Can someone tell me the differences between a Pixhawk and the Pixhawk 2 that 3DR is marketing as being supplied with the Solo?
I've tried searching, but only found vague references to Pixhawk 2.
Even the 3DR web site is very light with info about Pixhawk 2.
Perhaps the info is being kept quiet until the final release? If so, that's ok, just let us know.
Thanks!
Rich
Replies
Thomas,
very interesting! Can you provide some more details? Is your design commercially available?
Thanks and best regards,
Thorsten
Thomas,
great job that you pointed out all these shortcomings of the Pixhawk 2. I have started a thread about the Pixhawk 2 on rcgroups, before I knew about this one.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2449172
I am looking at architecting and designing a general purpose carrier board or possibly a complete motherboard for flight controllers, BGC, general purpose CPU modules (like RPi), HD video encoding and live streaming and networking (Wifi). I like the concept of the 80 pin connector of the Pixhawk 2, as this allows to plug the unit easily into a carrier board.
Also I am tempted to improve on the design of the Pixhawk 2. I share your thoughts and I may add one of my own. Why did they pick that form factor? 34x34 board size with 1.8mm holes and 30mm pitch of the holes.The "industry standard" of flight controllers seems to be a board size of 36x36mm with 3mm holes and a 30.5mm pitch. Close but not really compatible.
I would love a concept, where a user installs such a carrier board in his drone and then has the freedom to plug in a flight controller or auto pilot of his choice without worrying about hooking up tons of cables.
In my rcgroups thread I am looking for input and recommendations on the carrier board design:
I would love to get some feedback. I would like to design the carrier board as open source hardware. And I agree, for such a project there should be as much as possible input from the community.
Have a nice day,
Jurgen
@Thomas
Most of your points makes a lot of sense, but the isolated IMU vibration dampening has to be match to the weight of the isolated sensor PCB, not the frame the autopilot is mounted to. You are isolating the IMU from the frame, not the frame from the IMU. And you already know the threshold for frequencies that you want to filter out that will cause aliasing based on sensor characteristics and sample rate.
As the whole point of having an isolated IMU board is to avoid the complexity of isolating/dampening the fc board versus the frame, pizhawk2 will most often be fixed to the frame. So Thomas is right when saying different frames will have an impact on the IMU board isolation effectiveness. On the contrary if we still must assume pixhawk2 must be isolated/dampened in the same manner as a Pixhawk from the frame, then pixhawk2 is of no interest in practice versus a pixhawk1.
Some other flight controllers, like X-Aircraft, NAZA, WKM are using an internal damped IMU (in a foam bed with counterweight connected with flex foil cable) since some years (2012 ?) and it works, seemingly regardless of frame type. So I´m pretty confident, that it will work here as well.
The airframe I intended to mount it on uses UHF RC.
The AUAV-X2 emits too much radio noise on the UHF band (from the board and via all attached cables).
I hope that's clear enough.
@turdsurder, Our next batch of X2s (Shipping July 15ish) have removed the noisy buck/boost power supply and are also flashed with the new Mission Planner certified COA. This removes all of the RF noise in my tests using a beta board. Progress takes time, but it is happening. I have made this offer to anyone needing the new quiet version of our X2 to exchange their original X2 board (assuming it is serviceable). Reply to your order receipt for details.
Phil
What about the new PX4_Flow v2.0?
Why dont they use the M8N Gps?
Interesting stuation. Alot of people using ublox M8N series for a long time. Nowadays M8N optimum gps chipset solution in my humble opinion
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 13 Next