Any plans for an OSD with RTH?

[Nogas]

I am about to buy my first proper OSD and want RTH for its obvious safety benefits.

I really like the look of the EZOSD but with out RTH i think i would be missing out on a good feature.

Is there any plan for IRC to release an OSD with RTH in the near future?

[ssassen]

I don't feel motivated to explain the lack of a RTH for the millionth time, I'm also not going to comment on upcoming products. If you don't feel confident you can fly the plane back to the home location I would suggest working on that first.

[Teacup]

I think RTH is more interesting if the RC or video (if that info is backfed via rc) connection fails so you don't crash but the plane returns in case of lost signal

[ssassen]

I think RTH is more interesting if the RC or video (if that info is backfed via rc) connection fails so you don't crash but the plane returns in case of lost signal

So you're going to rely on more electronics because you can't get something simple as a wireless RC/video link operating reliably? If you can't get the wireless RC/video link working reliably, what do you think your chances are of setting up the RTH so it works reliably? There's many, many more variables and complexity involved with that.

[Teacup]

So you're going to rely on more electronics because you can't get something simple as a wireless RC/video link operating reliably? If you can't get the wireless RC/video link working reliably, what do you think are your chances of setting up the RTH so it works reliably you think? There's many, many more variables and complexity involved with that.

That was not the point I was trying to make.
I guess it is kind of hypothetical, but you suddenly have a lot of interference that does not clear fast - then there is at least a chance you don't crash but instead the plane returns.
I would not rely on it at all don't get me wrong.

And I am kind of curious about the arguments - any pointers? Didn't find anything really helpful with a quick google.

[ssassen]

I see the benefit of a RTH, don't get me wrong. Especially on long range flights such as Roberto Montiel's, where you can simply have the plane fly itself home, or have it loiter when he needs to empty his bladder. But for typical FPV flying an RTH adds more complexity than it is worth in teh vast majority of cases.

I've been flying FPV since 2007 and I have never found myself in a situation where a RTH could have saved me. There's no such thing as a sudden interference that trashes the video to a point where it becomes unflyable, same for the RC control. If you know your limits, and those of your equipment, you'll be wise enough to stay within them.

A RTH typically adds more complexity and more points of failure. It is much more worthwhile and rewarding to optimize the RC/video link to a point it is bulletproof, it just means buying a quality A/V transmitter and receiver, a pair of decent antennas and a reliable radio preferably on the UHF band. If you go with cheap unreliable gear prone to failure then a RTH sounds like a great insurance, but in that case you've simply spent your money on the wrong equipment.

The philosophy behind the ImmersionRC products is that they're easy to set up and use and offer reliable performance. RTH is not something that's easy to set up and use, especially considering the wide variety of different planes use for FPV. Adding to that it is my personal philosophy that FPV is about piloting an RC plane from a virtual cockpit, adding all sorts of auto-pilot or RTH functionality means you are no longer piloting the plane but are simply along for the ride when the electronics fly the plane, that's not what FPV is about in my opinion.

[Teacup]

Point taken - sounds very reasonable

[Nogas]

Ok, well to be honest i think your first post was a little blunt Sander, so i will respond with same bluntness.

I had searched prior to posting this thread and found plenty of recent discussion on the possiblity that you (IRC) were "maybe" looking into RTH. I also found plenty of dated comments from you banging on about how RTH is not needed if you have a properly set up RC and AV link. (Which sounds alot like an excuse to me.)

To say that RTH is not needed, is kind of like saying that a harness is not required to go rock climbing. Well that may be true but sometimes things goes wrong.

I see RTH as insurance, i dont intend to go out of my limits and rely on RTH but i would like to know it is there in case i need it. Below is a quote from another forum that words it better than i can

Given the number of systems that must work in harmony for FPV to work on the most elementary level, something is bound to go wrong eventually. We minimise the potential for failure by using redundant systems and/or alarm systems to warn us when things will fail (ie low battery alarm)

But it is the unexpected that catch us off guard. And when that happens and you are toast

I guess if we all fly our planes around large flat fields in LOS then we dont need RTH, but the thrill of pushing the limits is appealing to many and with out some form of a safety net the chances of recovering from a failure of some sort at long range are slim.

I watched an onboard video just the other day of someone panning their camera when the camera cable got lodged and disconnected. The plane was out of LOS but still well within RC range and AV range but without a camera connection there was no visual so who knows what the plane was doing??? But flick on RTH and 5 minutes later the plane is circling over head. How would your plane end up if that happened?

I understand that RTH makes things alot more complicated and that there is always the chance that it may not work correctly when engaged but i would rather have the possibility of a return than no possibility at all.

Anyway, i think my rant is falling on deaf ears as you clearly think there is no need for RTH, so i have bought elsewhere. Shame really as i would have liked to have an all IRC set up. Hopefully my duo 5800 and IRC vtx will get along with my non IRC OSD.

[ssassen]

I guess if we all fly our planes around large flat fields in LOS then we dont need RTH, but the thrill of pushing the limits is appealing to many and with out some form of a safety net the chances of recovering from a failure of some sort at long range are slim.

Actually, that's a rather shortsighted comment. RTH has best chances of working successfully on large flat fields, for the simple reason there's no mountains/buildings/trees to fly into, just set a realistic altitude and you should clear any obstacles on the ground. If I'm flying in the Alps, barreling down mountains trappy style for example, no RTH is going to save me as the RTH simply doesn't know there's a mountain/building/tree in its path so will usually plough the plane into the face of a mountain.

I watched an onboard video just the other day of someone panning their camera when the camera cable got lodged and disconnected. The plane was out of LOS but still well within RC range and AV range but without a camera connection there was no visual so who knows what the plane was doing??? But flick on RTH and 5 minutes later the plane is circling over head. How would your plane end up if that happened?

Clearly he hasn't done any preflight checks or wondered about what could possibly go wrong, and then the RTH is to safe the day? I surely hope full scale pilots don't reason along those lines and just forget about the preflight checks etc. and just figure the 'autopilot will save the day'.

I understand that RTH makes things alot more complicated and that there is always the chance that it may not work correctly when engaged but i would rather have the possibility of a return than no possibility at all.

In many cases a poorly set up RTH is worse than just letting go off the sticks, I've seen numerous planes RTG (return to ground) with RTH engaged and bury themselves into the ground totalling the plane. I've also seen numerous planes being found again without even a scratch as failsaves were set to put the plane in a gentle spiral down.

Anyway, i think my rant is falling on deaf ears as you clearly think there is no need for RTH, so i have bought elsewhere. Shame really as i would have liked to have an all IRC set up. Hopefully my duo 5800 and IRC vtx will get along with my non IRC OSD.

I'm not against RTH, however a RTH is no substitute for good piloting skills, knowing your limits and those of your equipment and making sure your equipment is in good working order. I've seen many piss-poor installations on planes with an abundance of duct-tape, a plethora of connectors, slopping soldering and poor component selection with the owner proudly stating 'I don't need to tidy it up or extensively test it, the RTH will bring it back around when a problem develops'. That's the same line of reasoning that people use when doing 100mph in busy traffic, they reason that their car has the highest safety rating and multiple airbags, so they're safe.

RTH is no substitute for making sure your equipment is in good working order and extensively tested.

[melsailsnorth]

I'm not against RTH, however a RTH is no substitute for good piloting skills, knowing your limits and those of your equipment and making sure your equipment is in good working order. I've seen many piss-poor installations on planes with an abundance of duct-tape, a plethora of connectors, slopping soldering and poor component selection with the owner proudly stating 'I don't need to tidy it up or extensively test it, the RTH will bring it back around when a problem develops'. That's the same line of reasoning that people use when doing 100mph in busy traffic, they reason that their car has the highest safety rating and multiple airbags, so they're safe.

RTH is no substitute for making sure your equipment is in good working order and extensively tested.

I'm not quite sure why so many readers decide that you are so opposed to RTH and autopilot systems (as appropriate). I think much of it ties-in with their fondness for EZ products and their ultimate desire to see an EZ product with those features. That being said, I think you do the new pilots justice by emphasizing simplicity along with close attention to detail and using quality products that are reliable. This emphasis and the products built around it really have helped shape the hobby and kept a lot of new pilots focused on whats important (myself included).
Although many would like to pose the argument of using an RTH product strictly for safety and insurance, I would assume (by yours and many others comments) that although there is a select group that may derive these gains from the currently available systems, the vast majority (including most of us that are learning and in our first year doing FPV) who might attempt to incorporate an autopilot or RTH may be simply getting way ahead of ourselves and asking for problems and crashes as a result (indeed the opposite of what someone new to the sport might expect). I'm sure that as the technology gets more reliable and easier to use over time, that we surely may see it become one of the essential pieces to most everyones setup, but as someone who admittadly destroyed their first shiny new FPV plane via an improperly set=up autopilot, I can certainly appreciate the logic an wisdom in what you are trying to get across...
I (for one) can also admit that although the "insurance factor" might be a great way to justify the expense of such a system, the fact of the matter for me is that there is just something fundamentally cool and alluring about the thought of your plane being able to do things like fly itself, fly by wire, and potentially make it's way back to you despite many problems or errors... (heck, my wife was so impressed with the RTH technology, she wanted to buy one to install in me!) Show me someone with a working autopilot that hasn't (at one time or another) grinned from ear to ear as they set their radio down and held their hands up to all the onlookers amazement... It's a "cool" technology indeed, and if it ever does get to the point in which even a beginner could reliably count on it to assist them and insure their rigs safe return 99 percent of the time, well that would be even cooler (I could finally feel safe in engaging those features on my OSD once again)!! But hopefully, even if we get to that point, pilots won't start to forget what I see as one of your biggest points... Any amount of insurance via an automated system should never take the place of, or decrease our focus on building safe, reliable aircraft with quality components, in addition to knowing our own limitations, understanding the capabilities and limitations of our equipment, and responsibly planning our flights around all this... Thanks Sander!