Cleanflight vs. Baseflight

[nilsen]

Morning all,

Since I'm getting my first naze32 board soon I started researching the firmware options for the board and have made a couple of obseravations.

1. Timecop isn't a friendly person and likes to protect his castle.
2. Baseflight is built for 8 bit processors, the naze32 is 32 bit however the same 8 bit code was adapted to run on the 32bit stm instead of being rewritten for 32 bit.
3. Cleanflight was forked by Hydra who has a lot of critism for Timecop however seems to have a good thing going on his fork however it's newer but is built for the 32bit stm and can run on sparky, naze and other boards.

So since there are a lot of people running naze and other boards, can we collect information on what is the way to go in terms of firmware and where we are on all of the various development projects?

I am quite partial to Cleanflight as I see it has interesting features like autotune (which is admiitedly still limited) but then again baseflight is tried and tested.

I know FGA uploaded a new video where he tested out cleanflight - what were your thoughts on it? Presumably you'd been running baseflight all this time and decided to try cleanflight but the tuning wasn't yet perfect.

Thanks All!

 

[Craftydan]

I'm not FGA, but I've been fairly pleased with cleanflight. It flies well and the new configurator is a step in the right direction.

It's also showing progress! It's one thing to have good mature code, and another to hsve good code with improvements in process -- one is always stuck at the "good enough", where the other will get better over time. Feature wise, IMO, cleanflight has already surpassed baseflight, and has momentum for more improvements.

So far, I have not been pleased with auto-tune -- it's hard to setup and on my airframes it had a distinct habit of tuning the gains too high, whether I stopped it early or not. It was especially bad on my ESCs with regen-braking enabled. Swapped back to the hand-tuned gains and she flew happy once more. It's a neat feature that I expect will improve and will work now for many, but not something I'd recommend to the technically savvy new pilot.

While I like the new configurator, the aux settigns are not backwards compatible with any of the old multiwii gui grids. On a desktop this isn't an issue, pull up the right configurator and use that . . . but on a tablet/smartphone that isn't an option and backwards compatibility is broken for using perfectly functional apps. I can still change all the settings and anything in CLI, just can't adjust the aux via the gui.

 

[nilsen]

Hey Crafty,

I didn't realise you were also using it, that is great feedback.
I'm reading the thread (http://www.multiwii.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5149&start=200) and the development seems to be ongoing with a lot of community input.

So from a flight characteristics point of view it is definitely your choice and is as good or better than baseflight?

 

[FinalGlideAus]

Until recently I've been using only Baseflight but am now shifting all my quads over to Cleanflight. I don't really see that big of a difference in the way they fly but I like the idea of a Dev that actually listens to people and love the new features coming through. Things like adjustable PID's and RCrate through the tx are a really good thing to have not to mention all the other things Dominic is working on. Plus I just hate Timecop . Baseflight feels stagnated and any improvements only seem to be happening to spite the Cleanflight war.

Oh and Autotune.... Yeah, learn to tune a quad yourself. You will do it better than a computer can.

 

[Cyberdactyl]

I've never understood Timecop's self-righteous "passion" in several threads at rcgroups in the past. I have not read all of his posts, but the abrasiveness must have been substantial and ongoing to get someone with his talent banned from rcgroups.

 

[nilsen]

Plus I just hate Timecop .

He seems so angry, I don't get it.

Oh and Autotune.... Yeah, learn to tune a quad yourself. You will do it better than a computer can.

Indeed, agree 100%, the APM needs a lot of tuning but has the nice ability to be able to tune in real time using the telemtry (I know you can do it via Bluetooth on naze) and I have done a lot of tuning to get my large hex to where I want it.

Anyway I was asking becuase this is my first mini-quad and have no idea how it will fly and wanted some starting points but I have also seen that it flies "out of the box" so I'll start there then perform the normal sequence of tuning.

Do you;

1. adjust P until low freq. oscillations occur.
2. land, adjust I until those dissapear
3. land, repeat step 1
4. repeat step 2
5. and eventually adjust d?

I'm so excited to try this board, I currently have the APM which is fantastic at slow, controlled, videography flying and it has some cool modes to such as drift which is a lot of fun and then I have my frankencopter wich is a Naza which I fly in manual mode on a hobbyking x440 with 2x jdrones esc's and 2x dji phantom esc's which didn't die in the initial crash.

 

[Craftydan]

Flight is "as good" and there are improvements in the PID loops currently under development (you can switch to them in CLI by changing the value of "pid_controller" to give it a try, but it's not debugged yet from what I've heard ).

Again the one thing that detracts is the AUX setups, so I don't recommend moving to it untill you've flown enough to know how you want your modes setup. After that, however, move over, set the AUX on the desktop and don't look back

 

[Craftydan]

Do you;

1. adjust P until high freq. oscillations occur -- back off 1/2 step or until they disappear.
2. land, adjust I until the airframe can hold any angle without drift, or until a low freq oscc occurs (back off)
3. land, repeat step 1
4. repeat step 2
5. and eventually adjust d?

(my changes in RED)

- 1-2 with D set low and non-zero (zero always gives me trouble, for some reason )
- skip 3&4 -- you repeat step 1&2 while adjustign D in step 5
- 5, adjust D up a bit, then repeat 1-4 (you can now increase P & I a bit for tighter control).
- 6, repeat 5 until you can't impove P or I, or you get tired of tuning . . . eventually it's close enough you just want to burn a few batterys doing something fun

 

[cranialrectosis]

Timecop has an old blog out in cyberspace where he goes by the name timmy and claims to be a pot smoking, autistic. I think this explains some of his genius and his personal issues. I found it amusing to read his old posts to see how he got kicked off RCGroups. If and when he can contain his passion for his special interests and not take every new idea as a personal criticism he may re-enter polite society and contribute more to the species than just the Naze32.

If he does, I think it will be in the best interests of all to welcome him.

Baseflight was a huge leap forward. It made MW accessible to the masses who do not want to mess with Arduino. The Naze32 acro is arguably the best flying board for the money and like him or not, Timecop is largely to blame.

In a way, Timecop is responsible for Cleanflight. Cleanflight is the answer to Timecop being a @$$ in person and not upgrading the code. If Baseflight gets better, it will likely be due to Cleanflight pushing. We are better of with BOTH competing and pushing each other.

I went to the Naze32 because the MultiWii Pro board from HK is aweful and I wanted to progress from a KK2 with it's java flash tool, no derivitave, and no flips with autolevel (ancient history, I know). Once I got a Naze32, java was forever banned from my PC )). Baseflight was and is an upgrade from a KK2 that makes sense.

It seems to me that the main reason for going to Cleanflight, based on this thread, is to push Timecop. It reminds me of the Intel/AMD wars of the 90s and the Betamax/VHS wars of the 80s. So long as there is broad support for both, the entire industry thrives. When one gets a clear economic advantage, the industry tends to stagnate and we may end up with an inferior standard.

Since neither has a clear advantage and the cost is the same why not use both? Why not push both vendors and support both vendors?

IMO so long as there is no clear advantage to either and so long as both continue to strive to create such an advantage, we collectively win bigger and our hobby has a brighter future.

 

[joshuabardwell]

Indeed, agree 100%, the APM needs a lot of tuning but has the nice ability to be able to tune in real time using the telemtry (I know you can do it via Bluetooth on naze) and I have done a lot of tuning to get my large hex to where I want it.

BT is okay, but you still have to land, put down your TX, pick up your phone, try again. I have never used APM, but in theory, the idea to be able to tweak gains via the pots/sliders on your TX is huge.

 

[FinalGlideAus]

BT is okay, but you still have to land, put down your TX, pick up your phone, try again. I have never used APM, but in theory, the idea to be able to tweak gains via the pots/sliders on your TX is huge.

Dominic has done just that. You can adjust values using switches on the tx using Cleanflight. Right now it is just. RCrate but he is working on adjusting the PID's as we speak. For me Cleanflight is the clear winner here. Although they don't fly exactly the same the difference is minimal but less bugs, smoother operating, and more usuable features (with heaps more being worked on) makes it an easy choice for me. The only downside with Cleanflight right now is it doesn't have the new AUX screen that Baseflight does which allows many old ClI commands to be done by ticking boxes but I know Dominic is working on that. His main concern right now is to clean up the code and get a full understanding of the PID controllers so all future work has a solid base to start from. They are already seeing the benifit a with far less glitches when they merge new code. After this initial work has been completed then he can work on things such as GPS stuff and so forth.

 

[cranialrectosis]

Dominic has done just that. You can adjust values using switches on the tx using Cleanflight. Right now it is just. RCrate but he is working on adjusting the PID's as we speak. For me Cleanflight is the clear winner here. Although they don't fly exactly the same the difference is minimal but less bugs, smoother operating, and more usuable features (with heaps more being worked on) makes it an easy choice for me. The only downside with Cleanflight right now is it doesn't have the new AUX screen that Baseflight does which allows many old ClI commands to be done by ticking boxes but I know Dominic is working on that. His main concern right now is to clean up the code and get a full understanding of the PID controllers so all future work has a solid base to start from. They are already seeing the benifit a with far less glitches when they merge new code. After this initial work has been completed then he can work on things such as GPS stuff and so forth.

Ability to tune PID with the remote would be awesome.

What bugs exist in Baseflight that do not exist in Cleanflight?

Which features are more useable in Cleanflight?

I am not contesting you, FGA. I simply want a more objective analysis.

 

[FinalGlideAus]

The list is many but minor. During my first 24hrs there were many times I said "oh that's nice" or "gee that worked better or smoother" within the. GUI. On my FrankenWarp and other high powered quads I've sometimes had a pitching issue when I drop the throttle quickly. This is gone in Cleanflight. The low voltage buzzer now makes a sound that doesn't resemble an epileptic mouse. I've had things not save or revert to weird settings when doing unusual setups in Baseflight but I'm not noticing it in Cleanflight. Thee are just lots of minor signs of the cleaner code working smoother. These are not reasons why you MUST switch but I certainly appreciate those small changes. Getting the AUX screen in Cleanflight will be the icing on the cake for me.

BTW: now that Cleanflight supports OneShot I am working on a comparison video similar to the BS12a/KISS video I made.

 

[cranialrectosis]

BTW: now that Cleanflight supports OneShot I am working on a comparison video similar to the BS12a/KISS video I made.

You still have to be running a nanowii and KISS escs for Oneshot don't you?

 

[FinalGlideAus]

I should correct myself. When I was talking about the AUX page I meant the config page. Baseflight has the new config page which Claenflight hasn't implemented that page yet. Worth noting that Cleanflight also has a diffenrent AUX page to Baseflight. Cleanflight allows operation of 6 position switches where Baseflight only allows 3 position switches. It's different but easy to learn how to operate.

 

[FinalGlideAus]

You still have to be running a nanowii and KISS escs for Oneshot don't you?

Nope, as of last weekend Cleanflight also supports OneShot.

 

[Balu]

The Naze32 acro is arguably the best flying board for the money

Arguably. I'm still working on a new SparkyV1/Taulabs copter, but Taulabs seem to be quite actively developed and the devs include good ideas from all the other worlds. Also the boards are designed for their task, not some old design reworked like the Naze32.

I'm so eagerly waiting for SparkyV2...

TBS' new racing quad runs on Taulabs too.

 

[FinalGlideAus]

Yes but to just "fly" a multi well you don't need top of the line electronics. An 8bit Multiwii flip FC will fly a quad just as good as anything out there. The faster processors and higher tech are just for all the extra gizmos like GPS and fancy flashing lights. Until we can get better and faster sensors (gyros etc.) at an affordable price there is no real way to improve the flight characteristics. At least I'm not seeing it. I can't write or read code but what I can do is fly and using those abilities I'm yet to see any real improvements in how a controller "flies" a quad.

 

[makattack]

I second what FGA mentioned. I just got introduced to this world of multirotor flight controllers of an opensource nature with my first tricopter build. Because I just had no clue nor patience for figuring out all the components I needed, I went with a RTFQ electrohub electronics kit to go with my electrohub I picked up at FTFF. This came with the 8 bit Flip 1.5, and it was a learning process to figure it out -- even though I had experience with APM and all the gizmos attached to it.

I still am mostly flying on the default PID's (having toned down the Yaw P & I) as I learn to fly it. Right now, I find the default settings in acro mode to be just fine for learning. I suspect that sometime next year, I'll be playing with either cleanflight or taulabs on a newer board, but the flip 1.5 will go into a mini quad that I am collecting parts for.

 

[joshuabardwell]

I still am mostly flying on the default PID's (having toned down the Yaw P & I) as I learn to fly it.

FWIW, when I tuned my ElectroHub quad, I ended up with P values around 5.75, when the stock ones were around 3. If you need the quad to be more docile, turn down your Roll and Pitch rates, and use expo. Turning down P and I just makes the quad harder to control, and that's not your actual goal.