Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Continous Servo trim acts wrong on V-Tail Mixes #8571

Closed
b14ckyy opened this issue Nov 21, 2022 · 9 comments
Closed

Continous Servo trim acts wrong on V-Tail Mixes #8571

b14ckyy opened this issue Nov 21, 2022 · 9 comments

Comments

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator

b14ckyy commented Nov 21, 2022

Current Behavior

If a Plane with a V-Tail mix has Continous Servo trim active, it is likely that, for the Pitch Axis, the servos are trimmed in opposite directions. I was finally able to reproduce and it seems like this happens, if Pitch has a negative + Positive mixed servo and no Inverted output. Both servo 2 and 3 are trimmed into the same direction (signal wise) but that means that one control surface goes up and the other one goes down.

Problem is unrelated of the yaw mix. With V-Tail both servos only on a pitch mixer, the behavior is the same. Its always the left or lower servo in the numbering that has an inverted trim behavior.

image
image

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Set up a V-Tail plane with same configuration: Mixer with one pitch servo inverted, outputs both V-Tail servos uninverted
  2. Go fly with Yaw Integral at 0 to disable Continous trim on that axis
  3. Enable continous servo trim
  4. Check control surfaces after landing

Expected behavior

Pitch axis continous trim goes into the correct direction no matter what Mixer or Servo direction is set on each Servo.

Suggested solution(s)

Take mixer and output reversal both into account for trimming Pitch on a V-Tail.

Additional context

I will try to get more Information from other pilots and compare their mixer and output settings with mine to find common factors.
Here is a Log of the last flight with Servotrim Debug enabled:
LOG00040.zip


  • FC Board name and vendor: Any
  • INAV version string: Issue started to appear with INAV 3.0 and Continous Servo trim feature implemented.
@Jetrell
Copy link

Jetrell commented Nov 22, 2022

@b14ckyy I noticed this a while ago too.
My workaround has been to use RC Yaw in place of Stabilized Yaw

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

b14ckyy commented Nov 22, 2022

@Jetrell as far as I am concerned this does not really seem to help. The Continous servo trim does not touch yaw at all if the Integral on yaw is set to 0. But the pitch trim seems to trim the servos in the opposite way. At least it looks like it.

All planes reported so far have in the outputs tab either both V-Tail servos reversed or none reversed. Never differently. I will try another test flight when possible but then reverse one servo only and compensate with the mixer to see how that behaves.

@Jetrell
Copy link

Jetrell commented Nov 23, 2022

Here is the mixers on a Mini Talon.. Noticed that the Pitch stabilization servo's both have positive weight. Which is what you said is the issue.. But by not having Stabilized Yaw. It makes it easier for people to set up their specific Pitch mixing, in a correct manor to prevent this.
The Mini Talon has a very poor response to crosswinds, via Yaw stabilation. That's why I don't use it.
This Talon has no issues running Continuous servo trim.

Mini Talon

servo's

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

b14ckyy commented Nov 23, 2022

@Jetrell This is really interesting.
you ar ethe only one so far not reporting trim issues and your V-Tail servos are running the opposite in the outputs tab (one inverted, one not)
Allt eh people reporting issues including myself are running both servos either inverted or uninverted and the direction change happens in the Mixer.
So I really need to change that in my setup and doublecheck if the issue still persists then. If it does we should have tracked down the root cause.

@Jetrell
Copy link

Jetrell commented Nov 23, 2022

That's why I thought the simplification of just using RC Yaw is helping to workaround the problem. Because you don't have to take into account the Yaw stabilization response. Only RC Yaw control.
I've experienced the same issue with a nano talon a few releases back.. But I don't have that plane and its setup, to now compare.

So I really need to change that in my setup and double check if the issue still persists then. If it does we should have tracked down the root cause.

Let me know what you find.

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

b14ckyy commented Nov 23, 2022

So far all people reporting the same issue have, had the mixes and reverses set as in the example above.
Either both V-Tail servos unreversed or both reversed and all correct movements regulated in the mixer.

I have now changed that. Reversed Servo 3 (right Tail servo) so it runs opposite to the left servo 2 from the outputs and changed the mixer accordingly to have all directions correct again. Another test pilot did the same and goes for a test flight right now.

image
image

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

b14ckyy commented Nov 23, 2022

OK it behaves the same with this configuration. So next step would be to disable yaw entirely and see what happens.
Both control surfaces where trimmed 2mm up mechanically before launch.

image
image
image

@kasatka60
Copy link

123
124
IMG_7198
inav 6.0 fp1

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator Author

b14ckyy commented Dec 3, 2022

OK we have confirmation now. The wrong trim behavior is unrelated to yaw. Shawn made a test flight today with no yaw mix. Both servos plain pure Pitch mixed. Still the left servo, as always, is trimmed down instead of up like the right servo.

so there is just a trim value inverted for dual servo pitch controls. @avsaase do you think you can have a look if you have overlooked something back then? You know the code best.

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants