Basement tuning just got a lot easier! - USE ANGLE MODE! 

I second that. Thank you so much, Brian! This video made my day on so many levels. I am next tuning my micro longrange now. 👍🏻

Will do more on filtering for sure. I’m just really slow getting vids out.

Tuning filters is pretty individual from rig to rig and there are different strategies to attack noise. Will be hard to explain it all in a single video for general use.

Yea I’m not too strict about the exact order because I always see room for revisiting any aspect of the tune but for most smaller rigs I think this is a better order. For bigger rigs where iterm can be an issue I like to do it before FF sometimes so I can plot it in the step tool without contamination of FF. But whatever works I say. In terms of channel growth, it does take time especially when you don’t put out content very frequently. But I’m happy with how it’s growing. Always appreciate the share. Thanks!

@@PIDtoolbox OK. i will keep this in mind when i tune the bigger AOS 7. when retuning in a different order, the steps will be not so much any more, because the good range got already smaller. its a process. i still learn with every log.

'ms to Hz' is called 'Period' in latest version, and it's a button in the control panel

The step resp tool is not recommended for FF. It tends to over estimate overshoot that’s not apparent in the traces. This is also why I didn’t plot iterm there either. Once FF is introduced you can really only properly evaluate it direct from traces

@@PIDtoolbox ❤️ that's a really great news... I was following Your previous tutorial where FF and I term where evaluated on step response tool.. And i couldn't get anough far from 0.3.. Thanks 🙏

Not exactly the same because I term would be changing as well if manipulating PI. That’s not ideal for adjusting P-D ratio. But if you drop the iterm slider such that I is very low or even off, then it’s technically the same.

Everything should be held constant during any of these sets of tests except for the thing that you’re manipulating so in that case it’s Damping. But the master multiplier need not be at 1.0 for these tests and in fact depending on the rig sometimes it’s better to have the master multiplier start a little bit higher or a little bit lower depending on the authority. For example on an under powered cinelifter the default master multiplier of 1.0 is a bit low and may lead to ambiguous PD bal results. Re the other part of your question if I understand it, yes when you get PD balance right then I typically start increasing MM, and it doesn’t matter if you repeat MM1.0. Replication won’t hurt anything

I have a vid about iterm. Check playlist

Thanks Mark!

No. Usually ~20hz for freestyle but when I’m looking for smooth, 15hz or even 10hz can really round out the edges. Rates alone won’t always do it

Not sure I understand what you mean by “flag it”. It should be used only in special circumstances

thanks.. in this video at time 2:52 the Y correction is flagged … from 3:40 the flag is OFF

@@zerokv2503 that is the check box that turns it on or off

Only if it’s P related overshoot. I’d bet my money it’s iterm. Drop iterm and test again. If overshoot is gone then PD balance is right. The add iterm back but you’ll need more pid gain and/or FF or reduce iterm a bit on pitch.

@@PIDtoolbox the problem is that can't adjust I term just for pitch, has to do that for all axis. Will try it tomorrow. Thanks Brian!

@@PIDtoolbox Hi Brian. I lowered the I term multiplier to 0.5 and the problem still occurs. Previously I lowered both pitch:roll ratios that got after adjust they to equilize latency on both axis. Obtained 1.35 on both with your method, now lowered to 1.25. If it's an I term related overshoot then I can't tune it with sliders because I can't adjust I term on one axis alone. Or I have to adjust something else. I would try to move pitch damping alone to 1.35, but D term is way high in pitch right now. Step responses: ibb.co/g75X05M. Sliders: ibb.co/gSvdjJd. Thank you so much!

In most cases yes

Sounds like a filtering issue.

It’s the check box called “period” now

Properly tuned PIDs will not make motors hot. If you are getting how motors and you are confident it is either PID or filter-related, then it would arise from one of 2 possible things: (1) excessive PID gains and/or excessive filtering (causing excessive filter delay) are causing low freq feedback oscillation. (2) not enough filtering is resulting in noisy dterm, which causes a noisy pidsum, which in turn causes a noisy motor signal feeding into the ESCs. Both of these are easily observed right in the raw gyro and dterm traces. If neither of these possibilities, then motors will also get how if the rig is over weight and the motor rpm is really high just to get the thing off the ground (as with many cinelifters). So going through the PTB basement tuning steps is not complete if you see (1) or (2) above. you have to know where to look to determine those.

@@PIDtoolbox Thanks for the fast and detailed response. Yes my quad is pretty much on the heavier side even for a 7inch. Need quite some throttle to lift of the ground. Motors aren't really hot, just warm. I am still able to touch them without feeling pain. Just would like a little bit more headroom in case of a crash and having to fly back with a bent prop. I will try your suggestion. Thanks again

Short answer is unfortunately no

@@PIDtoolbox Ok, thank you very much for the quick response! Though I have another one, could it be that PIDtoolbox expects some response from blackbox_decode? (Side info I am now trying to integrate my code inbetween the PIDtoolbox and blackbox_decode, but now the toolbox opens the loading bar and then stops. I've tried looking through the source code a little but i didn't find anything)

@@Martin-zo8lz yes it does

Yes, damping changes D, while holding P constant, hence it changes the P-to-D balance

That’s achieved with damping. Order of operations: P-D ratio, P-I ratio, MM, FF

Dterm 2.5x more than Pterm? No. That’s what the P-D bal tests are for. To optimize P to D

Generally speaking yes it does. This is because the system is relatively linear within the range of settings we use. And where it is nonlinear there are dynamic parameters that are there to help out (like TPA ‘D’ at 0.65, iterm_relax_cutoff, FF, all of which help the maintenance of set point to gyro relationship at the extremes).

@@PIDtoolbox thanks for the answer. I think it makes sense. Most of the time we fly in the center stick position so that's the most import part for have tuned well. One follow up question, does an indoor tune deal well with external factors like wind? Indoors when the setpoint is zero there isn't much pushing the quad around but outdoors this is quite different.

@@avsaase yes in fact because it tends towards higher PIDs because you’re able to push the master multiplier higher in a controlled setting. So once you reach the upper tuning bound there it’s recommended to step it back a bit to a more safe range. But you’d never otherwise know what the upper bound of the tuning window is without this method. If you are not gaining any response latency at higher gains (or you’re beginning to see oscillation) then there is no benefit to going higher. No more reduction in response latency indicates that the motors have given all they can so settings higher than that won’t buy you any extra control over external forces, at least from the stand point of PIDs. You still have ESC settings which can change things. But the output of the resp latency shown in Ptb step plots gives you a good sense of whether you’re at the top and where you might want to set things in that overall tuning window

@@PIDtoolbox awesome. I'll give it a try today. I'm tuning a 7 inch quad in a smaller room than your basement so it'll definitely help doing this in angle mode.

the gopro will usually only affect the pitch axis so either method will work but you'd only be boosting pitch, not MM.

@@PIDtoolbox ok, thank you very much.

Send me the logfile

@@PIDtoolbox no probs, ive just sent one to your facebook. thanks

No RPM because the ESC is blheli s. Instead using 3xDNs, and single gyro lpf at 150Hz. Dterm default i think

Leave it at 0

Low freq broadband noise causes noisy step resp traces

Drift and control during sustained sharp turns

No. The step resp tool exaggerates the overshoot caused by FF. You should not interpret those plots after you add FF. That’s why I did it direct in the traces. Recall there was no overshoot there.

@@PIDtoolbox okay, but then we cant tune i term likr before, i mean we cant see when the iterm starts to add overshoot.

@@DNLKRNWN correct. or do iterm before FF. I have no hard rules about this. But technically I think you can still look at iterm effects in step resp with FF. You'd just ignore the initial be FF-related overshoot and look for the slower iterm related overshoot. I think it can still show up there. But the truth is with enough FF, iterm never get over

Make sure you don’t have leftover logfiles stuck in main folder. On mac it’s really a problem if you don’t unlock logfiles. It’ll keep reading the wrong logfile

​@@PIDtoolbox i don't use mac but i will try that. And an "autofactor" of 90 could be the problem too? Thanks for your time it's really valuable what You do. Really thanks

@@gonzafpv2843 or right, old version.

@@PIDtoolbox a high value of autofactor (90, stock is 30) it has nothing to do with it? Thanks

Absolutely. Nothing different there wrt angle mode

@@PIDtoolbox thk u so much 🙂

Me too. I’ve actually thought about this eons ago but never got around to formal testing it till now

Not sure I understand what you mean. But, I didn’t show the results after pitch was adjusted (just forgot to show this, but it’s right there in that data). I was comparing two different points in that plot just to show what values I would pick.

@@PIDtoolbox Aah that explains. I thought the picture while explaining was the one. I wanted to ask about a trouble I have with setpoint response tool in PIDToolBox - While my I term is 0, the setpoint looks smooth, but when I set the I term over 0 , it overshoots. It's like this on all the logs. Is that normal? Thanks!

@@tomasspetersons4158 iterm is tricky to understand. When pid error is low (in other words when the error is mostly already minimized with P and D), then iterm has a very wide tuning window such that even very extreme values will show little iterm modulation (especially when using sufficient FF). But when there is still a decent amount of error then iterm accumulates higher and adds significantly to the pid sum. In that case you’ll also see it shape the step response as a sort of slower prolonged overshoot. Key there is to add more FF (and/or more PD gain) to close the error gap. Now the minor issue then is you can’t really interpret the step response when FF is added (it tends to exaggerate overshoot), so you just analyze set point and gyro traces at that point. Maybe one day I will resolve this issue but for now the step resp is really only useful for optimizing PD ratio and PD gains and maybe PI balance if you choose to go that route

@@PIDtoolbox Great answer! Thank you! So I did tune P and D gain with I term 0. And then added I term and started tuning FF till gyro and setpoint were in sync. But I thought, maybe a good way would be getting good P:D balance and then starting tuning FF. Then getting good response, and then maybe adding I term? Anyway, you solved my confusion. I feel like going with raising P and D gains would be a good road for the freestyle quads, but for racing, would be too much for the motors. Hope there will be some kind of a good method for tuning racing rigs. Thank you!

@@tomasspetersons4158 I had the same doubt, I adjusted the ratio of P and D and it was perfect, when I started adding the I an "overshot" started to appear even with very low I values.

Not really. I should remove it

@@PIDtoolbox I noticed I can get results that seem over dampened until I enable it. Then everything looks nice afterwards. Not sure what that means

There’s no difference in the sliders for 4.3 or 4.4

Not sure

I think it should actually. Might also be a nice way to do things but I’m not sure how it caps rotation rate.

@@PIDtoolbox Thank you for the reply! It would be too easy to think training mode is a more "natural" substitute to acro than angle for testing, but I don't know any details either, it was only my first thought when I read the video title. Of course you can configure the max angle for training mode, but no idea how the clamping works exactly

averaging for 50hz rate is not recommended. I think it causes a lot of delay to do 2 or 3pt averaging when the samples are only coming in 20ms apart (50hz). Higher rx rates call for it

@@PIDtoolbox ok noted sir,,,thank you verymuch