I screwed up - however

[sar104]

I'm thinking it's because IMU(0) was being used and IMU(1) wasn't

No - IMU1 was active - that's clear by comparison with the OSD_yaw data in the txt log.

 

[BudWalker]

No - IMU1 was active - that's clear by comparison with the OSD_yaw data in the txt log.

Isn't it possible that, although OSD.Yaw tracks IMU(1):Yaw, IMU(0) was active? It wouldn't be all that surprising that there is a bug in the Go App. There are several indications this may be the case.

A lot of the records have a cnt field that increases linearly and monotonically . Comparing IMU(0) and IMU(1) it can be seen that IMU(0):cnt shows believable values where IMU(1):cnt is stuck at 0. I think cnt is the number of records where the FC computed some values in addition to sensor values that are always updated.

The mostly flat section is the gap in the data. I'm supposing that cnt wraps around in this section like what happens at about 950 secs.

IMU_EX_0 and IMU_EX_1 also does this.

There is also that IMU(0):numSats has a believable number where IMU(1):numSats is 0.

I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you about the IMUX:ex_nav_raw signals. At first glance they seem to be making the case that IMU1 is active. Take a look. IMU_EX_1:ex1_nav_yaw is flat lined at 0. I think IMU_EX_0:ex0_nav_yaw is the Yaw that the FC is using; corrected by the geo zDeclination.

 

[sar104]

Isn't it possible that, although OSD.Yaw tracks IMU(1):Yaw, IMU(0) was active? It wouldn't be all that surprising that there is a bug in the Go App. There are several indications this may be the case.

A lot of the records have a cnt field that increases linearly and monotonically . Comparing IMU(0) and IMU(1) it can be seen that IMU(0):cnt shows believable values where IMU(1):cnt is stuck at 0. I think cnt is the number of records where the FC computed some values in addition to sensor values that are always updated.
View attachment 78292
The mostly flat section is the gap in the data. I'm supposing that cnt wraps around in this section like what happens at about 950 secs.

IMU_EX_0 and IMU_EX_1 also does this.

There is also that IMU(0):numSats has a believable number where IMU(1):numSats is 0.

I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you about the IMUX:ex_nav_raw signals. At first glance they seem to be making the case that IMU1 is active. Take a look. IMU_EX_1:ex1_nav_yaw is flat lined at 0. I think IMU_EX_0:ex0_nav_yaw is the Yaw that the FC is using; corrected by the geo zDeclination.

Why can't this be simple? It would be disappointing if the OSD values in the txt log can't be trusted, but it's certainly possible. Are you thinking that maybe the OSD values always track IMU1, independent of which IMU is in use? I'll take a look at those other signals.

 

[KelloggKid]

You guys are amazing. If nothing else you have managed to reduce my level of guilt.