5 Pixawhk & OneShot125 for KISS ESC? Posted by Mariusz on January 16, 2015 at 2:21am Hi,Is there any plan to implement OneShot125 support for KISS ESC?BrgdsMariusz You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments! Join diydrones Email me when people reply – Follow
Why all the fuss over OneShot? I can see it if you are flying a racer. I have a racer with a CC3D and a set of the new BLHeli_S ESCs. Compared to the "regular" BLHeli ESCs I was using, the new ESCs perform significantly better. But even so, I really cannot see any reason to add OneShot or Multishot support to a Pixhawk.
Racers get the benefit of "smoother" throttle control, which translates into quicker and more precise attitude and speed control which can shorten your lap times, but on an AP rig flying an autonomous mission, who cares?
And as a final note, I believe this new batch of "mini" APMs and Pixhawks are just a marketing gimics.
It's possible to use oneshot escs with pixhawk after it's being supported or they don't work?
I really would like to have an option to at least enable one-shot. I have a feeling my Tali H500 would handle MUCH better in the wind if the ESC's were one-shot enabled. and had active braking. oh well
looks like no way for oneshoot.
Don't know why but they are not interested.
I'd like to see it too, especially on Mini APM FC used on small UAV.
Please consider adding it to next release.
Any progress on this? oneshot is obviously the gold standard right now. Don't get left behind pixhawk.
I'm also interested. Would be great to have this feature.
Planing to build medium quad on 9" props. Have 3DR Pixhawk. But also love how my quads perform on Naze32 with OneShot.
I am also a believer of synchronous commands with less delay.
KISS ESC already supports 50-500hz PWM - what's supposed to be the advantage of "oneshot125 PWM" ?
APM/pixhawk is not for the super-smallest toys, - and no bigger motor/propeller can respond anyway to anything close to 500 changes per second - (and that's before I mention necessary calculatinos should be done that fast, not only PWM output - that does not make any sense)
So - while it's a nice marketing gimmick: common PWM goes between 900us 2100μs - and would give a nice resolution on most microcontrollers- this suggested protocol operates between 125-250μs - requireing a very accurate sampling to even ,maintain resolution.
I think this fous on speed is something more needed in smaller toy-quads, where APM/pixhawk is too large anyway. (or am I wrong ?)