## 4 Experimental Evaluation
The coefficients of the controllers were obtained by using FHO, FFO, and PO algorithms. The success of the algorithms was discussed considering the IAE performance index. According to Table 2, the PO-FOPID controller provided the objective function values of \(X\), \(Y\), \(Z\), roll, pitch, and yaw movements as 6.281, 6.413, 5.261, 0.259, 0.256, and 0.254. These are the lowest values in Table 2. The PO algorithm showed its superiority over the FFO and FHO algorithms. Thus, the performance of the PO was compared with the performance of the SDCS algorithm. According to Figure 9 and Table 3, which illustrate system output on the \(X\)-axis, the SDCS controller demonstrated a lower rise time (Tr) and faster system output comparedto the PO-FOPID controller. Additionally, the SDCS controller achieved lower peak time (Tp) and settling time (Ts) values than those of the PO-FOPID controller. Notably, the SDCS controller recorded a 0% overshoot (Mp), while the PO-FOPID controller resulted in a 0.965% overshoot, indicating that the SDCS controller is more effective in terms of transient response. Furthermore, the SDCS controller achieved a 0% steady-state error (Ess) compared to the 0.197% steady-state error of the PO-FOPID controller, reinforcing its superiority in steady-state response as well. Considering Figure 10 and Table 4, which belong to the system output on the \(Y\) axis, in the region of rising time, the SDCS controller provided a lower Tr value and faster system output than the output provided by the PO-FOPID controller. Moreover, the SDCS controller provided lower Tp and Ts values than the values provided by the PO-FOPID controller. The SDCS controller provided a 0% Mp value, while the PO-FOPID controller caused a 0.875% Mp value. This means that the SDCS controller is more successful than the PO-FOPID controller in terms of transient response. The SDCS controller provided a 0% Ess value, while the PO-FOPID controller caused a 0.202% Ess value. The SDCS controller is more successful than the PO-FOPID controller in terms of steady-state response. In Figure 11 and Table 5, which illustrate system output on the \(Z\)-axis, the SDCS controller demonstrated a lower rise time (Tr) and faster system response compared to the PO-FOPID controller. Additionally, the SDCS controller achieved lower Tp and Ts values than the PO-FOPID controller. The SDCS controller recorded a 0% overshoot (Mp), while the PO-FOPID controller resulted in a 0.401% overshoot, indicating superior performance in transient response. Furthermore, the SDCS controller achieved a 0% Ess, in contrast to the 0.401% steady-state error of the PO-FOPID controller, reinforcing its effectiveness in steady-state response. In the attitude control of the quadcopter, SDCS performed better than the FOPID controller, but close to FOPID. In Figure 12 and Table 6, which pertain to the system output during roll movement (phi angle), the SDCS controller demonstrated a lower rise time (Tr) and faster system response compared to the PO-FOPID controller. Additionally, the SDCS controller achieved lower Tp and Ts values than those of the PO-FOPID controller. The SDCS controller recorded a 0% Mp, while the PO-FOPID controller had a 0.021% overshoot, indicating superior performance in transient response. Furthermore, the SDCS controller achieved a 0% Ess, in contrast to the 0.006% steady-state error of the PO-FOPID controller, confirming its effectiveness in steady-state response. Considering Figure 13 and Table 7, which relate to the system output during pitch movement (theta angle), the SDCS controller demonstrated a lower rise time (Tr) and faster system response compared to the PO-FOPID controller. Additionally, the SDCS controller achieved lower peak time (Tp) and settling time (Ts) values than those of the PO-FOPID controller. The SDCS controller recorded a 0% overshoot (Mp), while the PO-FOPID controller resulted in a 0.020% overshoot, indicating superior performance in transient response.