Can someone tell me what the 1.x means in the title of this forum?
Is it firmware or frame related or something else?
I assumed it was firmware related and that this forum would have died by now.
The reason I ask is that there are 6 question in the first 3 page that haven't been answered.
Is this because the majority of people now use the ArduCopter 2.x forum and don't see the questions?
I'm wondering the same thing. Honestly, I find the format and organization (or rather lack of) very unfriendly for the uninitiated...
And it certainly looks like you can now add this question to the list of unanswered as well.
But what really bothers me right now is the open source label that supposedly applies to these ArduX projects... What I've seen in my first few days here doesn't come close to my understanding of open source... The "get it" is emphasized much much more than the "contribute to it" or the "make it" that the microcontroller scene is experiencing. The only design files I've seen are some sort of bastardized .DXF files (read: not even close to being properly formatted) That might not be a problem if there was an indication as to what particular package was used to produce these files.
Come on guys... even the Arduino team has even figured out how to produce adequate CAD files... Does this simply not fit well with your business plan (Chris?)
Replies are welcome. Answers too.
What I've seen in my first few days here doesn't come close to my understanding of open source...
Sorry but I'm not going to let you get away with bitching about source files. I have yet to find one piece of this that doesn't have an eagle cad or other source files.
Seriously dude, you didn't even try.
So everything in the store has the CAD file links ON THE PAGE!! https://store.diydrones.com/ArduPilot_Mega_IMU_Shield_OilPan_Rev_H_...
Associated Eagle files http://stuff.storediydrones.com/ArduPilotMegaShield_H_v11_filterjum...
Sorry, but I think that FULLY meets the intent of open source hardware.
Or are you bitching about the code?
HMM, here seems to be the entire instructions on the open source IDE Arduino and the code repository
Again, you basically asked for a severe beating by your comments. Exactly what were you expecting?
Bitchng about DXF files. Last time I checked, that was autocad format read by many other open source software. You really need to do your homework before you come off like this.
Oh, by the way, if you think you can contribute, then do it, otherwise have a coke and a smile...
I mean I really don't get this. you stumble accross the site, fumble around a bit and then start a thread comment like this? So what exactly great thing do you have documented on the web that is so much better?
Again, you popped off like a Frenchman (AKA Douchebagguette)
The reason I started this thread was to suggest that people were more likely to get their questions answered in the 2.x forum rather than the 1.x.
I also asked what the significance of the 1.x is, in case it was relevant but I still don't know.
It seemed such a simple question at the time.
Can Jason and Vernon just agree to differ in their opinions.
Sorry, I came off completely wrong and need to apologize. It's not my intent to discourage posting questions or even opinions.
My problem here was a direct callout of Chris.
I felt that intent of the post entirely inappropriate and the post seemed a personal attack against the entire project (claiming it's not open source and they did not publish the files), which I believe is completely false.
I attempted to demonstrate the pattern that every part of this is documented, with full open source and current, accurate, and useable information by the community at large.
As to organization, there are some ways that you can stumble across and find it hard to navigate, but at the same time, if you jump to the middle of a book and then complain you’re caught in the middle of the story, that's not the book's fault.
I mean to me, it at least seems logical. I go to Either Arducopter or Arduplane and then navigate down through based on which APM version I have. It seems pretty reasonable to me, so I have difficulty understanding how people get stuck. I think the issue is, they buy the APM, and then expect to jump straight to an APM page and it tells them how to set up their hardware. The APM page is basic documentation on the APM, not how to build a quad or plane. Further, right or wrong, the design files are not tied to the instructions pages. Since they are documented elsewhere, I don't in anyway see this as an issue from the open source point of view.
That said, for somebody to just waltz in and start making personal accusations, well, they kinda deserve a little bit of blasting. I have no beef other than don't start a post with some rather serious accusations and call out one of the founders by name.
If you had asked the question a little differently, like "I cannot find the source files", that's reasonable to most of us and you would have gotten an entirely different response.
So to answer this question, here's the APM2 Eagle files, which you linked to. Did you look at them?
So right off the batt, the processor is wrong. It appears to me that this entire block was pretty much copy/pasted from the APM1.0 design files. In itself it's a minor issue, but worse is those ADC's I circled. They're flat out wrong. PK4-7 should be NA, because there is no connection. They are dry contacts on the board, unavailable for use. This is important because those are the pins used for LED output on APM1.
I am working on the open source software side of this, and this issue cost me considerable time. Determining which pins to use for LED output on APM2 should have been trivial.
It was made worse by this:
I/O pins 10, 11, and 12 are connected to solder jumpers, SJ0-2. Where are solder jumpers SJ0-2? They're mislabelled as SJ101-103. Now that I understand (because I spent hours trying to figure this out) it makes sense, but it sure was confusing at the time.
I bring this up here only to counter your point that this is all available, and therefore open source as you pontificated. Available, but incorrect is not better than unavailable. Some would consider it worse than just being unavailable.
"I also asked what the significance of the 1.x is, in case it was relevant but I still don't know.
It seemed such a simple question at the time."
As am I. My best guess is that it relates to APM 1.x as oppsed to APM 2.x. And I very much apologize for hijacking your thread into what has been turned into a flame war ... apparently there exists individuals out there that feel it's their duty to defend the honor and integrity of others they most likely do not know. But I digress... again...
I should have been more specific ... FRAME ... all the source code in the world isn't going to work unless there is a physical device to put it on. So please, don't let me get away with this, but rather point me in the correct direction of the CAD files illustrating the FRAME. Preferably something other than the NON-DXF .DFX files. And if you don't wish to do this for me, why not for the several others that have asked about this in a much less crass manner?
And Vernon, not being someone who's privy to the business plan, I'm pretty sure you're not the best person to respond in the first place. You did get one thing correct, though... DXF -is- an AutoCAD format... so you'd at least expect it to open in AutoCAD. Do you have AutoCAD? Have you tried opening the "AutoCAD" files? Most likely not - so unless you want another "beating" I suggest you do your homework before responding.
"I attempted to demonstrate the pattern that every part of this is documented, with full open source and current, accurate, and useable information by the community at large."
And you are wrong.
It is a little achy...
Thanks for the link - I've seen these ... and they look much better than a few other options - the only thing that catches my attention, though, is the use of Visio in the equation. Perhaps you know of machine shops that use that as part of their current workflow, but that would be news to me ;)
But I don't really understand this "do you want us to do all the work for you?" argument that has been thrown out there a few times in the past.... Honestly? Wishing to view the CAD files for a frame that is currently being produced? That's too much for you, is it? It's that which would bring me back to my original point re: my experience with (many) open source projects over the past 20 years (albeit almost entire software-based...) The open source paradigm is a relatively recent newcomer in the hardware world...
@JasonPerry, do you not realize the people you are seeing within this forum are volunteers who are part of the open-source software community, not retailers who are part of a "business plan" as you said.
They need not respond to your critiques and demands as if they were your employee.
I do, so fortunately I've made no demands. Are you another one who has problems with people asking about the existence of design files for the frame?
One thing is most certainly for sure - this was a terrible introduction - quite possibly my worst ever. The equivalent of walking into Chris' house and throwing dirt all over the carpet... I find that pure text either doesn't do enough to convey tone and intent (especially sarcasm) ... or perhaps it actually reveals much more tone and intent than one might wish... Either way, when it gets down to the core of things, I don't mean to create trouble or cause harm/anger/discomfort/etc... I'm here for the same reason as everyone else. Perhaps I'll even learn to play nice with the other kids as a result.