I have been flying cinestar with Oct file because its looks like the right one to fly with but I have seen Oct2 files on movies etc. which is the correct one?
There is no "correct" one, Smokeshow. Octo has the "front" of the C8 between booms #1 and #2, whereas Octo2 has the front of the C8 directly on boom #1. The Mixer is set up differently, that's all. The effect is that if you press the right-hand stick forward to dip the nose in Nick, then in Octo, the plane of the Nick axis passes between boom #1 and #2. In Octo 2, the plane of the Nick axis is passes directly through boom #1. You'll see this if you load Octo and Octo2 in turn and you'll see the diagram to the right of the Load button change. For me, Octo 2 is where I would prefer to to have the "front" of the C8, but others may prefer it to be between booms #1 and #2 for reasons I don't understand. Hope this helps. Andy
yeah I understand that but I just changed the blue arrow underneath the which changes the heading of the copter to boom one. You could also set it up so you can fly with number 4 boom or 6 as your "front" if you wanted to. but which a better one for CS8?
I guess you could change it to be boom 4 or 6 -- but I've only ever seen anything other than boom 1 being used for when the FC board is used for a gimbal stabilizer. I would use Octo2 for the CS8. Andy.
Just posted something similar on a new thread here: http://forum.freeflysystems.com/ind...-booms-in-front-what-are-the-differences.518/ Would love to hear inputs from others who have tried both modes.
Hello Jason, You should have a look at this video done by forum member Thiago Kraus: The okto2.mkm file is the correct one for the Cinestar8. Looking at the comparisons of the okto.mkm and okto2.mkm I am intrigued with the differences in the balance of power. Notice there are a few values in the okto2.mkm (for nick/roll) that are given "0" value. If you look at the okto.mkm they are all at "64" which equals a 100% global setting. However, the CNC milling of the Cinestar8 center plate does not accommodate a FC positioning for the okto.mkm configuration (please correct me if I am wrong on that one). It may be a more efficient design based off of a more equal balance of power, but it is data which we have never done a comparison on. Greetings, Adam