14 ms·

I use iNav for my wings, but just don’t have the urge to deal with it in FPV quads. Between the added weight of the GPS module, the limited options for flight c

I use iNav for my wings, but just don’t have the urge to deal with it in FPV quads. Between the added weight of the GPS module, the limited options for flight controllers that support iNav and have an onboard barometer, and the overall lack of focus in iNav for that sort of use case I just find Betaflight to be a better fit.

stavros 5y ago
That makes sense. Btw, the horizon drift in INAV was a significant reliability issue for me. I switched to AP now, and it's leagues ahead in terms of reliability and features.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  I wish I could remember what it was, but I saw a few weeks ago that someone had released a new FC that included onboard GPS, dual barometers, and some other “thing” that they were marketing as fixing iNav horizon drift. If I come across that link I’ll post it. At any rate, it seems to have been getting improved with each version. I haven’t been using iNav in a way where it’s an issue - my wings are mostly just for recreational FPV, and the big features for me are autotune, altitude hold, position hold, and RTH. Between those, I’m able to get a wing flying stable very quickly and am able to fly further away without worrying about RXLOSS meaning that I have to chase the thing down across three counties.
  - stavros 5y ago
    Hm, I'm very dubious that any hardware can fix INAV's horizon drift, which is due to the bad AHRS implementation. The problem I had was that I couldn't trust RTH (and I know people whose wing has crashed during RTH), because whenever I switched to RTH INAV would dive for several tens of meters before actually coming back. I had a few close calls where it almost crashed into various objects while circling to RTH, and I decided I didn't want to lose a wing (or, worse, falling on someone's head), so I switched.

14 ms·

I use iNav for my wings, but just don’t have the urge to deal with it in FPV quads. Between the added weight of the GPS module, the limited options for flight c

by Ancapistani 5y ago

stavros 5y ago
That makes sense. Btw, the horizon drift in INAV was a significant reliability issue for me. I switched to AP now, and it's leagues ahead in terms of reliability and features.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  I wish I could remember what it was, but I saw a few weeks ago that someone had released a new FC that included onboard GPS, dual barometers, and some other “thing” that they were marketing as fixing iNav horizon drift. If I come across that link I’ll post it. At any rate, it seems to have been getting improved with each version. I haven’t been using iNav in a way where it’s an issue - my wings are mostly just for recreational FPV, and the big features for me are autotune, altitude hold, position hold, and RTH. Between those, I’m able to get a wing flying stable very quickly and am able to fly further away without worrying about RXLOSS meaning that I have to chase the thing down across three counties.
  - stavros 5y ago
    Hm, I'm very dubious that any hardware can fix INAV's horizon drift, which is due to the bad AHRS implementation. The problem I had was that I couldn't trust RTH (and I know people whose wing has crashed during RTH), because whenever I switched to RTH INAV would dive for several tens of meters before actually coming back. I had a few close calls where it almost crashed into various objects while circling to RTH, and I decided I didn't want to lose a wing (or, worse, falling on someone's head), so I switched.