I am not quite sure about making the move.
Can guys who own both Arduplane and Pixhawk advise about any improvement for a plane, I mean handy improvement you would notice right away ?
I have read about redundancy but it seems to be an "in the future" stuff.
The question is for "today" ;-)
Thank you.
Replies
I don't know about Drone-University, but this was helpful for me. Thanks, guys, very informative!!
An old Land Rover and a new Porsche are both great, they just have different uses ;-)
It was definitely informative, and confirmed my thoughts.
Thx a bunch guys !
Unless there is something in each set of release notes that specifies there is a feature that is Pixhawk specific, you're not going to notice any difference as the code base is the same, i.e., no improvement for "today." You might get better airspeed measurements if you buy the digital airspeed sensor and aside from the buzzer, button, and LED, you won't notice a change.
The mission planner interface should be no different if you're using APM or Pixhawk unless you're looking at logs and then you'll have the logs for the redundant IMU information. If you're connecting via USB, Pixhawk loads all parameters faster than I ever noticed on the APM 2.5/2.6 but if you connect via telemetry, it will take longer as there are more parameters in the Pixhawk than the APM2.X.
Any other improvements must not be spoken of as they reference the future.
I installed Arduplane 2.6 and set it up, but never flew (as it was winter), then the PixHawk came out, so I bought one and used the GPS/Compass and 433 radio modules from Arduplane, just had to buy a digital airspeed sensor, the Pitot tube was the same. Similar to Simon Howroyd, I did not notice any huge difference, but what I do like is the Arming Switch, LED's and Buzzer, they make the plane easier to use and safer to handle!
Some people have said that the airspeed sensors on the Arduplane don't work so well, I can not comment on this, but I can say the digital airspeed sensor on the PixHawk works fine.
Looking ahead to RTK corrections to improve positioning, laser sensors for auto landing and collision avoidance sensors, etc, etc, the PixHawk's 32bit microprocessor is future proofed, the ArduPilot's 8 bit microprocessor is maxed out already.
But you asked about Today! If you already have a plane flying perfectly with Ardupilot, why try to fix something that is not broke?
Personally, as much as I want to like pixhawk, I find the arduplane interface in mission planner far easier to understand and use. Just my two pence worth!
I have just switched from arduplane on APM to pixhawk and so far it is working very well indeed. Takes a bit longer to connect MP for some reason (longer init maybe?) but it isnt an issue.
Thank you Simon.
Any practical and significant immediate improvement for you ?
Apart from interface I think it is much of a muchness. Arducopter/plane I think is much easier to setup and work with, modify and customise. But I guess that is personal preference.
Sorry I cant be more detailed!