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.



Views: 48504

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Boy they do have a lot of stuff in there.

I look forward to a more detailed explanation.

Although I am sure they are concentrating their efforts on getting the Solo to work optimally for now.

Best Regards,


Why dont they use the M8N Gps?

Hi Gary!
I'm eager to see more detailed pictures of Pixhawk 2 and its dimensions,
Would it be possible?

Wow. Complete redesign -- they didn't recycle anything.

What about the new PX4_Flow v2.0?

Interesting stuation. Alot of people using ublox M8N series for a long time. Nowadays M8N optimum gps chipset solution  in my humble opinion

Thanks for that analysis.  Sad to see so many hardware bugs made it into production.

Using disposable type construction with flexible PCB is a real bummer.  I would have liked to see picoblade connectors used.

I think they've been trying to get away from Invensense for some time now, so it's no mystery about the extra IMUs.

Even though using interrupts is 2nd semester uC level stuff, I'm not really surprised they forgot those.  They've always tried to bitbang things for no good reason.  Hell, they were even using PPM for inter-processor communication until the PX4 came along.

Only time will tell how things shake out though.  They've always pulled rabbits out in the past and are damn good at making lemons into lemonade!

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.


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.

Some of what you pointed out can be considered design flaws rather than bugs, but forgetting interrupt lines is a BUG!  Just because you can cobble a software fix around the issue doesn't change that.

Good points also about the PPM "design limitations".  I wish they would use a cheap STM32 for sensor fusion and separate that aspect from the actual flight control.

PWM -> PPM -> PWM does seem pretty silly!  You'd think that analog signals would be ditched altogether by now, at least for all but the last run.

Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service