Replies

  • Kikinou July 22, 2015 at 5:28am

    Both works. Pixhawk has very specific advantages (EKF, terrain following, fast log) at some extra cost (base price, airspeed price). I have been using APM for leisure, had some fun with mapping, landing on my club landing strip and so on.

    I broke 2 APM in the process(idiotic short circuit when connecting stuff  and sensor faults). I am glad I did not pay for a pixhawk. I suppose you are asking this question because of budget constraint. Hence, I can say that in my case, choosing the APM over the pixhawk saved me quite a bit (the cost of 2 pixhawk).

  • Moderator
    MarioSpeedwagon July 7, 2015 at 1:43pm
    I'm only answering in the hopes that someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

    Arduplane, or ardupilot, is the firmware. (my brain registers this as software).
    Px4 is a different firmware/software.

    Pixhawk is the hardware that the firmware can be loaded on, with px4 being the default.

    I'm guessing you want to know:
    Do I want an ardupilot mega or a pixhawk?
    Do I want to run px4 or Ardupilot on it?


    The names are pretty confusing, and I'm not even sure I have it down yet. All I know is that I'm running AP3.1 on a pixhawk.
    • Admin
      Thomas J Coyle III > MarioSpeedwagon July 7, 2015 at 2:03pm

      @MarioSpeedwagon,

      You descriptions are correct.

      The Pixhawk, unlike the ArduPilot Mega (APM), can run the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) function which is superior to DCM for accurate flight navigation.

      Regards,

      TCIII AVD

    • Moderator
      MarioSpeedwagon > MarioSpeedwagon July 7, 2015 at 1:45pm
      And I'll let someone else confirm or correct my post before I take a stab at your question, but it's all going to boil down to "It depends on what you're flying, what you're using it for and what you need".
This reply was deleted.