This problem happens with version 2.4 of AeroQuad and not to the 2.1.
The versions I'm using are:
- Windows XP
- AeroQuadConfigurator v2.7.1
- The sensors of my aeroquad are the original IMU 5DOF and IXZ-500.
- Arduino Duemilanove
- The configuration on both versions (2.1 and 2.4) are
. #define AeroQuad_v1
. #define plusConfig
The behavior of the version 2.1 is:
In the aeroQuadConfigurator I open "sensor calibration". In this window I
select "shield version" = v1.7 that have AREF=3.00, and press the button
"Calibrate Level" and then the 'artificial horizon' window look like the
settings are correct, the aeroquad is completely still and all good. If I
choose "shield version" = 2.0 or "shield version" = custom and AREF=2.80 the
operation of the 'artificial horizon' is always correct, showing errors up to
0.2 of pitch.
The behavior of the version 2.4 is:
In the aeroQuadConfigurator I open "sensor calibration". In this window I
select "shield version" = v1.7 that have AREF=3.00, and press the button
"Calibrate Level" and then I see 'artificial horizon' with values begin
to grow and grow, the value of pitch in one minute can be 2.0 or 3.0 more. And
it keeps growing. I attach a screenshot with my aeroquad totally still.
I go back to try to calibrate the sensors, if I choose "shield version" = 2.0
or "shield version" = custom and AREF=2.80 the operation of the 'artificial
horizon' is always wrong, showing errors in only one or two minutes of 3.7 of
pitch. Furthermore, after doing a calibration is necessary to close
AeroQuadConfigurator to see the effects.
One thing I find curious is that the version AeroQuadConfigurator_v2.3.1 when I
select "shield version" = 1.7 the value of AREF is 2.8 V and the current
version offers 3.00 V.
In summary, with version 2.4, unlike the version 2.1, in the window 'horizon
arfifical' the sensors values move alone without any kind of movement in
the aeroquad.
Best regards,
Thanks,
Henry Brito Martin
SPAIN
Original issue reported on code.google.com by henry...@hotmail.com on 22 Apr 2011 at 4:46
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
henry...@hotmail.com
on 22 Apr 2011 at 4:46Attachments: