I am finding it so difficult to maintain height and use the rudder at the same time. Surely there is a better way. Every time I use the rudder I either give too much or to little throttle. I understand you have to educate the thumb but if this is true why do heli pilots have pedals. It's really starting to put me off.
Throttle and rudder/yaw
- Thread starter Jamie M
- Start date
Jackson
USA member at large
That's exactly what you have to do. Good throttle management is one of the hardest things to master. Rome wasn't built in a day.
FWIW most of the pros use a modified pinching technique on their sticks.
2
Hi What Jackson said is spot on try the pinch I did and could not get on with it but I had been flying thumbs for a while , I fly helis as well they are easier as your flying on a fixed throttle and adjust the pitch to gain or loose height , if pinch does not work try and place your hand a little higher on the side of the transmitter so your thumb is a little more bent this may help , also just sit with the transmitter with out the quad and practise moving the throttle and rudder but you can only move one axis at a time this will train your thumb but its not an over night fix does take time
Thank you very much. I am flying line of sight with a Hubsan x4. I am at nose in stage and this is when my throttle yaw problem really kicks in. I guess because I'm so preoccupied with trying to think backwards. My goal is FPV but I wanted to master line of sight first. I am assuming this would be an advantage when I come to fpv?
Thanks for taking the time to reply to nuuube with a toy.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to nuuube with a toy.
You doing well if your nose in , its always good to be able to fly nose in , But in FPV your always facing forward so you may be ok , there are other problems with FPV like were you are to where the quad is this is why some guys like OSD so they know which way they are heading and how high they are
QuadKid
Noth'in Like a Flat Top
Yup, good advice from all, I like to set myself up either east or west of my flight path when flying a course, mostly depending on the sun, most entry level drones tend to rise when entering a banked turn and applying yaw to keep your nose forward thus more throttle control required, hobby level & racing drones don't totaly eliminate this effect but reduce it considerably due to their power & control response.
BTW: Got a nice Xmas gift Walkere F210 3D check it out.
BTW: Got a nice Xmas gift Walkere F210 3D check it out.
QuadKid
Noth'in Like a Flat Top
Hey Holt, been flying this thing since Xmas almost everyday trying to get my throttle / slip turn & yaw control smooth, man this is an awesome pocket rocket ! Tough as nails, very fast & accurate with the DEVO 7 Contoller. very happy so far and parts are everywhere.
The FPV camera does not record but gives a nice 720P 140 degree view. Waiting on my GoPro to get here, will post some videos when t comes.
My buddy can't keep up with it using the I phone.
The FPV camera does not record but gives a nice 720P 140 degree view. Waiting on my GoPro to get here, will post some videos when t comes.
My buddy can't keep up with it using the I phone.
rosco11
Well-Known Member
That's the way i learned it so you should too.
not.
This is the biggest deterrent for most new pilots. Get a set of goggles with a head tracker and decent transmitter that will work with your quad. Set up the head tracker in the transmitter on the yaw channel. Turn the quad by moving your head in one direction or the other instead of a camera gimbal. intuitive. Yes, it works. Now you only need to worry about altitude and speed with the left stick.
Better solution would be to combine yaw as a function of pitch on the same stick. No solution for that yet, but stick around, it probably will not be long.
not.
This is the biggest deterrent for most new pilots. Get a set of goggles with a head tracker and decent transmitter that will work with your quad. Set up the head tracker in the transmitter on the yaw channel. Turn the quad by moving your head in one direction or the other instead of a camera gimbal. intuitive. Yes, it works. Now you only need to worry about altitude and speed with the left stick.
Better solution would be to combine yaw as a function of pitch on the same stick. No solution for that yet, but stick around, it probably will not be long.
Rick M
Absent-minded professor
It's human nature to want to "fast forward" through the learning curve. However, you can make a pretty good argument for learning by mastering fundamentals, and it seems to me that coordinating smooth banked turns is one of these. I'm pretty new to quads but years ago I flew RC gliders (well) and heli's (like a rookie). With both of them I came to appreciate the value of starting with basics and "layering" higher level skills on top of them. It's definitely helpful when things start to go wrong, if nothing else.
I'm at the point where I'm blasting around and have a pretty good handle on banked turns, but as soon as things get choppy I slow down and go back to basics. I ain't that good yet, and it helps.
I'm at the point where I'm blasting around and have a pretty good handle on banked turns, but as soon as things get choppy I slow down and go back to basics. I ain't that good yet, and it helps.
rosco11
Well-Known Member
Totally agree about fundamentals. However, learning the basics of a flawed system by design is another cup of tea. A few decades ago, someone sat down and wanted to make a remote control plane/copter/eventually quad. They developed several independent systems to handle individual functions and lumped them all together in a remote, then tried to pair it down to as few control actions as possible.
It is a system developed by engineers...for engineers.
Fast forward a few decades, the focus has been on making marketable products with off the shelf technology. Hence the flawed control system. This was reinforced by testers who grew up with the flawed system themselves making recommendations on improvements. Hence, focus on programming updates but no deviation from a control system they grew up with.
Do you know why they do not make cars that have a throttle attached to the steering wheel? Or an airplane with the throttle on the same foot pedal as the rudder? Sure, you can make it work with enough practice. Might even live through it too. That is not basics, it is poor design. It is also the largest obstacle new fliers have issues getting past. Why most fliers never make it past a few battery cycles in the family living room before it goes in the trash.
Developers need to stop asking the pros and start asking the newbies what they do or do not like about the product. How to make it better and more entertaining. That is where the potential market growth is. The concept of flying is a dream shared by many. FPV opened the door to the dreams of millions. However, they want to play. They are not interested in another job. Games and toys that have a large learning curve do not get a lot of attention. There is always that niche market, but it is infinitesimally small to the general potential market.
The i-phone and android beat the tar out of windows because it was intuitive. simple to understand and use. It is way past due for an I-phone revolution for quads and the time is right.
Redesign the control system to something more intuitive, simple and easy to understand and use. Get the rudder off the throttle stick. That would be a good start, in my opinion. Tying it into the pitch stick would be even better. Headless tech is fine for the kiddies but it stops the moment you strap on goggles which is where most of us want to be. We want to fly. And why is Headless so popular with the kiddies? Because you do not have to deal with the rudder while you are busy dealing with altitude and speed and you only need ONE control to turn, not two...while you are dealing with the throttle to control altitude and speed at the same time. It is a bad design. Cudos to the peeps that did the bleeding to make it work. The rest of us want to play, not bleed.
It is a system developed by engineers...for engineers.
Fast forward a few decades, the focus has been on making marketable products with off the shelf technology. Hence the flawed control system. This was reinforced by testers who grew up with the flawed system themselves making recommendations on improvements. Hence, focus on programming updates but no deviation from a control system they grew up with.
Do you know why they do not make cars that have a throttle attached to the steering wheel? Or an airplane with the throttle on the same foot pedal as the rudder? Sure, you can make it work with enough practice. Might even live through it too. That is not basics, it is poor design. It is also the largest obstacle new fliers have issues getting past. Why most fliers never make it past a few battery cycles in the family living room before it goes in the trash.
Developers need to stop asking the pros and start asking the newbies what they do or do not like about the product. How to make it better and more entertaining. That is where the potential market growth is. The concept of flying is a dream shared by many. FPV opened the door to the dreams of millions. However, they want to play. They are not interested in another job. Games and toys that have a large learning curve do not get a lot of attention. There is always that niche market, but it is infinitesimally small to the general potential market.
The i-phone and android beat the tar out of windows because it was intuitive. simple to understand and use. It is way past due for an I-phone revolution for quads and the time is right.
Redesign the control system to something more intuitive, simple and easy to understand and use. Get the rudder off the throttle stick. That would be a good start, in my opinion. Tying it into the pitch stick would be even better. Headless tech is fine for the kiddies but it stops the moment you strap on goggles which is where most of us want to be. We want to fly. And why is Headless so popular with the kiddies? Because you do not have to deal with the rudder while you are busy dealing with altitude and speed and you only need ONE control to turn, not two...while you are dealing with the throttle to control altitude and speed at the same time. It is a bad design. Cudos to the peeps that did the bleeding to make it work. The rest of us want to play, not bleed.
GlassKnees
Well-Known Member
Part of the problem is that you have to control at least four flight functions - throttle, rudder, aileron, elevator. In an airplane, you've got one hand to control elevator and aileron and the other for the throttle; your feet control the rudders. I get that it's hard for a newbie to use two sticks to control those functions, but you only have your fingers available. What are you gonna do? Add more controls on the transmitter?
Comparing an iPhone to R/C controls makes no sense - they are different things, providing different functions. Oh, by the way, I'm just as fluent in IOS as with Windows, and Linux, for that matter. I know how to fly an airplane, and play the piano. I can swim freestyle and do a flip turn. All these things take lots of practice - anything worth becoming proficient in is worth putting in the time to practice. Quite whining and learn. Or sell the quad and leave the hobby for those who have discipline, time and patience.
Comparing an iPhone to R/C controls makes no sense - they are different things, providing different functions. Oh, by the way, I'm just as fluent in IOS as with Windows, and Linux, for that matter. I know how to fly an airplane, and play the piano. I can swim freestyle and do a flip turn. All these things take lots of practice - anything worth becoming proficient in is worth putting in the time to practice. Quite whining and learn. Or sell the quad and leave the hobby for those who have discipline, time and patience.
rosco11
Well-Known Member
What i have done already is use the trinity head tracker in my fat shark goggles to control yaw. I mixed one of the axis channels into the yaw channel on the Taranis. Yes, it works. Can be done with any goggles with a head tracker. Instead of controlling a camera gamble, i turn my quad. It is very intuitive and natural.
I do not see a reason the yaw channel could not be mixed with the roll channel either. I haven't played with it yet because I am still working with the headtracker. Still playing with turn rates and trying to get a good mix with roll. Need to find a mix that works well with the headtracker so i can use it on the right stick with the roll.
Yes, you have four elements of flight you need to control. No, it does not have to be done individually, or with your fingers at all. Most jets combine roll with yaw on one control that is controlled by a computer. There is no reason it could not be done for quads. In fact, it is a natural fit for quads especially. The entire flight system is computer controlled, why quip because the yaw is too? The worst possible system is the one we have now. Yaw attached to the throttle. you should have one hand for direction, the other for altitude and speed. THAT would be more intuitive than what we have now.
As far as the I-phone comparison, you are being a bit short sighted. Consider the modules you can add on to flight controllers now for various functions. What is limiting a company from making a controller with more than one chip inside that would make the system capable of expansion? or a partitioned chip? Phones are 2.4 already. A cell phone IS a transmitter. How long down the road do you think it will be before apple or android sees a potential and makes a controller you can download apps on to expand its capabilities instead of attaching a module? The only reason they haven't yet is they do not see a potential market. It is not even a large jump to get there. They could do it in a week if they wanted to.
Currently, the programs we use are very basic. A lot of them are the same shell with different tweaks here and there. There is absolutely no reason at all one controller could not hold more than one flight protocol in its memory just like it stores various models and execute them just like any other program. None. And no reason you should not be able to download them right into the controller instead of attaching a module. The reason we have not seen one is because the people making recommendations are the same people who grew up with this poorly designed flight control system. It is not what we have always done so... lets expand on what we have because we are comfortable with it.
It is only a matter of time. The first company that pops out a controller that can download and use different protocols WILL be the next Taranis only they will take over the whole market. For a time. Then knockoffs will pop up and the price wars will begin which is a good thing for consumers.
Changing the flight control system is a bit riskier. Very few reviewers or pros will give it a positive spin. They grew up in the school of hard knocks and will want everyone to play catch-up to them, not start over. That will likely have to start at the grass roots like headless tech did. By the way, why wouldn't they make the quad turn to face the direction of travel in headless mode for making videos? how hard would that be? Another couple days of typing code?
So much can be done to make this sport become more mainstream. But i doubt any of it will be initiated by the people who have been doing it the longest. Manufacturers need to look at the new user for input, not the old school'ers who are set in their ways. Just my opinion.
I do not see a reason the yaw channel could not be mixed with the roll channel either. I haven't played with it yet because I am still working with the headtracker. Still playing with turn rates and trying to get a good mix with roll. Need to find a mix that works well with the headtracker so i can use it on the right stick with the roll.
Yes, you have four elements of flight you need to control. No, it does not have to be done individually, or with your fingers at all. Most jets combine roll with yaw on one control that is controlled by a computer. There is no reason it could not be done for quads. In fact, it is a natural fit for quads especially. The entire flight system is computer controlled, why quip because the yaw is too? The worst possible system is the one we have now. Yaw attached to the throttle. you should have one hand for direction, the other for altitude and speed. THAT would be more intuitive than what we have now.
As far as the I-phone comparison, you are being a bit short sighted. Consider the modules you can add on to flight controllers now for various functions. What is limiting a company from making a controller with more than one chip inside that would make the system capable of expansion? or a partitioned chip? Phones are 2.4 already. A cell phone IS a transmitter. How long down the road do you think it will be before apple or android sees a potential and makes a controller you can download apps on to expand its capabilities instead of attaching a module? The only reason they haven't yet is they do not see a potential market. It is not even a large jump to get there. They could do it in a week if they wanted to.
Currently, the programs we use are very basic. A lot of them are the same shell with different tweaks here and there. There is absolutely no reason at all one controller could not hold more than one flight protocol in its memory just like it stores various models and execute them just like any other program. None. And no reason you should not be able to download them right into the controller instead of attaching a module. The reason we have not seen one is because the people making recommendations are the same people who grew up with this poorly designed flight control system. It is not what we have always done so... lets expand on what we have because we are comfortable with it.
It is only a matter of time. The first company that pops out a controller that can download and use different protocols WILL be the next Taranis only they will take over the whole market. For a time. Then knockoffs will pop up and the price wars will begin which is a good thing for consumers.
Changing the flight control system is a bit riskier. Very few reviewers or pros will give it a positive spin. They grew up in the school of hard knocks and will want everyone to play catch-up to them, not start over. That will likely have to start at the grass roots like headless tech did. By the way, why wouldn't they make the quad turn to face the direction of travel in headless mode for making videos? how hard would that be? Another couple days of typing code?
So much can be done to make this sport become more mainstream. But i doubt any of it will be initiated by the people who have been doing it the longest. Manufacturers need to look at the new user for input, not the old school'ers who are set in their ways. Just my opinion.