Droid 2 Phone and AR.Drone

I own a Parrot AR.Drone. A quad-copter that was originally controlled by iPhones. Later that was expanded to the iPad and iPod, and, of course, Android phones and tablets. I put off owning the AR.Drone for almost a year after its release because I didn’t want to buy an iPhone or iWhatever to control it. When Shell M. Schrader came out with a version of the controller for Android, I coughed up the $300 and picked up a drone. The software performed spectacularly and I was absolutely thrilled.  A little while later I happened to buy a Toshiba Thrive, and discovered to my disappointment, that it wouldn’t run the AR.Pro software that controlled the drone. The Thrive didn’t support ad hoc wifi connections. But then Parrot came out with an update for the AR.Drone that would permit it to use infrastructure connections. I was thrilled, and immediately set out to update my drone. Sadly, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t get the update into the aircraft.

Heaving a great sigh, I went to the Apple site and perused their online shelves looking for an inexpensive iPod Touch. Why? Because running the Apple based software, I could easily update my drone. I found an iPod, refurbished, on sale for $250 and I bought it. Literally moments after I downloaded the Free Flight software to it, I updated my drone and to my great delight, was able to use my Toshiba to control the drone. I was a little disturbed by the marginal control I had with the Thrive, but I enjoyed the large screen and so I accepted the foibles of occasional missed commands, and the odd peculiar and unexpected moments of behavior of the drone.

As winter came and I grew much less thrilled to be outdoors in the cold, I also had some relapsing symptoms of my cancer. So I tucked the AR.Drone onto a shelf where it languished through the winter. I recently got it out again in celebration of the summer like weather we’ve been having here in Spokane. Both my Droid 2 phone and my Thrive took a series of updates for Mr. Schrader’s software, as did my iPod. I also used to iPod to do a new firmware update to the drone itself.

And that’s where things went a bit off the track. I found that my Android phone barely controlled the drone. The first time I tapped the takeoff icon on the phone, the drone leaped into the air and flew across my yard at a fast clip, totally ignoring the frantic commands I was giving it. The drone slammed into the wall of my house, fortunately surviving the incident.  I tried doing a flat trim adjust, and had it take off again. This time it hovered about four feet off the ground as it used to, but was very sketchy in following directional commands other than rotational. Trying to fly it ahead, backwards or sideways resulted in most commands to be ignored. I switched over to the Toshiba Thrive and had pretty much the same experience. This took all of the fun out of flying the drone, making its control a matter of angst and worried anticipation.  I switched over to the iPod Touch to control the drone and immediately was rewarded with the wonderful performance I’d gotten the previous summer with any controlling device.

iPod Touch and FreeFlight app

The fact is, only the iPod is worth a damn for controlling the AR.Drone now. Whatever happened in the updates to Shell Schrader’s software, they certainly didn’t do me any favors. I have tried a few different times to use an Android device to control the Parrot quad-copter and each one met with poor control and unexpected and spooky behavior on the part of the drone. At times it will just fly off in some random direction, only responding to the LAND command, and even that is dubious. Sometimes it gets within a few inches of the ground and then takes off again causing me to tap the emergency button to keep it from flying off uncontrollably. Other times it will suddenly zoom high into the air, well above the recommended altitude for flight, and then exhibit crazy behavior. I have narrowly averted numerous crashes. All in all, I’m now afraid to try to control the drone with an Android device.  Loading the software onto borrowed Android phones produces the same bizarre and dangerous behavior. The best thing I can say about the Android version updates is that it appears to be able to do the firmware updates to the drone it was previously incapable of doing.

That doesn’t impress me since it appears to have sacrificed control for the update ability. Of course, I haven’t tried the update abilities, what with having an iPod that works great for control and updates. I’m pretty befuddled. The AR.Pro software was the greatest thing since Swiss cheese when it first came out. I spent a whole summer happily flying my Parrot drone both in and out of doors with it. But now I will only use it outside, and only where I have a LOT of room to correct for the moments of suicidal behavior using the Android software seems to cause. While the iPod doesn’t have the sharpness and quick response that the Android software used to have, it is tremendously better and much more reliable. It makes me sad to report this. But I have noticed that many of the updates being sent out for a variety of apps for my phone, my tablet and my PC have been giant steps backwards, sapping needed utility. I no longer use Firefox because it updated itself right out of usefulness. I am also looking at Thunderbird with one eyebrow up, it’s updates have done me the disservice of invalidating a number of useful add-ons. The worst is ESET Security. I now have to use it externally with my mail software instead of having it a native part of the program. Bad Ju Ju. If I find a mail program with the capabilities I want, I will dump Thunderbird like spoiled milk. I don’t get why so many technology companies are shooting themselves in the foot with their updates. Even WordPress, this software you’re reading from, almost became a casualty of the update screwups.

So I have finally found a place where I can say, unequivocably, that Apple is worth the price and stands well above the competition. The iPod hardware and Parrot’s FreeFlight software are standing head and shoulders above the Android counterpoints. I’m glad I have the iPod because without it, my AR.Drone would be $300 worth of shelf art.

I finally bought the last actual robotic toy that WowWee has to offer. I’m not a big fan of all their off the wall weirdness like PaperJamz music instruments, the little USB talking characters (which never worked for me) or their mini projector. Those things are a departure from what I think WowWee is good at, and that’s little robots.  I have Robosapiens small and large, Robopets and Raptors, Femisapiens, JoeBots,Rovers, Mr. Personality …you get the idea. Anyway, I saw the RoboPanda on the Woot! website for a remarkably low price and so I bought it, thinking I would probably give it to my grandkids.

Of course, when it showed up I realized that:

A: It would not last 10 minutes in their destructive little hands; and

B: It was too complex for them to operate at their tender ages of 3 and 4.

Okay, there’s a C  here too, and that is that if I kept it, my robot collection would be complete as far as WowWee is concerned.  I mean the WowWee that roboticist Mark Tilden made famous with his hacking-intended, nearly indestructable Robosapien. The Panda displays none of the attributes of a Tilden design, which figures since the designer wandered off from WowWee some time ago and since then the company has been running on steadily decreasing inertia and producing less and less respectable products. But the Panda was a last kind of orgasmic spurt, exhausting the seed planted by Mark Tilden so very long ago. Rest in Peace, WowWee. Yeah, I know they’re still alive, but not as far as any discerning customer is concerned.  I mean, really. PaperJamz?

Yes, the RoboPanda is a kiddie toy. Which goes to demonstrate the confusion in the executive branch of the WowWee headquarters. They built a robot for little kids that tells stupid stories, plays games only a toddler can love, and has small parts perfectly sized for lodging in kiddie throats while being as durable as Italian crystal wine glasses. They should have given it the “Ha Ha You Can’t Break Me” durability of the Robosapien and the simplicity of the JoeBot to appeal to the market they aimed at. What they’ve built is a product that parents will take one look at and then spirit it off somewhere safe before the kids can get their peanut butter encrusted hands on it. (Late at night you will find those parents hiding in closets and watching the Panda do its stuff, wishing they could program it for more adult jokes and action sequences.)

In a stroke of ironic genius, they made this panda to have a plushie panda toy of its own. It will play with it just like you wish you children would play with all of their toys. Quite gently and without need for vigilant supervision. It cracks me up that a toy would have a toy, but hey, I’m also fascinated by small shiny objects. Especially if they talk.

So, were I to give this item a review, first I would give it 5 stars for concept, 4 stars for ease of use, three stars for needed batteries, 2 stars for durability and 1 star for packing. I swear to God, WowWee packs their shit so it takes HOURS to unwrap all of the protective wires and supports, tape and plastic forms, and two trees worth of cardboard. These things were packed to withstand the rigors of disgruntled Postal workers drop kicking the packages to the next galaxy. When you set out to open one of their packages, come equipped with a machete, a Sawsall, wire clippers and a lot of valium. And pack a lunch.

For all of the trauma involved in freeing the toy from its packing, the battery installation is almost therapy. It requires a game of Find-The-Compartment that results in C batteries in the soles of its feet and a four pack of double As stuffed up its ..rear. But then you can switch it on and delight yourself for an hour or so with the user guide in one hand and the other poking and prodding the panda as you put it through its paces. Only then can you expose it to children of that youthful age under your watchful eyes. Be ready with canned statements like:

Don’t pull its arm off

Quit twisting its head

Don’t pull its leg off

Touch it gently

Stop kicking it

Better yet, just keep it for yourself.

This isn’t a robot but it was still simple and fun to build. I sent it in to Instructables and ended up[ getting a most popular award for it. You can see the full Instructable with all you need to make one by following this link.

It took me about two hours and didn’t cost anything out of pocket because I had the parts to make it in my collection of crud. However, I assume that if one was to buy the parts needed for this project, the cost would be under $20. NE-2 neon lamps are cheap, often found on sale at 10 for $2. The most expensive components are likely to be the capacitors which could be as much as $1 each. The resistors maybe $2 for all 10. A power cord is often found for $1 and the pair of diodes fifty cents. Actually, you only need a single diode, I just added the second one for a clipping effect.

Check out the instructable and be sure to read the comments. There is information on relaxation oscillators and variations of the project contributed by others.

It isn’t that I’m a technophile who rejects the concepts of Christianism; I happen to not believe in a god who watches and controls the movements of people, brings the rain as wrath or the sun as reward. That doesn’t mean that I reject the current or past existence of a Creator. The fact is that I do. The idea of a god is the only sufficient answer available to questions of the origin of the universe. A conundrum that has caused the itch of curiosity to distract mankind from the outset of coherent thought. Certainly, I accept the Big Bang and the current theories of evolution and the expansion of the universe. Within reason, they explain a lot of the mystery of development. I believe that some theory goes too far because it enters the same realms of mysticism as an involved god, causing the happenings according to ongoing whim and within a plan. Some of the quantum theories make me shake my head and sigh deeply as I listen to descriptions of computers that won’t work if you observe their output. Were I to believe in all of the rigamarole expressed by theorists, I may as well listen to it from those who place their explanations in religious context.

I have no feelings against those who embrace their religion for personal comfort. I don’t believe that anyone who promotes their religious beliefs should do so from public office because as much as I believe in freedom of religion, I believe in freedom from religion. No society should be forced into the molds of the ideas of a single sect. That totally defeats freedom of religion by forcing another religion on disbelievers. As such, it is anti-democratic.

The thing here is, I like the idea of education. I have three degrees and have studied well beyond my majors and minors in educational institutions, and I place my belief in human endeavor. I believe that humans are even more powerful than nature because we are capable of interfering with nature and bending it from its apparent path –into one less predictable. We can destroy nature and at the same time create our own forces of it. So if there is a god in charge of everything, then we are the stronger by quite some measure. Thus it pains me to see conservatives spouting christianism as their mantra, yet denigrating science and learning, which by their standard, is a creation of the god they represent. As one who enjoys technology and recognizes the tremendous learning and improvement in quality of life, the expansion of knowledge it permits, I shudder at the devolutionist desires of the so called christian right. As a movement they seek to return us to the dark ages, intoning that physical labor is more important than learning, that college is to be despised while petty laboring in service of another is celebrated.

I so believe in exactly the opposite of these ideals that I joined the military to fight against despotic thinking, never expecting it to appear so much in the mainstream of my own country that its proponents are serious candidates for our highest office. Nor would I have thought that the enlightened citizenry of a nation spreading the ideas of democracy, education and technological development would support such lunatics as might spread the seeds of anti-democracy. It is like I went to sleep and then awoke to discover that the lunatic fringe, that societal component that no thinking person could take seriously, was suddenly in charge.

It frightens me to think that so many of those who might be elevated to positions of authority were so firmly entrenched in the 17th century, desiring to bring those antiquated values into modern times. Learning nothing from history, I see so much of my country fiddling as our metaphoric Rome burns to the ground from the torches wielded by maniacs with a greater belief in fairy tales than humankind.

It’s as if they would prefer that we all became robots.

I am an avid fan of yours, following with great interest and enjoyment your offerings through the various media. I consider you one of our national treasures. But reading your latest book, the Space Chronicles, I came away with the alien sensation that you were ignoring a most populated resource for investiture in space exploration: the general public. Another way to say that might be private sector/commercial involvement. I got the distinct impression that you dismissed out of hand the value of private sector involvement in favor of the singular entity of NASA.

As I was negotiating the change of my teen years into adulthood, I was at that cusp as the contributors to the space program were making their greatest strides. In 1969 American’s walked on the first dirt that could not be called Earth, mostly a result of the Cold War and the challenge of President John F. Kennedy. This fact you point out in your book.

At the same time that I was wooing the emerging ladies of Bryn Mawr College, hundreds of companies were laboring away under contract to the government and NASA to achieve that scientific pinnacle. The tremendous efforts and advancements made caused our technology to dive head first into the future. From the American space program then, and in the years to follow, American ingenuity led the world in technological advancement to the degree that it made us as a nation almost contemptuous of the rest of the world when it came to all things technologically modern. I merely restate things you wrote in the Space Chronicles, but do so to try to make my point.

As the Cold War warmed and the Berlin Wall was finally smashed into chunks that many would spirit away as souvenirs of a dark time, governmental research thrust slowly traded places with that of the private sector as the world readied itself for the computer age. Private industry would rise and rise, creating millionaires in quantities unseen prior to that time, while governmental focuses on technological advancement became more and more military oriented. Governmental skunk works began to focus almost solely weapons, as did the steadily flagging number of contracted private companies. By its own hand, in the person of our elected officials, our nation stepped away from the elements of a rising technology, abandoning those lofty goals to investors and companies. With restrictions, of course. These things are seemingly glossed over in ‘Chronicles.’

Just by watching the newspaper headlines, we all could see that the once juggernaut of technological achievement, NASA, was relegating itself from the headlines into that part of nightly newscasts as “Oh, by the way.” The real stories were focused on the movers and shakers like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and the other frontrunners of advancing technology. Certainly NASA was the fulcrum, but the leverage of accomplishment was much wider than merely resting withing the agency. To a greater extent than NASA ever did or could, these people brought actual paradigm shifts to the everyman, rather than casting laurels to a few rocketeers, all of which were military. Only later, and merely as a concession to public demand, were mere citizens taken along. Even then, almost condescendingly. Space was not something we did, so much as what NASA did, was the sense created by this modus operandi.

NASA certainly gave us many of the bases of technology from which sprung improvements and conveniences for the public. Without NASA, private companies like Garmin and Magellan would not found the personal uses of GPS. Without companies like DirecTV and Dish, the communications satellites might still be solely used for early warning systems and other governmental purposes. The private sector took the basics established by a consortium of NASA and a host of private sector companies, and built on them, improving and refining them into vast menus of technological nirvana for the common man. Without their efforts, we would live in a much more analog rather than digital age. But while NASA was the centerpiece of that basic technological advance, it was by large margin that private sector companies laid the groundwork. My own family and friends were employed by some of those companies. They were given a challenge by NASA, but they provided the solutions that you appear to credit NASA for in your book.

I do give a nod to NASA as a match that lit the flame which grew into the searing blaze of the modern world. But I dismiss claims as to its doing much more than that. As it grew and became a monetary sink in the eyes of many, it’s output was reduced again and again to the point that it became difficult to count it as a contributor to mainstream future. This is not to denigrate the advances it made and continues to. The heady ideas and successes of landing on other worlds and sending robotic emissaries to the ends of the universe are certainly accomplishments to applaud respectfully and vigorously. Sadly the errors in judgment and head-slapping programming mistakes cast the agency into a dubious light in the eyes of many. The failures of NASA are, by news story comparison and widespread public opinion, as dark and condemning as their successes are bright and laudable. It’s a sad but true dilemma.

I can remember huddling with my fellow students in classroom to watch grainy films made by NASA to show off the knowledge they possessed of our cosmos. Their animations fed into my dreams of the future by giving life to the science fiction I absorbed like a sponge as a youngster. Today’s classrooms, and average living rooms, are showing high definition real life video of space now, along with spectacular animations. But to a great degree, the content is fairly unchanged from my youthful exposure. The messages are essentially the same, seasoned a bit by theoretical speculation described through highly improved and stunning special effects. In spite of having its own channel, all NASA puts out is regurgitation of almost ancient footage. Even newer material seems repetitious. In so many ways, their media releases appear to scream “Look at what we once were,” and doing so, NASA self-denigrates. Which is to say, they have done a great job at making themselves a lot less relevant as we possess cellphones whose technology is vastly more advanced and powerful than the now retired space shuttle.

A once proud and leading America now puts out its thumb to hitchhike on the launch vehicles of the very country our former advances were geared to crush. As a vehicle-less NASA allows its launch facilities to deteriorate, the private sector is building the world’s first spaceport in the American southwest. Why isn’t NASA participating in that, grooming and encouraging a new fleet of launch and orbital vehicles? Lamenting that we have to mooch rides from offshore endeavors seems a waste of energies that could be filling our empty niche of vehicles. As the American purse strings tighten in economic recession, NASA’s budget becomes almost a pariah, salvaged only because of people’s imaginations and innate support of exploration. But only to a degree because there are many things which will show a much more immediate return for government spending, and more immediately useful to the mainstream public. Wouldn’t there be a greater willingness for investiture if it meant the creation of American jobs and a future of much more than that?

Manned missions to Mars for solely scientific data gathering is too lofty a pursuit for the current monetary status quo of the nation. I hear that sentiment echoed often. The agency and its spokespersons no longer have the threat of nuclear holocaust, the sales tool of the Cold War, to leverage more money into NASA’s flagging budget. It tries to point to the advances of other nations like Japan and China, even Russia, to try to instill paranoia enough to open the monetary petcocks into its working kitty. But that hasn’t the same visceral power of impending doom as did the threats of the Cold War’s nuclear threat. You acknowledge these things in your writing.

Americans find it difficult to be afraid of the advances of the countries NASA and her spokespersons say we must compete with and even fear because most of us carry the technologies of those nations in our pockets. We benefit from their advancements. In fact, we rely on them and their more economically feasible pricing in almost every waking endeavor of our days. We admire the advances of these nations, while lamenting that our nation hasn’t the ability to produce similar gadgets of convenience at the same low manufacturing prices. Even the American companies whose technologies we embrace, a sad few I add, use other nations to build the tools and playthings they develop for us. That’s not to say that America has become a stagnant pool. There is still a tremendous amount of American research and development, it’s just that too little of it is space focused, and too much of its manufacturing arm is sent offshore to exploit the savings of doing so. That tends to leave the nation leaping into a future it’s less prepared for than it might be.

A lot of NASA’s problem is that it is so very focused on a future too distant to be relevant in the uncertainties faced today. A trip to Mars doesn’t have, and likely won’t ever have, the same allure of a new technological development that people can buy and use almost immediately. Spending money on an ethereal concept of ‘more knowledge’ is no motivator at all when compared to the next innovative feature of one’s smartphone, vehicle, or home theater. The idea of finding the fossilized remains of a fungus on some distant orbiting rock hasn’t the glamor of finding out more about the earthbound species we watch in excellently produced documentaries that mesmerize us with their here and now beauty and message.

Then again, we’re not so sure we can trust NASA when we have seen its bureaucracy make such astounding blunders of launching blind telescopes and blowing up shuttles either in launch or reentry. Not to mention a number of failures in probes and information collectors committed to the solar system. These things weigh heavily on the average American, in spite of the incredible achievements that were merely punctuated by tragedy. Think about it, we did put a pair of highly capable wheeled robots onto the red planet; just hitting the planet was spectacular, but doing so with robotic emissaries delivering photographs and geological information back to Earth is absolutely fantastic. Without a serious change in direction, stagnation is more than a threat, it’s a promise.

The change needed is twofold; the first is a reorganization of NASA that includes at least some demilitarization and complete neutering of political involvements. It’s mission needs to be defined as exploration and an interface into the private sector as a primary clearinghouse of direction. Its experience is an automatic nomination for a leadership position among a consortium of national and international endeavors. For our own nation, a licensing body with a mandate to encourage investment in space.

The next part of the change is an alteration of national focus. NASA needs to be embedded into education, demonstrating the now wide career possibilities and setting curriculum for specialties in those possibilities. Our education system needs massive overhaul to restore American students to a level at least equal to the other first world countries. As it is, we are lagging, and not by a small margin. If we are to participate in space, to avail ourselves of the untold resources and scientific advancement and its attendant technological advancement, we need the minds and trained efforts to do so. We must place a greater emphasis on intellectual competition than we do physical, lauding Olympics of the mind at least as much as Olympics of sport.

The future doesn’t rest in the single hands of any entity. It rests in the hands, hearts and minds of all.

My respects to you and yours.

The software I use is AR.Pro by Shell M. Shrader. There are other versions of Android software and I tried five ro so of them. They all suck. No better way to say it. There’s a copy of Free Flight, the original iPhone software for Android now, but even it isn’t as good as Shrader’s AR.Pro.  But this isn’t about the AR.Drone, it’s about Blade’s new baby quadcopter, the mQX. I bought the BNF version, which means Bind N Fly. I used the same 4 channel controller for the mQX as I do my tiny Blade mCX, the itty bitty coaxial rotor helicopter. I flew two of them to destruction –not by crashing, by wearing them out with hours and hours of use. I got pretty handy with my mCX, able to thread it through obstacle courses that ran between chair legs, under tables, through open bookcases and a lot of other junk I used to make piloting difficult.

I’ve had good luck with Blade products, buying and flying a number of their helis, but all coaxials. I tried a variety of 4 and more channel collective operated helicopters like the Eagle, Falcon, and …aw heck, a lot of them. My latest collectives are all Trex 450 types, one using the CoPilot II stabilization and control recover autopilot. I have yet to find a big difference between the CoPilot equipped and plain helicopters. I’d been fascinated by multi-roto flyers, drooling over the terribly expensive (and fragile) DraganFly units. But waiting paid off when the AR.Drone came along. I could afford that, and only had to stop eating for two weeks to do it. I must have 100 or more hours on the Parrot, definitely preferring to fly it with the minimal outdoor hull, rather than the more protective indoor hull. I have yet to break a rotor on it in spite of making it a point to by eight spares. Maybe that’s why I haven’t broken any.

Then I ran into the tiny Blade mQX. I saw it on the XHeli website, and they were charging almost $200 for it, in spite of it being half the size of the AR.Drone. They were out of stock, and so I did some more browsing, and found the BNF version for $130 on Horizon Hobby on sale, and in stock. I nicked my account for the tab and sat back to wait for it. It showed up about a week later, which was actually faster than my Amazon purchased AR.Drone.

It arrived in they typical carry case type box, and with the kit was the quadricopter, a smart charger, a 500mA battery and an adapter for the battery charger. The charger is powered bya 12v wall wart. It comes with a manual that explained everything pretty well, except for the charger. But I typed the model number into Google and was rewarded immediately with a one page manual that told me everything I needed to know. Blug in the power supply and the adapter, then attach the battery. Use the + and – buttons to select the level of charge to give your battery. It will work on a variety of single and even dual cell batteries. It’s best for single cell. Anyway, once the right charge rate (0.7)  is chosen pres the on-off button and hold it a few seconds until the led selector light begins to blink. Wait for the charger to blink all of the lights and you’re ready to go. A dead battery takes about 30 minutes to take a full charge, maybe slightly longer the first time.

The quad can be operated in two modes. X mode or + mode, X being a bit more responsive, + a bit more stable. It flies like any of the tiny 4 channel helicopters, but is a bit more stable. I had to fritz with my trim buttons a little to get it to hover somewhat stable-ish. It’s flying characteristics are very much like its coaxial cousin, the mCX heli. The five language manual does a great job giving flight pointers so I won’t repeat them here. But the manual shows you how to set the unit for each configuration, selecting which mode electronically as a function of holding over the throttle during the binding process. My DSM controller only had to be turned on after powering up the quad and it bound itself without incident after 10 seconds or so.

I was able to fly it indoors, but managed to collide with my couch a couple of times. No damage, but I decided the wiser choice was to go out where there was more room –outside. Make sure outdoor flying is when it is dead calm. Otherwise, the super lightweight will be difficult to control. A garage or gymnasium would probably be a better venue, but hey, we use what we have. I’ve managed to wear its battery out a couple of times now, each charge giving me about 10 or so minutes of flight time. I tried putting a camera on it, and actually got it to lift a FlyCamOne II, but just barely. It was difficult to keep it stable or control it being overweighted. Perhaps one of those 1/4 ounce wifi cams might be a better choice. But maybe no cam is better yet.

It has provided me with a lot of fun for the twenty or so minutes flying it so far, and I expect it was worth the money, but feel that $99 would be the fairest price for a bind n fly version.  I get the sense it will bind to virtually any 2.4 gHz R/C controller. Here are a few photos of mine.

Of course, I bought one of each. I just can’t resist robot kits. See Rocket Brand Studios on the web.

The Tiny Tank is just too cute. Spanning all of three and a half inches in length, it’s the smallest robot kit I’ve run across.  While you can buy only the components for a rolling platform, you can also buy complete kits which includes everything, even an Arduino (Nano, small) and motor controller (also small). Okay, Batteries Not Included. But everything else is. Rather than going on and on about the two tanks, which are essentially the same product with one being half the size of the other, I’ll simply embed the instructional video for making the Tiny Tank and give you a link to the Instructable that details the assembly of the Tiny and Medium Tanks.

Instructable for the Tiny Tank

Instructable for the Medium Tank

After building one of each of my own, I have to say that the kits were complete, and it really helps to watch the assembly video above. It provides a lot of excellent clues that are more easily related to than by viewing the Instructables. The tanks both require a bit of patience during assembly.  In spite of its larger size, the Medium Tank can present the need for manual finagling of the pieces to get them all properly lined up. They Tiny Tank definitely requires patience to get all of the parts properly aligned. They usually provide a rewarding little snap or tick noise as they seat properly, which is a handy thing.  Make sure you heed the cautions in the instructions putting one or both of Chris’ tanks together.

It took me about two hours to assemble the Tiny Tank. It took me slightly less than that to assemble the Medium Tank, both of which I built in the same day. Both kits run about $80 for the rolling platform only versions and $120 for the complete kits. You’ll have to add shipping to those figures. The online store accepts PayPal, which means you can pay for it that way, or with most major credit cards.

Follow the instructions faithfully and you’ll end up with a decent robotic tank.  Arduino code is available for download that will put the Tank(s) in autonomous mode.  However, if you’d prefer, you can strap microcontrollers from the Stamp and Propeller families in addition to Arduino family members like the Pro, Duemilanove and the Uno. However, expect to supply your own code if you use a non-Arduino microcontroller. I saw no sign of downloadable code for platforms other than Arduino, though they might exist.

I was happy with my purchases and enjoyed the assembly. We’ll have to see what comes out of Rocket Brand Studios next. You can also get a number of other robotic parts from Rocket, including a clever “undershield” that incorporates a motor controller and a USB connector, eliminating the need for an FTDI cable and dongle for programming. By the way, complete kits also include a short USB cable for programming.

One of the ROver 5 claims to fame is adjustable height. It accomplishes this by using a leading arm suspension. Rotating the axles down and towards each other raises the ground clearance of the platform. It also causes the tracks to loosen up considerably. But even in their stock positions, with the axles adjusted as far from one another possible, the tracks are still too flexible and stretchy, allowing them to roll right off the drive and idler wheels with little side pressure at all.

Until a different approach to the tracks is found, the platform isn’t very useful, with breakdown likely within the first 10 or so turn maneuvers. For a $50 platform, buyers should be able to expect better. My personal preference for a tank platform is the DFRobot tank. While it only is offered with two motors, it’s a rugged and useful platform even without height adjustment. One can also construct their own platform using the Pololu track setups they offer in varying tread lengths and widths. Rocket Brand Studios uses their small versions for their Medium Tank and Tiny Tank robot kits. Each is about $80 for the platform kit or $125 for a complete tank including electronics. They also take an interesting approach to documentatyion, offering their assembly instructions as an “Instructable” on the www.instructables.com website.

The DFRobot platform is available from many of the robotic parts outlets like Sparkfun, RobotShop and, of course, DFRobot.

The assembled controller, motor driver and radio control are shown at left. I used six pin header extension wires that made a very professional connection between the six radio channels and the six Arduino pins. I used analog pins 0 – 6 as digital pins, calling them out as pins 14 – 19. This left the first eight digital pins free for other uses; pins 9 – 13 are used for the motor driver.

I used the dual motor version of the Rover. It comes with two and four motor combinations, and versions of each with wheel encoders pre-installed. I am not using wheel encoding so I have the plain two motor job.

The code to convert the output of the radio control receiver doesn’t seem that difficult. It is accomplished with a pulseIn() read function and then some manipulation of the result to constrain the readings. But it turns out there’s a ghost in the machine, I have yet to make it work right. Here’s the code for the R/C->Arduino I am using.

#define dir_a 13          //digital pin 13 Motor A direction

#define dir_b 12          //digital pin 12 Motor B direction

#define speed_a 10        //digital pin 10 (PWM) Mtr A speed

#define speed_b 9         //digital pin 9 (PWM) Mtr B speed

int RXCH[6];

volatile int RXSG[6];

int RXOK[6];

int PWMSG[6];

RXCH[0] = 14;              //Throttle

RXCH[1] = 16;              //turn left/right

RXCH[2] = 15;              //move forward/reverse

RXCH[3] = 19;              //accessory

RXCH[4] = 17;              //accessory

RXCH[5] = 18;              //accessory

//The accessory channels may get used to control a gripper or perhaps a dimable headlamp or something. I can figure that out once I can get the control interface to actually work.

void setup() {

pinMode(speed_a, OUTPUT);

pinMode(speed_b, OUTPUT);

pinMode(dir_a, OUTPUT);

pinMode(dir_b, OUTPUT);

for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++){

pinMode(RXCH[i], INPUT);

}

Serial.begin(9600);

}

void loop() {

for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++){   //for each of the 6 channels:

RXSG[i] = pulseIn(RXCH[i], HIGH, 20000);   //read the receiver signal

if (RXSG[i] == 0) {RXSG[i] = RXOK[i];} else {RXOK[i] = RXSG[i];}    //if the signal is good then use it, else use the previous signal

PWMSG[i] = map(RXSG[i], 1000, 2000, 0, 511);//substitute the high values to a value between 0 and 511

constrain (PWMSG[i], 0, 511);

}

// code to read variables and translate them into motor responses

// goes here

}

I will keep working on it as time allows because I think this would be pretty cool. As a thought, I have an ArduPilot setup that interfaces with R/C to stabilize flight and permit autonomous flight with GPS Nav. Seems a bit pricey for the simple stuff I’m trying to do. Besides, its doing a great job on my EasyStar and I hate to break working projects.

More on this if I figure something out.