Just came across this Pixhawk clone, so thought I would share.


Ready to Fly Quads is a reputable distributor, and I have made a few purchases from them already. They already have a clone of the APM2.x, that has been somewhat successful. Will this new clone be just as good. for under $100USD, might be work a try.

Views: 41466

Comment by Craig Elder on April 7, 2014 at 6:03pm

It's a clone.  It still says PX4FMU on the board so they haven't changed the name.  And it is pretty bad when they say manufactured by 3D Robotics and link to our store.

I wonder if the board inside the case has the battery installed.  It looks like it is missing from the ones on the bench.

Comment by Craig Elder on April 7, 2014 at 6:14pm

It is not just semantic.  Clones are just an inevitable reality but it is unfortunate when they are masqueraded as the real thing. 

Comment by Noli Sicad on April 7, 2014 at 6:39pm

This is good news for people in the developing countries (e.g. Indonesia, Philippines, etc.) since the original Pixhawk + options would total to more than US $500 if we get it from Singapore distributors. Hope to see distributors in Southeast Asia Countries soon or China.

Comment by Craig Elder on April 7, 2014 at 6:50pm
Comment by Rob_Lefebvre on April 7, 2014 at 7:10pm

Guy, it is a clone because it is a clone.  I'm not really sure why or how there could be any debate here.  The definition of the word clone is:

a person or thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style.

This RTFhawk is a duplicate of the Pixhawk.  The fact that the name contains "hawk" shows that they are trying to imitate.  They've done nothing new, not advanced the state of the art in any way.  It's a carbon copy.  It is a clone.

It's not about who owns the design.

Comment by Gary McCray on April 7, 2014 at 7:36pm

It would at least be nice if the clone guys had enough sense (or knew enough English) to at least not say "Manufactured by 3DR".

This is certainly a clone. Open hardware clones are not per-se illegal.

Misrepresenting them as being made by or supported by the original manufacturer, certainly is, however.

And worse, for both the consumer and the original manufacturer, not only do they pass off all support to the original manufacturer, but the liklihood that they will function correctly in the first place is much less than boards made by the actual OEM.

Comment by Gary McCray on April 7, 2014 at 8:18pm

Its not really all that hard to actually work with 3DR to make compatible products and offer different or additional functionality and to provide and even share support.

There are several positive examples.

It can be a win / win and 3DR has always seemed to be very open to it and even downright assistive.

It's just the ones that are all cost and no benefit that hurt.

Comment by Scott Penrose on April 7, 2014 at 9:26pm

This is mostly a good thing. I really like multiple manufacturers of open hardware. Brings more eyes to the project, and ultimately helps even 3DR.

The word clone is odd though. I don't call Ubuntu a Debian Clone. When you fork a project, or just make another copy with modifications or not you don't call it a clone in an open source world, and hardware should be the same. However I am not concerned about that. You often here words like Arduino Clone, or Android Clone. We know what it means.

One thing that does interest me is names. If you fork an open source GPL project, which you can, you have to give it another name. This one has another name, but not on the board. Slight breach of etiquette really, and clearly not manufactured by 3DR...

Bring them on... "clones" were good for PC, are good for Arduino.

Comment by Felixrising on April 7, 2014 at 10:05pm

Reputable distributor? I'd say he takes any chinese clone he can, even custom orders chinese clones, even clones of clones - take the Flip32 and Flip32+, clones of the flyduino MW32 boards, which are themselves at least functional replicas of AbuseMark Acro Naze32 and Naze32 boards. He even verbatim copies the product descriptions... 

Amonst the community, Witespy is affectionately known as "Clonespy" for all his cloning. Sure its cheap, but does it contribute to the original developers or back to the community other than providing cheap as chips hardware? Nope.

Comment by Roberto Navoni on April 8, 2014 at 3:01am

@Guy McCaldin,

I guy , I'm very worried about the pixhawke clone because respect of other board as APM2 it's very complex hardware and i think that the main problem is that some user use that clone and think that the problem on the drone could be our project not the cloned hardware.

An example was the gps ... if you buy  the china clone that use ublox sensor but there isn't properly initiated the result of auto function or loiter is bad ... if you use original gps supported by the company as 3DR or VRX you have support on product and if you have problem they try to solve it also in future development.

As i told in other thread is very simple clone an hardware need normaly less of 15 days copy schematics , pcb ... and produce the board ... the main problem is the software development ... 




You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest 
A list of all T3 contests is here. The current round, the Vertical Horizontal one, is here

© 2020   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service