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
I would like to post something without necessarily being in the fight. I actually do not fully understand how any small business can function and grow when their work has to be posted in a form that a Chinese fab plant can turn-around in a day.
I am not speaking for Phillip K of Arsov, but he is making a great derivative of the a PX4 design and it is clear that it will be days after he posts his files before it is cloned and sold as Pixracer on GLB at 50% of his selling price, most likely. Now Phillip still works a day job I believe, in order to pursue his passion. He is doing all the real work as a hardware designer and maker to bring this to market and is even providing firmware support. Cashflow means he has to do small batches at a time to and the capital requirements means it will be GLB that will actually sell a version with a case as injection molding requires scales of economy that small US/European houses cannot easily do.
Does it have to be made so easy for the fab plants in China? Why not make cloners reverse engineer. At least they would mess it up sometimes (we have seen that happen) when they have to do some design themselves. Why not allow derivatives to at least have their factory ready designs kept private?
Community shaming really does not work if you have no shame and people can say one thing but when it comes to buying they do something else.
And where is the incentive to innovate, as in pay real money to engineers. 3DR did not innovate in hardware designs (not talking Solo, which was wildly innovative) and went down the commodity plug-hole (or that side of the business did anyway). Not much incentive when a 3DR design was going to be on GLB next week.
Being positive here, people that develop open source firmware need to create a model to get support from hardware manufacturers that is a bit more effective than screaming at people to "Drink Fair Trade Coffee" as they relax with their favorite Corporate Latte.
I want firmware developers to be supported properly. Projects like Ardupilot need to get serious and create brand names that are protected and are licensed to manufacturers (small and large) who pay a royalty to use said brand. I think derivative works should only have to publish schematics and no more. This gives small manufacturers incentives to make new derivatives and support the project and it diversifies the Project's funding. Consumers can choose to buy outright fakes and that is fine. Many, many, even most, will pay an extra $5 or so happily. Hobbyking for example, will pay royalties to use a brand name in marketing. In fact, with a project as powerful as Ardupilot, they would probably pay quite well to get the bragging rights and distinguish themselves from GLB and Banggood.
Just my 2 cents. If you cannot see the $$ from a consumer's pocket to yours you simply are leaving all of this up to human nature.
I do not know Jerry Giant at all. But it seems to me he is saying, basically: My associates down the road are going to clone Pixracer tomorrow, and they will clone my work as well. Why would I bother to invest and money to do this if I hand my work over? You have to wonder why he would. He may not have done himself any favors in the way he said it.
I do not have the answers but it I do not understand the economics of open source hardware, which may be my shortcoming. It seems it maybe premised on an unrealistic expectation of human behavior. Please correct me and explain how a small US/European or even Chinese hardware maker can really make a business work and thrive in this model. I am only interested in moving the thinking along and not arguing. I am always open to learning. Sorry this was a long post.
I mean @Philip (one L), please to be the forgiveness...
@Jerry
You sicken me and karma is a b*, I find solace in that.
@Phillip
Thank you for your passion and literally advancing the quality of life of the human race! I'm sure you deal with this kind of crap all the time in private, it's enlightening to see it in the public space for all to get a feel for the challenges associated with open source. I guess I should thank Mr. Giant also for being so stupid as to think this wouldn't be the outcome given his original post. 'Pretty sure most thieves aren't that ignorant so let's all learn from this!
Philip, you have the support from the entire community. No doubts. You guys have done an amazing job i cant personally thank you enough.
@Chris
I wanted to ship another version in closed hardware design, but it has gone too far arguing childishly.
It's out of my hand now.
I WOULD NEVER BUY THIS !!! BS
sue me. get the prove from taobao quickly for your lawyer.
get a pdf drawing so make a binary compatible hardware is how it was done.
you could make a bigger move.
@Jerry,
I hope you understand that you are effectively locking off a number of potential customers...... You said earlier that you would publish as soon as you started shipping them, it has been shown that you are now shipping them. Why is it so hard to understand why people are getting tired with you. If you had designed something, given it away on the agreement that any derivative work would also be shared, it wasn't shared and the person basically told you to bugger off, how would you feel...... I know I'd be annoyed by it. For this model to work people need to be more open and share. There is still money to be made.
Personally for the hardware diy crowd a hardware subscription model most likely wont work but good luck with it (although you'll needs lots of it to overcome the negative views people are starting to form).
@Philip,
Completely understand your side. I'm thinking more turn around time on posts might allow things to slow down and let them assess what they are doing. Human nature is to stand their ground but give them time and they can reassess stuff. Just to be clear I still advocate it being called out as some people need that push in order to see what they are doing.
Chris
Just publish, and we all move on.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 14 Next