Hi,
I recently discovered a post on RCG here back in May 2015 from a new member about using a single Pixhawk for VTOL control on the BirdsEyeView FireFLY6. It lead to the PX4 page below describing some development firmware for the Pixhawk. Does anyone know if there have been updates to this development or how to obtain the firmware for testing?
PX4 Page to BirdsEyeView FireFly
Thanks.
Replies
Thank Greg, I will inform you how is going my project.
FAbian
Sunnysun,
For #1, the QGC should work fine to load Pixhawk firmware. The main designer of QGC has posted many times on the FireFLY6 thread here and is working to make QGC fully compatible with the FireFLY6 AvA firmware. His screen name is DonLakeFlyer.
For #2, this seems like a reasonable plan. I have also thought of making another VTOL using the Pixhawk with AvA firmware.
For #3, yes this is a good plan.
I do not see anything wrong with your approach. My approach was similar in that I used the AvA firmware with a FireFLY6 model but used my own lower cost power system. My 6s Lipo SunnySky power system and low cost ESCs works identical to the more expensive "High-Efficiency Propulsion Bundle" from BirdsEyeView Aerobotics. You may want to look at their spares section for possible use of great ideas like the chain drive for servo transitions.
Good luck!
Sunnysun,
If you don't purchase the AvA key, then you will need a Bridge Transition controller and a second flight controller; one for hover and one for plane. I don't think you want to add that complexity and the Bridge Transition controller is not sold separately by BirdsEyeView Aerobotics. Alternatively, you can be a beta tester on the PX4 stack solution linked earlier in this thread.
Use the AvA key feature chart here. If you are only looking for sport flying and transitions, the $49 key may work for you. If you want full autonomous flight with transitions and Loiter mode, then you need the $199 Pro key like I have.
Transitions in Auto mode are added to the Mission Planner just like other commands. The VTOL does not automatically transition to hover mode when passing waypoints. It will only transition automatically when commanded to RTL (Return To Launch) and Land. If you want to transition to hover mode at a waypoint and then Loiter, you need to add those commands into your Mission Planner flight plan. It is easy to do.
In your example of a "W" mission, the FireFLY6 would remain in plane mode and fly a curve around the waypoint to continue its mission. The size of the curve radius is determined by settings in the Full Parameter List. It would seem inefficient to transition back and forth making a copter a better vehicle choice for the mission.
There is no AvA hardware, only special firmware for your Pixhawk that you enable through the purchase of a key.
I am wondering about the commonality of the PX4 Flight Stack and the APM Flight Stack. Is there any code in common?
If so, are basic flight modes like Stabilize, Alt. Hold, Loiter, Take-off, and Landing the same between these flight stacks?
Since I am familiar with APM, but not PX4 firmware, is there a document that describes the differences for users?
Thanks.
The Pixhawk hardware offers a choice for flight stacks; PX4 and APM.
Does anyone have experience with both flight stacks? If so, can you comment on the differences or point to documentation that may compare them? Do they contain some common code base and maturity?
My understanding is that Mission Planner supports only the APM flight stack but QGroundControl and APM Planner 2.0 support both stacks. The PX4 flight stack seems more rooted in the academic world while the APM flight stack is in both the commercial and academic worlds. Both flight stacks seem to be under the Dronecode project umbrella.
My goal here is to determine if I want to try a VTOL project under the PX4 flight stack that uses a single Pixhawk or stick with the current APM solution that uses a Pixhawk and a second flight controller (DJI, APM, EagleTree, etc.) I am comfortable with Mission Planner but have little experience with QGC.
I found several Dronecode links that helps explain the two flight stacks. The APM flight stack is much larger and more mature than the PX4 flight stack.
Dronecode Org Homepage
Flight code description for APM and PX4 stacks
Size Comparison of Devs per stack
Compatible Ground Stations (GCS)
A Newbies Guide to UAVs
As an update, and, some closure on this discussion, I decided to use the the new AvA (or Advanced VTOL Autonomy) feature from BirdsEyeView Aerobotics. This feature combines the copter and planes features of the APM stack into a single Pixhawk firmware load.
In the first two images below, you can see the elimination of the Arducopter (Arduflyer) controller and the bridge transition assistant using the new AvA feature. The result is a fully autonomous VTOL design that can be controlled in the FireFLY6 Planner derivative of Mission Planner. The documentation on the BirdsEyeView Aerobotics products is top notch!
Hello Greg, nice build, like the position of the RF900.
I want to ask how does it fly with AvA compared to the transition bridge, any improvement with gps on mast as compared to first pic, and finally do you use airspeed sensor.
Thanks
Hi Paul,
The AvA feature makes autonomous flight much easier than using the bridge because you only need one instance of the Mission Planner running. Also, the custom FireFLY6 Planner provides additional buttons on the Fly screen and additional commands like "Transition" and "Gear" in your mission plan.
The M8N GPS on the mast really cleaned up my noise and inconsistency issues. The flying pic above was taken by me after setting the transmitter down. You can see the 18 satellite count and low hdop value in the image below. I don't have an airspeed sensor yet because I am more experienced with APM:Copter and just a novice with APM:Plane. I plan to learn more in 2016.
Hi Sunnysun,
It's actually been 9 years since I built my last VTOL using heli gyros on a Multiplex Magister airplane frame. Today's flight controllers make it much easier.
To answer your question #1, BirdsEyeView Aerobotics uses the APM stack, not the PX4 stack for their AvA solution in FireFLY6. The PX4 version does not offer the same transformations.
Question #2 answer: The PX4 stack solution does not use the FireFLY6 Planner or the APM Mission Planner but it can use QGC for control. I do not know how much of it can be automated. The FireFLY6 solution using the APM stack can use the FireFLY6 Planner and new QGC beta for full autonomous control. As for which GCS is better, it is a personal choice. The FireFLY6 Planner is streamlined for the FireFLY6. QGC has a different GUI but is also well designed.
Question #3: If you use the Pixhawk firmware for the AvA version of the FireFLY6 then you need to purchase the key level. When you purchase the key level, you provide the unique KEY_PID to them and they return the KEY_VALUE to you for entering into the FireFLY6 Planner Full Parameter List. I purchased the Pro Key level.
The AvA solution does not necessarily need to be used on a FireFLY6 but it does need to be used on a Y6 (or Tricopter configuration) and purchased or it will not function properly.
Alternatively, you can use the dual flight controller solution (now known as the classic FireFLY6) but it requires the hardware bridge transition unit.
Lastly, you can use the PX4 stack solution, without any purchase, but it is sparsely documented and not well tested by many users. In other words, the AvA solution for the FireFLY6 is the current best solution with documentation that allows an autonomous transition between copter and plane configurations.
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 9 Next