Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ron Curry on January 29, 2012 at 2:58pm

I'm using a 1280 for a quadcopter. Latest code seems to fit fine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cliff-E on February 19, 2012 at 11:48pm

Same here, APM s/w 2.3 worked fine, BUT I just pulled down 2.4 from git, compiled (2.3.1) and just lost logging. When I enable logging I run out of program space. Anyone else encounter this with 2.4?

I would like logging, and have 2 APM1.4 boards... otherwise, I just may try the solder-reworking mod of replacing the 1280 with a 2560 chip, just that reworking 100 pins sounds like I would go insane.

• ▶ Reply

3D RoboticsPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on February 20, 2012 at 12:04am

See my comment in the 2.4 thread.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on March 11, 2012 at 8:26pm

I have a APM 1.0 system with the old ATMega 1280. I have just downloaded the latest version of Arduplane firmware to it. In general it seems to be working ok (I have not done any flight tests yet) but some times I get errors in mission planner saying certain parameters or configurations could not be saved. I was wondering if this might be a symptom of using the 1280 version instead of the 2560? In general, what problems might show up from the smaller memory?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Stuart on March 12, 2012 at 2:44am

Johan, I have a friend who has the technical ability to swap out those chips, he already successfully converted a MK FC 2.0 to a 2.1 by replacing the chip. He is based in Cape Town though, so you'd need to send the boards and the replacement chips down here. He would probably want a small fee but that's up to him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andre S on March 28, 2012 at 8:25am

Hi,

This thread has been inactive for a while but anyway.. I'm also a proud owner of an APM1280 and plan to continue using it for a while in my planes. Personally I think there is no reason to retire it if one is willing to forgo plug&play style UAV-ing and instead compiles the code oneself, once the "official" support is stopped (maybe it already is, no idea).

Actually that may be a chance for a more modular autopilot and cleaner code, as it is already done for the libraries. Also, once one steps away from pre-compiled images there is a lot of room for optimization (there are actually compiler flags for code size reduction, etc.). Anyway.. Maybe that's a topic more appropriate for the rants&raves thread :)

Andre

• ▶ Reply