NEO tuning parameters for F3C style

Why is the Futaba GGY760 gyro more popular amongst the F3C community and for tuning a F3C helicopter?

What difference is there in what parameters that are available in the VBAR NEO Pro and CGY760?

Possible to do a guide or video from Mikado on how to tune an F3C helicopter with NEO parameters?

Regards (EN) / Gruss (DE)

Anders Norlin

The CGY760 is more popular because that's just the way it's always been. I just switched from the CGY 760 to the VBar and have been able to tune a hover decently, as well as nice upstairs maneuvers.

There are several things I need, though:

- I need the ability to get a 7-9 point pitch curve in order to smoothen out the hover curve
- I need the ability to control the slope of the curve to allow for adjustability depending on wind via trim wheel or pot
- I need the ability to lower or raise the pitch curve to allow for adjustability depending on density altitude via trim wheel or pot
- I need the ability to change the pitch curve of the tail rotor input to get a consistent piro rate no matter where I'm at on the stick
- I also need to be able to do this on a per bank, so as not to accidentally affect my other banks

I'm going to fly through these limitations but they're all very easily done via software.

In CGY760 you can adjust more things separate on elevator and aileron.

Like P-Gain, I-Gain and D-Gain can be set separate for aileron and elevator.

There are settings for both cyclic gain and heading hold gain.

Control authority sets swash acceleration to stick input.

support for 760us cyclic servo.

In VBAR NEO settings in PID are bundled together like paddle sim. I think NEO is a better system out of the box but for those that need to have everything available for tuning there should be that option also.

Maybe also a F3C license as an option for NEO could be developed targeting the F3C flyers.

Pro - Pro/Rescue - F3C - F3C/Rescue

Regards (EN) / Gruss (DE)

Anders Norlin

Some responses below

anders_norlin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In CGY760 you can adjust more things separate on
> elevator and aileron.
>
> Like P-Gain, I-Gain and D-Gain can be set separate
> for aileron and elevator.
>

I have not found the need to adjust them separately yet. Most F3C folks I know fly in 3D mode and that combines the gain adjustment via channel down to one channel for the cyclic so you end up losing the separate adjustment anyway.

> There are settings for both cyclic gain and
> heading hold gain.

In PRO you can adjust the individual parameters but, yes, they get bundled as a main rotor adjustment vs. separate axes.

>
> Control authority sets swash acceleration to stick
> input.

Similar to paddle sim in PRO

>
> support for 760us cyclic servo.

Support for 760us cyclic servos has been addressed elsewhere on the forums.

>
> In VBAR NEO settings in PID are bundled together
> like paddle sim. I think NEO is a better system
> out of the box but for those that need to have
> everything available for tuning there should be
> that option also.
>
> Maybe also a F3C license as an option for NEO
> could be developed targeting the F3C flyers.

I'd welcome an App to do some of the additional tuning and options I suggested above.

>
> Pro - Pro/Rescue - F3C - F3C/Rescue

Different helicopter has different behaviour when you push the head gain to its limit, lower the rpm without getting wobble.

Even with my CGY760, I prefer the F3C mode where I can tune the aileron and elevator gyro separately, to avoid wobble in hovering at 1350rpm.

Regarding the 760us swash servos, I read the response here in this forum but in reality, there is improvement and this improvement is obvious.

Hi,

about 760 µs servos, I can not directly compare, obviously, but I think I get the math/logic. As stated, an improvement can be suspected or even expected, on systems with a different approach to signal filtering than in the VBar NEO, where the quicker or more direct response from the servos can help.

I'd be curious to see what an experienced pilot would find, both new to the question at hand and thus unbiased, if you could put two or four models in front of him and let him compare blindly, figuratively speaking
Given that all the other parameters and variables were or could be equal, so the only difference were the servos.

But there it becomes difficult, because you would adjust parameters differently right away, with considerably different servos, to get the best out of the components at hand, and there's also always room for tweaking 'under the hood' with values you wouldn't consider safe for an unexperienced person.

I could imagine all kinds of results, right up to 'even though it wasn't to be expected, 760 µs servos bring an improvement with VBar NEO'. Who can honestly tell?

Best,

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.

Eddi E. aus G. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi,
>
> about 760 µs servos, I can not directly compare,
> obviously, but I think I get the math/logic. As
> stated, an improvement can be suspected or even
> expected, on systems with a different approach to
> signal filtering than in the VBar NEO, where the
> quicker or more direct response from the servos
> can help.
>
> I'd be curious to see what an experienced pilot
> would find, both new to the question at hand and
> thus unbiased, if you could put two or four models
> in front of him and let him compare blindly,
> figuratively speaking
> Given that all the other parameters and variables
> were or could be equal, so the only difference
> were the servos.
>
> But there it becomes difficult, because you would
> adjust parameters differently right away, with
> considerably different servos, to get the best out
> of the components at hand, and there's also always
> room for tweaking 'under the hood' with values you
> wouldn't consider safe for an unexperienced
> person.
>
> I could imagine all kinds of results, right up to
> 'even though it wasn't to be expected, 760 µs
> servos bring an improvement with VBar NEO'. Who
> can honestly tell?
>
> Best,
>
> Eddi

What about the suggestion to make an F3C app to automate and enable the fine tuning that is needed by the F3C pilot. I think that would set you apart from the competition.

Regards (EN) / Gruss (DE)

Anders Norlin

It would definitely be a help to have that app. Also, the 9-point collective pitch curves, allowing for greater resolution in the hover bank, will be a huge help. The multi-point curve on the tail is also needed. I tried doing the tail one with a macrocell but was unsuccessful.

Hi,

I hear you. But allow a few questions:

. how many F3C pilots are there, actively competing or considerably committed?
. how many of these would be willing to try something new, leave beaten tracks?
. how many of these would be sufficiently committed to get involved with a project F3C, and to help bringing it to a successful end?

I would dare say we come from a different world and we hardly know all the pitfalls, how things are done in the different culture, and we even dare questioning that since 'because it always was that way' or 'because other radios have it' or 'because I'm used to it' is not an answer

Same goes for what we already have, by the way, we didn't implement everything you might find in other systems, or we do things differently.

Don't get me wrong, this is my personal opinion, and although I'm not into F3C myself, I can admire the precision and repeatability with which you can fly a helicopter, especially the hovering maneuvers. To put that into perspective, I'm also not into hard 3D, but I can equally admire with which precision and repeatability you _can_ fly hard 3D, also set maneuvers, but even more freestyle to music. I could never do that myself, though ... both.

But I've been flying for years myself, and I dare say the main factors are the setup of the model, and the pilot.
Back in the day, you would have to have had a switch for flying inverted, to set you apart from the competition, or at least to run with it ... what would you have thought of a company saying, we don't do that, we think you can fly it just so

I'm getting carried away

What if ... a group of F3C pilots compiled a comprehensive list (or as close to it as possible) of features, must have, nice to haves, no-gos, and discussed it until they could agree on it, and which we then could discuss, compare with what we have and what could be possible, with adequate effort?

That brings me back to my initial questions ... a complex thing somehow might only make sense if there's a large enough target group, else it might be better to rely on systems which already have more or less fine-tuned all those options, or try it with a system like ours, which does not have all those options, or where you have to think about 'macrocell' them yourselves, or as close to it as possible.

A difficult topic

Best,

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.

Being able to switch between 5 or 9 point pitch curve should be something you should be able to do in a radio of this class.

Lower or raise the pitch curve can be done in the settings already, just how to connect it to a trim wheel?

Control the slope of the curve can not be that hard to implement and also have it connected to a trim wheel.

Regards (EN) / Gruss (DE)

Anders Norlin

Eddi E. aus G. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi,
>
> I hear you. But allow a few questions:
>
> . how many F3C pilots are there, actively
> competing or considerably committed?

I am, and I can find others.

> . how many of these would be willing to try
> something new, leave beaten tracks?

I'm sure I can round up more, but I'm willing to try it.

> . how many of these would be sufficiently
> committed to get involved with a project F3C, and
> to help bringing it to a successful end?

Again, I am and I'm sure I could pull in others.

>
> I would dare say we come from a different world
> and we hardly know all the pitfalls, how things
> are done in the different culture, and we even
> dare questioning that since 'because it always was
> that way' or 'because other radios have it' or
> 'because I'm used to it' is not an answer

The tweaks I require have nothing to do with re-doing algorithms. I've already got the helicopters flying well enough to my liking for competition so what I personally think is needed is listed in my prior replies - I don't think any of it requires much extensive testing/re-coding but I am willing to try it out.

>
> Same goes for what we already have, by the way, we
> didn't implement everything you might find in
> other systems, or we do things differently.
>
> Don't get me wrong, this is my personal opinion,
> and although I'm not into F3C myself, I can admire
> the precision and repeatability with which you can
> fly a helicopter, especially the hovering
> maneuvers. To put that into perspective, I'm also
> not into hard 3D, but I can equally admire with
> which precision and repeatability you _can_ fly
> hard 3D, also set maneuvers, but even more
> freestyle to music. I could never do that myself,
> though ... both.
>
> But I've been flying for years myself, and I dare
> say the main factors are the setup of the model,
> and the pilot.
> Back in the day, you would have to have had a
> switch for flying inverted, to set you apart from
> the competition, or at least to run with it ...
> what would you have thought of a company saying,
> we don't do that, we think you can fly it just so
>
>
> I'm getting carried away
>
> What if ... a group of F3C pilots compiled a
> comprehensive list (or as close to it as possible)
> of features, must have, nice to haves, no-gos, and
> discussed it until they could agree on it, and
> which we then could discuss, compare with what we
> have and what could be possible, with adequate
> effort?
>
> That brings me back to my initial questions ... a
> complex thing somehow might only make sense if
> there's a large enough target group, else it might
> be better to rely on systems which already have
> more or less fine-tuned all those options, or try
> it with a system like ours, which does not have
> all those options, or where you have to think
> about 'macrocell' them yourselves, or as close to
> it as possible.
>
> A difficult topic

Eddi, it's not a difficult topic, I broke it down to sheer simplicity. I could do much of what I needed now if the collective pitch could be mapped to a Macrocell but it cannot. The items I listed are not difficult, look at them objectively - they have no effect on the algorithms or any flying characteristics, they're merely modifications of the inputs to the system, which Macrocells already partially address.

Another very important one is a slow-down of the transition of the cyclic between banks. Our hover bank collective curve is very different and with a fast transition to a traditional 3D pitch curve, we have very little time to adjust collective position to compensate, resulting in an aggressive up or down motion. Thanks!



>
> Best,
>
> Eddi

Hi,

actually, you can do your own mixing with Macrocells. You can address every physical output, and use and tweak the inputs.
But you will lose some ease of the Model Setup and original collective curves, then, and as of now, you will run on reduced frame rates (like 70 Hz instead of 144 Hz, on the swash plate).
For an expert user, probably no issue, but for the average try-and-see type, hardly so.

Problem or feature is, the VBar flybarless consists of algorithms only, fed with the parameters (numbers) you dial in, and all in the little blue box on the model.
There is no collective curve like you know it in legacy radios, which re-shapes the stick output, which is then calculated into radio signals including swash plate mixing, dual rates, expo, with delays factored in, then radioed over, then converted back into servo signals which are maybe re-processed with a gyro unit there.
Means, if you want 9 instead of 7 points, you have to change the algorithm inside the blue box and add the two new points as adjustable values.
Same goes for dual rates, expo, anything. It's all hard-coded inside the VBar, you basically only enter factors of sorts.
From the radio, we always only transmit four stick positions analog with high resolution, the switch positions binary, and the other inputs analog with lower resolution.

This also means, if you switch banks, you switch between parameter sets, not between calculated outputs from the radio.
So the radio can not factor in a delay, it would have to be implemented in the algorithms of the NEO.
A bank switch is a binary 00-01-11 or 0-1-2 switch, with a (today) hard transition. The VBar does the last cycle of calculation with bank 1, the next with bank 2. The Macrocell subsystem helps with delays on functions programmed there (flaps, retracts etc.), but right now there simply are no soft transitions between control loop parameter sets.

What you are asking for seems only to be an input thing (agreed, a simpler task), if you look at it from a traditional radio's perspective, but it's a core-thing, if you look at it from the VBar system's perspective (and that's a huge thing, even if the calculations needed are also no rocket science ...).

Not to speak of the user interface, but that would be the simplest thing to add.

Now if we implement new features, we want to be sure we do the right and best thing, because a change and and update will affect each and every NEO out there, they might need re-programming, the average customer (and no offense here!) will have much more settings he can mess up.

This is why I think it may—for now, or maybe in the end—be a better way to stay with an input-based system which already has all the features, or run a combination, the VBar NEO's control loop and governor, with a traditional radio's inputs. Of course you might then miss some of the benefits of VBar Control, e.g. the low latency, not only because of the short update rates of 5/5 ms on the radio link, but also no unneeded a/d d/a a/d conversions, signal processing, as well as update rates perfectly synced from stick to servo, or the ease of setup without the computer, etc.

Best,

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2020 10:33AM by Eddi E. aus G..

I'm looking for this also. The two issues that seem to be imperative for hovering from my perspective, are collective tuning and tail input adjustments.

The collective has to be able to be tweaked both the overall value adjusted on a sliding scale (so minor headspeed adjustments can be accommodated keeping the hover point at mid stick) and also the complete slope of the curve to account for wind conditions. A 7 point collective curve would also be helpful. I'm not very good and need a pretty flat area to try and hold still.

The tail input via the stick needs to have point curve adjustments on the hover bank, not just exponential and rate, i.e. moving the stick should allow a flat curve so continuous collective movements don't interfere with the pirouette rate, as in the attached diagram. It would also be good to have 3 "dual rates" for this, since different maneuvers might call for different pirouette rates. (I watched all of the macrocells videos hoping to get a feel for how to do this, but they seemed much more geared to output channels that to FBL input from stick)

From my initial flights on the Neo, the most import thing to me would be the tail input curve (or line). The Neo really feels pretty good, and is great for sport or 3D flying.

Also, we need to be able to mix rudder to cyclic to keep the slow pirouette completely neutral. I was thinking this might be available in macrocells, but like the rudder curve, I can't seem to figure out how to control input to the FC. Maybe it is there? Looking to modify input (such as stick position) given to the FC, not out to the channel. I'm sure I don't fully understand the capabilities of the macrocells... They seem to be geared to driving channels outside of the FC control loop.

Sam



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2020 08:40PM by scorlett.

Wow I’m glad I was able to find this thread regarding F3c potential features to be included in Vtouch/neo software. I also share Angels thoughts along with the others on this thread. I would find it very useful to have some of the capabilities identified above.

- I need the ability to get a 7-9 point pitch curve in order to smoothen out the hover curve
As an amateur F3c pilot I can tell you this would help, having setup hover at mid stick there a noticeable inconstancy of the collective curve between base height and the top of a hover maneuver. Yes I fly through it currently and just deal with it.
- I need the ability to control the slope of the curve to allow for adjustability depending on wind via trim wheel or pot
Once again this seems like should be a feature included. Currently I have to change all points on curve.
- I need the ability to lower or raise the pitch curve to allow for adjustability depending on density altitude via trim wheel or pot
Same as above I haven’t had the need to adjust much to this situation but it seems it’s a feature as needed as adjustment above.

Eddi Question: out of all the features requested in this thread are there any of them that can be implemented easily? Or are all of them just a complete re design of neo software? I would rather have some of the features than non

Although I understand we can do some macros cell setup I find that counter intuitive and not a long term solution. Majority of the pilots buy into vcontrol/neo idea because of ease of use and setup. Can there be some long term solutions that would help the F3c pilots wanting to use their vcontrol for competition?

Hi,

I tried some things of what you are asking about, some time back, and only on the bench to see if I could get it to work, never flew it.

. n-point curves, no way right now

. change the height or slope of the collective curve, if you separate functions from the original control loop and let them run through macrocells, basically if you program your own 3-bank swash-plate-mixer, you can modify curves to some extent by mixing them with other inputs (e.g. a potentiometer with a curve, add/subtract +/– 10 points), which can shift the curve, or use the new Scale cell to try and multiply, which could help with changing the slope—I've not tried that yet, wasn't available back then.

One thing that comes to my mind while writing this, if you have hover at mid stick, maybe there was a way to use the existing curve only from that point up, or the lowest point for zero collective or slightly below, the first point hover, and the remaining points to smoothen out the top. Can't tell if that could be made working, tough, and it would mean sacrificing one more bank to hover, and it could make the transition difficult, if the hovering point changes between hovering bank (hover at mid stick) and big air bank (do you fly zero collective at mid stick, then?).

Another thing, if you feel the inconsistency of the curve (more like, the geometry of the linkages), you could try disabling the geometry correction in the VBar (use with caution, check your blade angles and overall setup after that again, could mean you have to adjust your mechanics only to find that it doesn't help, either ...). But maybe that intentional linearization 'delinearized' could make a change to a better feeling (I ... doubt it, though).

All that being said, that negates the ease of setup. With a third party radio, you have the ease of (basic) setup of the VBar (to some degree at least, with the PC software), but then you have to get out your bachelor's degree in Futaba programming for example

I'm only a theorist when it comes to F3C and it's requirements, so bear with me, and it can always happen that you (or I, for that matter) hit a dead end when trying to max out macrocells.

Best,

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.

If you're interested I can keep you updated as I try to simulate an F3C style hover bank on my 2 NEO equipped sport machines (Specter 700 & Logo 800). (Hover RPM depends on blades, dampers, etc. Yesterday, the little machine was at 1380, the 800 at 1260.)

As for collective curve, I flew two days in a row, one pretty calm, one very,very windy. After the first day, I thought, "I could almost hover this machine, that looked pretty good." (Logo 800). Then on the second I needed adjustments that just weren't easy to get. I guess I might have been able to, but I didn't try. I do set up my hover bank to hover at mid-stick and use the two 25% stick positions to try and smooth things out. At each end, there is no need to go past about zero (maybe -2 for wind sake) and 8 at the top. Mine are still more than that, I've just started playing. Here's the current collective on the 700 and interpolated pitch values: (note this is of course, setup specific, don't just plug this in and go. My end's on bank 2 and 3 represent -14 to +14. Just an example of a flatter curve in the middle and lower extremes)



You will need to remember that there is a collective jump (downward) when switching up to a higher head speed aerobatic bank that has 0 degrees at mid stick. Since we can't program in a bank change delay, just always initiate your climb out before flipping to an aero bank and it's not noticeable. As far as that goes, this setup is not recommended for anyone not wanting to practice serious hovering, or that isn't proficient in keeping the heli under control, right where you want it. These high gains and low agility won't work for "flying circuits" as they say, or in Texas, we say "flying around". LOL You might get in trouble.

Of course you are looking for this kind of setup, you've probably already gotten here: on main rotor, reduce the agility to 15 or 20. Use expo for your feel, increase I gain to around 70 (biggest change noticed, but don't go so high as to get oscillations!), increase general gain till wind can create oscillations and back off. I think I like Style at 120, but play with it for feel. Paddle sim 0, but again go for feel. On tail, I reduced rate to 35 or 40, expo to feel. Big improvement was noticed when I reduced the Stop Gain A&B to 15. This seemed to allow smoother changes in pirouette rate and starting and stopping when changing directions. I'll keep playing and will probably go lower. Of course each machine will be different, but these are some of the things I played with so far over the last two weeks.

Do take all of this with a grain of salt...I'm new to NEO, and have only gotten serious about flying again in the last couple of years. I'm sure others have a lot more experience than I. Maybe, RV and Eddi E can help correct me.

As for macrocells, anything we do seems to affect results of the control loop, and not the input we want to try to refine. So about all that I think you might want to try, is after you get a perfect hover pirouette, you might try mixing a tad of elevator and aileron in with the output based on rudder. Think of it as just adding a slight trim to keep from pitching back and rolling right in a left pirouette or pitching forward and rolling right in a right pirouette (CW rotor rotation). But, I assume this slows the processing to servos, and therefore we probably won't like it anyway. But it can be fun to program and try...

Keep me posted on what you try, good and bad...

Sam



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2021 10:27PM by scorlett.

Eddi,

As you can tell, none of us who fly F3C are looking for ease of setup. We are looking for adjustability so when you say it negates ease of setup, we can handle it. We've been flying for years and understand the ramifications. Clearly, we understand what needs to be done, we just need the ability to do it and clear instruction on how to accomplish it.

Hi,

I get it I mean, I admit easily that you who've been doing F3C for quite some time have both seen it all and done it all, already, and have much more experience with it than I do.

I still guess I do not need to hide, either, with 19 years on my second tour in the hobby.

But my approach is much more shirt-sleeved (although not slapdash by any means).
I set up a model, fly it, fine-tune until it follows my stick inputs to the point if possible.
If I can not fly a particular maneuver, or not with the necessary precision, I tell myself I have to practice more, practice harder
I so often found if I let the sticks go, the model does what it's supposed to do, if I interfere I only make it worse (pirouettes on the spot without me, with me, all over the place, same for aileron rolls etc.). So, wax on wax off, and at some point it started looking the way it should.
To a point where—at a time when I was flying almost daily—I was asked if I was practicing for F3C but I, like, appreciate it, but nah
And honestly, I felt far from it, even back then when I had more routine.

This is maybe why I ask like a child why you would want to do this and that, and not just fly the machine
Like, everybody said it can't be done, and then someone who didn't know that just did it.

//

On the other hand, I know 2nd hand from a VBar F3C workshop some time ago here in Germany that you can very well tickle much more out of a VBar than the basic setup rules allow. Make a heli a veritable hovering monster in one bank (especially when it comes to stability, precision, even less unwanted feedback from the model) and still have the VBar feel in aerobatics.
I've related this to a couple of pilots already, and got feedback saying they were speechless ... if the latter wouldn't rule out the first
But it requires understanding what you do, because you tune up the control loop to a point where the model could start oscillating until self-destruction, if triggered the wrong way, and you'd have to be aware of that so you can flick a switch, to a safe bank (pun again intended ) and stop it from disintegrating.

Then, I had questions from customers, about tweaking mainly the collective curve, and came up with creating my own swash plate mixer, for each connected servo.
Means basically, mix Flight Control Aileron, FC Ele, Collective with the proper ratios for each so the servos do what they did before, then use that as an input for a mixer cell, and mix a curve with another input (+/– n %, shift the curve, or even mix it with a different curve). Do the same thrice (for banks).
What I have not yet tried is using the rather new Scale cell, to multiply a curve with a different source (change the slope of a curve, which factors would be sensible, which range of values, as not to accidentally invert the curve, and to make sure the resulting curve is what I would expect), and how this could work in combination.

I'd have to go at it again, and once I had a way, try and derive a recipe from it.
Did that once already, with the result, customer said, ah, nah, I guess I keep using my Futaba radio for it. Di-dum ... there went my motivation

A problem is still, afaik macrocells still default to 70 Hz refresh rate, I can not tell if that would make a significant (perceptible) difference.

I wish it was easy to have input filter curves in the NEO, n-points, factors to shift or squeeze or expand the curves, and maybe even a fader in between, when switching banks. Maybe as an additional update option, beside Pro or Pro+Rescue, Pro-F3C for example.
But that's not available right now, and very likely not in the foreseeable future, so we can only try and use the assets at hand, as good as possible.

So, back to work

Cheers

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.

Good post Eddi! "We all want a new tennis racket to improve our backhand."

I fly VBar and Futaba because I enjoy the experience and feel I learn from both. I understand I'm privileged to be able to afford to do this. I also fly Align, XLPower, soXos, SAB, Mikado, CYE and Gaui. (even some little Blades) I enjoy learning, sharing and practicing. I get to meet (even if virtually) and become friends with great passionate folks in this hobby.

So build, fly, tweak, fly, share but most importantly, love.

Sam

"Not bad, begin again."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2021 03:03PM by scorlett.

In Japan, I heard that the reason why VBAR and Micro beast are not popular in F3C helicopters is because they do not pass the regulation of F3C competition.

Which regulation, specifically?

This is because it is equipped with a 6-axis gyro.
Even with only 3 axes functioning, it will not pass the F3C Japan Championship regulations.

I do not think this is true. You can read the current rules. If there are accelerometers that provide autopilot type stability, ie quadcopter style autonomy, that is not acceptable. Vbar and microbeastx don't have this as far as I know.

Now several years ago, nothing was legal but a rate gyro on the tail. Back then Vbar or any other cyclic gyros were not allowed.

Current FAI F3C rule on gyros

Quote:

d) GYROS: The use of pre-programmed flight manoeuvres is forbidden. The use of automatic position (latitude and longitude) locking devices and altitude locking devices, whether with external references or not, are forbidden.

Sam



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2021 02:07AM by scorlett.

Hi,

I think it could be the same as with fixed wing competitions and gyros: _if_ the respective gyros (accelerometers, in this case, for helis, any gyros, for fixed-wing aircraft) are in the unit, they could be used, so use of such units is not allowed.

Fixed wing: if gyro built-in, not allowed. Problem with VBar Control and VBasic, it's only a different firmware, but the unit technically contains gyros.
Of course, by proving the firmware number (be able to show to judges/jury any time they ask) would fix this, VBar Control and VBasic there could have a better standing.

I guess, with Lightness/Anti Gravity now available in VBar NEO Pro, this could also be problem or at least a grey zone (like in Formula 1, until the governing body recognizes, or until one pilot points at the other ...).
Although not an autopilot, it brings a new axis of stabilization to the model ...

Best,

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.

scorlett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not think this is true. You can read the
> current rules. If there are accelerometers that
> provide autopilot type stability, ie quadcopter
> style autonomy, that is not acceptable. Vbar and
> microbeastx don't have this as far as I know.
>
> Now several years ago, nothing was legal but a
> rate gyro on the tail. Back then Vbar or any other
> cyclic gyros were not allowed.
>
> Current FAI F3C rule on gyros
> d) GYROS: The use of pre-programmed flight
> manoeuvres is forbidden. The use of
> automatic position (latitude and longitude)
> locking devices and altitude locking devices,
> whether with external references or not, are
> forbidden.
>
> Sam


The CGY760 has a six axis gyro so......

.....FUTABA has some explaining to do, or they change the regulations for FUTABA

But 6 axis / accelerometers don't necessarily mean you have position or altitude locking ... on the other hand, Lightness / Anti Gravity on the NEO could be seen as such, at least it does altitude dampening.

Eddi

Born to fly ...
forced to work.

So glad to see this thread!

I`ve been thinking about a lot of this for a while now. I am not a very seasoned F3C pilot, but i have been tuning every single aspect of the Neo for the last 4 years trying to squeeze every drop of performance out of this thing. In Norway and Sweden "everyone" is using JR mini-TAGS or CGY760 but i like going my own way and with Vbar being such a complete, integrated and thought out system, I have no doubt this can be done. If I`m not mistaken Frieder Völkle was junior world champion at the 2019 F3C championship with a Neo in hos model. In 2020 we went from two to 6 pilots using Vbar Control and Neo in Norway, and I know of more in Sweden. If there is any testing needed to be done or any questions, I am 100% dedicated.

Right now I have two XlPower Wraith-E, and they have completely different tuning needs than the Urukays that I had before. The tricks that Eddy speaks of have been implemented in the setups to effectively boost the main gain by a huge amount.

In the hover banks I am at VERY high values on the main gain settings and can clearly see the need for seperate gain values on yaw and pitch. The ability to change pitch range and shape as described above is also needed. The delay between banks are not a must have, but would be nice. We do not need a refined and polished product, but we would very much like more possibilities and more room to explore with the parameters. In flight and in the acrobatic manouvers the Neo performs flawlessly, but more cn be found in hover manouvers.

I don`t know how to say the last point without sounding like an a-hole, but you have to remember that F3C-pilots are very dedicated and spend a lot of time an money on the hobby, maby even more so than your sport or 3d flyer. A full blown F3C model can come in up to 5000 euros, spending some money on a F3C specific Neo software wouldn`t be a problem for a lot of pilots.

I really hope Mikado can help

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Runarsk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So glad to see this thread!
>
> I`ve been thinking about a lot of this for a while
> now. I am not a very seasoned F3C pilot, but i
> have been tuning every single aspect of the Neo
> for the last 4 years trying to squeeze every drop
> of performance out of this thing. In Norway and
> Sweden "everyone" is using JR mini-TAGS or CGY760
> but i like going my own way and with Vbar being
> such a complete, integrated and thought out
> system, I have no doubt this can be done. If I`m
> not mistaken Frieder Völkle was junior world
> champion at the 2019 F3C championship with a Neo
> in hos model. In 2020 we went from two to 6 pilots
> using Vbar Control and Neo in Norway, and I know
> of more in Sweden. If there is any testing needed
> to be done or any questions, I am 100% dedicated.
>
> Right now I have two XlPower Wraith-E, and they
> have completely different tuning needs than the
> Urukays that I had before. The tricks that Eddy
> speaks of have been implemented in the setups to
> effectively boost the main gain by a huge amount.
>
>
> In the hover banks I am at VERY high values on the
> main gain settings and can clearly see the need
> for seperate gain values on yaw and pitch. The
> ability to change pitch range and shape as
> described above is also needed. The delay between
> banks are not a must have, but would be nice. We
> do not need a refined and polished product, but we
> would very much like more possibilities and more
> room to explore with the parameters. In flight and
> in the acrobatic manouvers the Neo performs
> flawlessly, but more cn be found in hover
> manouvers.
>
> I don`t know how to say the last point without
> sounding like an a-hole, but you have to remember
> that F3C-pilots are very dedicated and spend a lot
> of time an money on the hobby, maby even more so
> than your sport or 3d flyer. A full blown F3C
> model can come in up to 5000 euros, spending some
> money on a F3C specific Neo software wouldn`t be a
> problem for a lot of pilots.
>
> I really hope Mikado can help

I just completed the USA NATS, picked up 3rd place Expert class flying VControl. We had four (maybe five) competitors using VControl in our NATS this year. There is interest from others building.

Can we PLEASE get some attention!! If new hardware isn't available, I understand that, can you give F3C some attention, please!

Another F3c Vbar flyer here. Have it flying well but do agree with the above suggestions regarding increasing the number of pitch curve points, the ability to raise or lower the curve via a trim knob and also to steepen or flatten the pitch curve via a trim knob.