Can someone explain how the arducopter firmware process works? I know it is open source, but someone or some entity decides when the beta releases happen...and I assume, they will decide when 3.2 becomes "official". Who exactly makes these decisions? Isn't the whole concept behind "open source" is that no one person owns this, but that it is rather, a fluid, seamless evolution that is dynamic and a living thing (code)? I believe that 3DR is a large presence in this evolution, but doesn't actually 'own' it. Are they just one of many players?
And what about DIY Drones...is this "owned" by 3DR? If not, who exactly IS DIY Drones? Who owns/owned/started it, etc? Just confused by the non-ownership aspect of open source as clearly some entity is making some decisions that impact everything related to these concepts. Help me understand please.
Thanks to everyone who has responded...you have opened my eyes, given clarity where there was little, and affirmed how much all of us owe those who have the ability to do versus those of us who can't, but still benefit from the actions of the doers. I remain excited at the future possibilities this technology will bring...it is nice to be in on the ground floor of this...even if mostly as a bystander.
I hope you are wrong, but only time will tell I guess.
Tridge wont let that happen don't worry.
I hope so too
I apologize for the lack of communication in regards to the IRIS+ code. That blunder is completely my fault.
In the long term support strategy having a simple, single code direction, I held off communication in hopes that 3.2 would be fully released to which we would then recommend that all IRIS & IRIS+ owners go to the official release. That strategy backfired a bit when we encountered additional prolonging of the release.
I can see now how that period of silence could have been misconstrued as secretive or clandestine.
We had the classic dilemma of "Do you deal with the devil that you know or the devil that you don't know?" From a support standpoint, we have to choose to deal with the known issues vs the unknown issues of newer RC's.
It is my outcome to have a simple, single strategy when it comes to code. In a few weeks, we'll have that simple strategy again.
Thank you for putting up with me during this snafu.
I have some misgivings in that regard too.
The fact is we are currently in the Wild West Mode, kind of like when cell phones first became popular.
Everybody is starting to scramble and many of them are seeking an advantage.
And given the hot potato characterization of drones in the public, media, politics and governing body (FAA) everything is very much currently up in the air.
This next year is going to be very interesting and I think we will all have a lot better idea of how things are going to be done this time next year.
In the meantime, whatever we can find to do now that will make it easier for the little guy might have some long term lasting effect.
We are going to have to figure out who is working for us and who is working against us.
But at this time, except for the FAA itself, that is not at all clear.
We "Live in interesting times".
Rough translation of specious Chinese curse.
A few years back we had an application where we had to import a low level autopilot into Australia. It took months to get the ITARS approval, cost us ten grand and was bug ridden..and of course we had no access to change the code and no support.
Now, we have autopilots that
1) Cost a few hundred bucks.
2) Have ten times the capability,
3) UNBELIEVABLE support that means you can have an answer in minutes
4) Complete access to the code
5) A community testing the code for you, reporting the bugs and then someone goes and fixes it for you.
Sorry.....but where is the problem???