope after few tens we will have chance to prepare few hardware profiles that will be not ideal but good enough.
May be there is some other calibrations and calculations way that develoer team will find - hope so.

For now we have to be patient, accurate and systematic.

[Max]

[13brv3]

I think the wiki is well laid out, and at least as complete and accurate as any other FC wiki I've seen. As hardware and software develop, there will always be some gotchas, but a forum search fixes most of that. Worst case, you can always ask, and I haven't seen any hostile behavior on the forum, so there's no reason to fear asking a question. Of course you should be expected to be pointed toward the wiki if the answer is already there.

I've been considering stocking the AQ hardware in my shop, and I've also considered offering some calibration services. The freeze/thaw should be a one time procedure, and doing the dynamic cal on the board alone is certainly better than nothing. For most folks, I'd bet that would all be perfectly acceptable if you take some care not to fill the area around your FC with ferrous material and power wires.

I've always resisted selling RTF, partly because kits are pretty easy to build, and because a user is going to be lost if they don't learn something. However, there is also some value in starting with something that works to gain experience, a "trainer" if you will. The expectation would be that once a new user has some experience, they'll get brave enough to try different props, or motors, and by the time they have some real experience, they'll be as dangerous as the rest of us

What was the question again... Oh right, would the AQ be good for a newbie? I think the answer to that completely depends on the newbie in question. For someone with an interest in learning, and a desire to have a great flying copter with all the features, I'd say go for it. If you just want to fly right now, and don't care anything about learning how to set it up, then I probably wouldn't recommend it.

OK, that's my quota of rambling for the day

Rusty

[miho]

Just a few thoughts from a newby like you. I think I am in a similar situation as you are. I am a complete beginner when it comes to multirotor with an idea for an application. For the past months I have been looking for an (A)RTF platform for my needs. I am coming to the conclusion that there is no such platform. Either they are too simple or too inflexible. Looking through all the boards and forums made me realise that no non-RC-toy solution is RTF. They all need some tweaking. And for that one needs to understand the FCs.

Being an electronics designer with experience in wireless and embedded and an aptitude for mechanical stuff probably makes me a . I know that electronic components have variations and manufacturing tolerances. They can greatly change with temperature. So if you want to achieve perfect flight control I assume you have to calibrate out all these variations. Obviously in the wireless chips I design for a living we do that in the factory or we have self-learning algorithms on board that the user does not notice. Developing and testing these algorithms takes man-years! Multirotor is still very much in its infancy but growing quickly. If you want commercial-grade simpleness, talk to the likes of microdrones. But be willing to pay their prices. I am not the least surprised by them.

Use the complexity as an opportunity to learn. You will gain a lot from it. If you are serious about multirotors, you will soon find the limits of anything RTF. If you just want to mess about, maybe that's all you need. Unfortunately one can (not yet) have it all.

Michael