Just came across this Pixhawk clone, so thought I would share.
http://witespyquad.gostorego.com/flight-controllers/rtfhawk-2-4.html
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.
Comments
i am fully agree with kipkool!!
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney ?
@Paul, so since you're here and participating, I'd like to ask you an honest question.
So you are running a business, where your business model is to take intellectual work produced by others in an open source environment. Then you produce hardware for sale, where your price-point undercuts 3DR's by a substantial margin. A big part of the reason why your price can be so much lower, is because you don't put any time or money into putting an intellectual work back into the open source project.
Now, this is totally legal, as has been pointed out by many in various discussions about open source rules.
But is it really ethical, or fair? I'm just asking you man to man here.
I mean, in your product pages, you can't even produce your own documentation for your own customers. You link back to information on 3DR's servers. You can't even pay for the bandwidth used to serve information to your customers. And you're certainly not paying for the production of that documentation. 3DR employs at least one person who writes the documentation, produces images, etc. They're paying for that. They took that on because for a long time, our documentation was lacking. Since up to that point, this was all being done by volunteers, and documentation is un-fun, it always fell behind, and people constantly complained (and with good reason!). So 3DR took it upon themselves to fix that situation. But now you simply link to it, on the very product pages in which you are selling hardware at an advantaged price because you do not have to fund that work, nor pay for the server traffic, etc.
How does that square? Don't you feel you have any moral obligation to contribute anything? Really all you've done is complain that 3DR is making it hard for your customers to upload the software, that you've done nothing to produce, onto your boards. Next will you be complaining and criticising if the Arducopter software has a bug that caused your customer's aircraft to crash?
To ur point, we all would like this resolved amicably.
Can we cool down and have a productive discussion guys ?
To summarize the situation:
1/ APM planner & Mission Planner implemented a certificate check that officially supposed to alert users of their FC origin. This makes sense considering they want to certificate their hardware and there's no reason to argue about that.
2/ Seems the "feature" was a bit too conservative, as it prevents homebrew & clone boards to be updated from the software.
3/ Peoples are not stupid, so it took only few minutes to find alternative solutions by using an old px4uploader.exe with MP
4/ but this deserve 3DR puropose, now peoples use modified px4uploader, nobody is alerted that they run a non 3DR harware anymore but firmware upload works for all boarsd.
5/ the 04/20/2014 , a new APM build was distributed removing the upload fail. It only displays an alert box saying hardware is not original. This solution sounds acceptable. No need to hack MP anymore. Everybody would be ok with that.
6/ But one day later, a new build is pushed that enable again the upload fail process with non otp signatures.
Can somebody explain us what's the move on this ? Sounds completly contradictory with open source spirit.
Who took the decision of falling back ?
I truly hope it's just a stupid git push mistake, and it will be fixed today.
7/ Without proper alterative for now I've forked Mission Planner and made a version without otp check.
We're back in point 4.
If somebody could share how we can implement such certificate on our boards to differentiate them from 3DR ones without OTP fail, I'm open to hear it.
Cheers.
You are right to a degree, internet forums seem to allow alter egos to get into full gear but being banned for pointing out that a moderators' comment to a user was "arrogant and condescending" does not seem to warrant a PM from Craig stating I need to "watch my language". Otherwise the choice is of ones own choosing, as Rob exercised, he left but he wasn't kicked out. Btw, I said the moderators accuse users of whining or complaining....and I've never been in a tin box but I have worn a tin hat. :-))
Steven you claim DIYD is fraught with moderator bullies, and accuse others of whining complaining etc. Then go on to claim RCG has "spirited and opinionated" discussions? Sounds like they're both typical internet forums to me...
I call it "Tin box syndrome", from what I've personally seen what driving a car does to some perfectly rational and sensible people, the internet (and it's forums) does the same thing.
I don't think anyone toes the 3DR line here - I for one have been critical of APM/arducopter in the past (see my posts on compassmot and autotune), and not been banned. However, I do embrace the open sourceness of the project, and try and help other where I can, even if I'm not a programmer contributing to the base code.
Also, being a tight Scotsman also sees the appeal of getting mature wookong levels of features (and more!) for a fraction of the price...even if it does mean a bit more work at my end, but I'm a techie at heart anyway!
Steven, I can't imagine what it would take to get banned or even moderated here. I've seen some really amazing things be allowed. You should look up the posting of DroneSavant for reference.
I'm all for open discussions. What I'm not interested in is people outright lying to make a point. Ad Hominem attacks as a response to a technical argument. People throwing tantrums because of ego trips. Etc. Nothing useful can be accomplished in such an environment.
Point is, Paul asked why there are no developers at RCG. This is why, and again, the perfect example. I made a few comments about this very issue, and was attacked for it again. It's a waste of time for any of us to participate there.
Rob, with all due respect, this forum and the APM forum are fraught with moderator bullies. Any thought that is contrary to the 3DR party line and one will disrespectfully be accused of whining, complaining or not reading the sometimes poorly written or incomplete documentation. Too much pressing on an issue and one will get banned. Ask me how I know. If you doubt me, search for comments by Craig and Stefan and see if you don't read some highly disrespectful language. I will probably be banned here, so if you respond and I don't, you will know what happened. Btw, RCG does have some spirited and opinionated discussions but isn't that what "open" means and democracy, where everyone has a right to their opinion?
Paul, the reason that there are no developers at RCG is because RCG is not interested in open, mature and respectful discussion amongst adults. 6 developers have attempted to participate there, but were driven away by the behaviour of one very small group of people. I put more effort into RCG, but found I was getting bogged down with arguing stupidities daily and not accomplishing anything. The latest of this occurred just last week, surrounding this very issue. I started talking about what was going on with this situation, and Joe and Kendall both responded again with an attack on my credibility. Well, as usual, I was correct, and they were proven to be fools. who have no idea what they're talking about.
But it is not an effective use of my time to have to get into a fight with those guys over every, single, issue.
I may continue to poke my head in every now and again, but I don't expect anybody else will.
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
-
25
of 29 Next