Replies

  • Dear Ariuna,

    My pixhawk damage usb port and insize already had fw px4.io and just control with QgroundControl.

    I reading on the STM32f4 ( st pages) i know how to upload bootload for it via FIDI232.

    Now, I want to update firmwaer, that Pixhawk can run and see paramenter in Mission Planner.

    Could you please help me, which fw can upload to pixhawk , that can run on Mission Planner. ( upload via DFU)

    Regard

    Reed Noel



    Arjuna Mendis said:

    Correct me if I'm wrong...

    # Ardupilot project evolved into 

      ArduPilotMega APM_hardware and APM_stack (software)

    # PX4 project was made out of

     PX4_hardware, PX4_middleware and PX4 Stack 

     * PX4 hardware ->

    -----> PX4 (FMUv1) – sub boards: PX4IO and PX4IOAR 

    -----> Pixhawk (FMUv2)

    Then everything gets woozy and....

    Pixhawk (hardware) - Can either use PX4 stack OR APM stack ON PX4 middleware. APM_Hardware is ditched after v2,6

    # Pixhawk (hardware) - With PX4 stack, generally use QGroundControl (QGC)

    while, 

    Pixhawk (hardware) - With APM stack on PX4 middleware, generally use Mission Planner

    Arjuna

  • Correct me if I'm wrong...

    # Ardupilot project evolved into 

      ArduPilotMega APM_hardware and APM_stack (software)

    # PX4 project was made out of

     PX4_hardware, PX4_middleware and PX4 Stack 

     * PX4 hardware ->

    -----> PX4 (FMUv1) – sub boards: PX4IO and PX4IOAR 

    -----> Pixhawk (FMUv2)

    Then everything gets woozy and....

    Pixhawk (hardware) - Can either use PX4 stack OR APM stack ON PX4 middleware. APM_Hardware is ditched after v2,6

    # Pixhawk (hardware) - With PX4 stack, generally use QGroundControl (QGC)

    while, 

    Pixhawk (hardware) - With APM stack on PX4 middleware, generally use Mission Planner

    Arjuna

  • Does anybody know if the pid values stand the same for both apm 2.6 and pixhawk to get the same behavior?

    Many thanks

    • No, you should adjust PIDs separately on these boards. But you don't have to do it byhand, there is splendid "autotune" mode.

  • Hi Diego, You can now find an appropriate evaluation of the APM, PX4 and Pixhawk on the Pixhawk wiki page: http://planner.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-pixhawk-overview/ as well as on the Build your own multicopter page. 

  • Hi Diego, the APM 2.5 and 2.6 (nearly identical) are the most recent (and final) editions of the traditional ArduPilot Flight controller: http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-apm25-and-26-overview/

    The PX4FMU and PX4IO is the initial 2 board version of what is becoming the new family of Flight controllers: http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-px4fmu-overview/ and the PX4IO: http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-px4io-overview/

    The Pixhawk is the new special single board version of the PX4 system built specifically for our needs and it incorporates many enhancements from the PX4FMU / PX4IO board set: http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-pixhawk-overview/

    The APM was a tried and true champion and it was exploited to the fullest to bring us the richness of capabilities that let us do so much. But that said it is out of both memory and CPU performance which are necessary for future enhancement. Recently some progress has been made in recovering a bit of memory, but the handwriting is on the wall and APM production will be coming to an end very soon if it hasn't already.

    The PX4FMU / PX4IO was made as a University project by a Swiss team including Lorenz Meier and used next generation microcontrollers and distributed processing to greatly increase capabilities beyond the APM. DIYDrones and 3DRobotics adopted it as the basis for their next generation flight controller.

    The Pixhawk actually is the DIYDrones next generation flight controller made by a collaboration of DIYDrones,3DR and the original Swiss team that made the PX4 to actually incorporate everything we wanted in a flight controller.

    The Pixhawk is still getting the final polish on it's firmware and will have a ton of room for future firmware enhancements.

    Basically, buy a Pixhawk, the APM is at end of life and the PX4 is just the intermediate step that got us to the Pixhawk.

    Read about all of them in the wiki pages above, but the Pixhawk is the future for DIYdrones stuff.

  • My understanding is that the Pixhawk is based off the PX4, just with a nice enclosure and perhaps modified connections.  The main difference is processing power, which the PX4/Pixhawk have more of when compared to the APM.  This is important for multirotors, especially those with more than 4 motors.  Once you start adding gimbals, data logging, and a bunch of motors, the APM begins to get bogged down and trouble responding quickly enough.  For a plane however, the APM is just fine.  

This reply was deleted.

Activity

Liam left a comment on Agricultural UAVs
"Hi
I'm Liam from T-MOTOR. I would like to reach out to see if there is any possibility for us to work together.
We are a propulsion system manufacturer who offers motors, propellers and ESCs for all kinds of drone applications which vary from secur…"
Jun 30
Richard Cox left a comment on Australia
"Anyone in the DIYDRONES Australian subgroup based in Alice Springs, NT?
I am experimenting with Ardupilot (standard Arduplane), Pixhawk 4 FC in a 4-ch
RC "AXN Floater Jet" foamy plane..."
Jun 29
Omar Sykes left a comment on Australia
"Hi everyone, I am looking for someone who is good at drone building, repair and software in Adelaide. Please give me a call on 0477 319 219."
Jun 29
More…