Pixhawk is a great autopilot, we love its robustness and rich sets of features. Nowadays it is a de-facto to low cost autonomous vehicle application.
There’re always some changes you want to make in an open source design, this rule also applies to Pixhawk. First, I want to make it smaller, to fit it into a f5B glider fuselage, with built-in dampers and a plastic shell could survive a hard crash. Then I want to make the sensors to be replaceable, so I can test new MEMs gyros. And lastly, I want to make the IO completely customizable to my specific application, eliminating 3-pin RC connectors, better fixture to a larger avionic payload motherboard, or an array of Pixhawks without messy wiring.
So in the last winter, we had it done, named it P9X
Some quick facts about P9X: (might subject to change due to its beta phase)
- 80mm x 50mm x 17.2mm box made of 1.5mm thickness mold injected PC/ABS
- 43mm x 50mm core PCBA size
- Tested with Ardupilot
- Tested with QGC 2.7 version PX4 firmware
- PX4 master built not yet running (maybe a firmware issue)
- Total weight: 45g
- Connectors fully compatible with Pixhawk
- Integrated silicon rubber damper (need help in axle alignment test)
- 4 copper nuts embedded for M3 screw mounting (dimension: 38mm x 25mm)
- IMU sensors swappable (need soldering)
We need your Help!
The first 50pcs batch is out, we have invested in inject mold, silicon rubber mold, silk screen printing. We want more testers and a crowd funding campaign, before that, we want to make sure this hardware revision has no serious design issues. If you are experienced user, developer, embedded engineer, please consider purchase one of these beta samples and send us feedback.
How to get one.
Back in the last year, Raspilot project generated no income, Emlid and Erle Robotic has inspired by its design then they have made their similar design products. I don’t want to bankrupt in my hobby, and make it serious to be a self-employed job. So no more free samples.
I want to sell these 50 pcs unit for 150USD each, with Aramex shipping from Shanghai, China. Please give me feedback about the price.
Thanks.
Comments
Hi,
I would like to test your design on my quadcopter design. Do you have a sample left for test? I would need one for now.
Thanks,
Kyu
Philip..."sleepless nights"
According to my calculation your post came through at 3AM AEST? Late night, or a early morning? ;-)
These topics tend to get a bit off track! All good! There are a lot of names behind the PX4 and Pixhawk hardware. And many many sleepless nights!
Hey @Phillip, One more comment from me, a short one, and I will be on my way. Not to be condescending, but I want to acknowledge your design effort in the PX4. The PX4 has/is one of the most successful flight controllers on the market. It has spawned numerous products and created tremendous growth in the DIY/hobby drone industry.
I absolutely do not mean to disparage your PX4 work.
Happy flying!
@ Marc. +1
--
@ Patrick
There are various reasons to do licencing. One is to protect the IP so that nobody can take off with the IP and copyright it themselves, so that even the original creators can't use it anymore. The hardware (and software) licence is in place to stop others from copyright/patenting the design and using it only for themselves. If that would occur then all of the open source development would only be able to run on closed proprietary hardware, which in turn would defeat the purpose of open source. Essentially it's a licence to protect against copyright, so to speak. :-|
It's also not as easy as it seems to make good quality and functional hardware. A lot of work goes into that which should not be undervalued. :-)
If you're interested have a look at this guide to GPLv3: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html
Jerry you probably should just take the olive branch here and work with Craig. My guess is the benefits outweigh the liabilities.
The discussion here is very interesting, but one think confuses me. I have studied the hardware for PixHawk and the older APM (and other knock-offs), and they all appear to be nothing more than an embedded CPU with on-board flash with some sensors slapped around it. The real I.P. here is the software, which everybody already knows is open source. What is the point of trying to license hardware that is nothing more than a CPU with some sensors and some digitial I/O pins? It's a 'no-brainer' - anyone can do this with a simple CAD layout app. Just what are you trying to protect or license? I can't find any real I.P. that has commercial value other than a board layout.
Thank you Craig and Matt! it really is that simple! @Jerry, working with Craig will be a positive experience!
Hear Hear, Craig. It really is that simple. The issue at question here isn't whether or not open source has merit in the commercial marketplace (that's definitely worth exploring, but isn't necessarily relevant here), it's a legal issue. The hardware design isn't "free", it's provided for use and licensed with certain restrictions that simply aren't monetary. That's why open source still has licenses...it doesn't mean it's a free-for-all... The time for debating that isn't AFTER you've already committed to abiding by the terms of the license (which you implicitly do by using the design). If you don't like the license, don't use it to further your commercial endeavors, simple as that. In this case, however, Jerry already made the decision to abide by the terms of the license (again, whether or not this license is perfect or what the motivations of it are has no relevance), and isn't abiding by the terms and as such is subject to prosecution (or at the very least, persecution)! :)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 14 Next