Blogs

3D Robotics

PicoPilot stripdown

Posted by Chris Anderson on April 5, 2009 at 1:30pm

After stripping down AttoPilot, I thought it would be fun to compare it with the last-gen consumer autopilot, the PicoPilot NAT. There's quite a difference! The most obvious contrast is how simple and basic the PicoPilot board is. It doesn't have any of the dataline protection and noise reduction features of AttoPilot, and the PCB layout itself is hobby-grade (no effort to extend the ground planes to fill all available space, which is the trick good designers use to cut down on RF noise). No wonder it tends to need servo signal amplifiers. There's also no provision for expansion (spare pins broken out, etc). U-Nav ground off all the identifying numbers on the microprocessor and support ICs, but I've identified what I could in these photographs. (click on the pictures of the board tops to go to Flickr, where you can mouse over and see what parts I could identify) There are two boards + a GPS module. One board is the wing-leveler and GPS navigation (PicoPilot NA); the other is the altitude hold board with a pressure sensor (ALT3E). The GPS module is a stand-alone component (A Holux GR-213 module with a SiRFIII chipset). PicoPilot NA top: PicoPilot NA board top PicoPilot NA bottom: PicoPilot NA board bottom ALT3E top: PicoPilot ALT3E board top ALT3E bottom: PicoPilot ALT3E board bottom GPS module outside (this is just a standard Holux GPS module): PicoPilot GPS module The Holux GPS module inside: PicoPilot GPS module inside To give you an idea how basic these PCBs are, here's the PicoPilot bottom and the AttoPilot and ArduPilot bottoms side by side, ranked in increasing sophistication. Again, note the careful effort to maximize the ground planes (big light green areas) for noise reduction in ArduPilot and AttoPilot, and the minimal use in PicoPilot. PicoPilot PCB bottom: PicoPilot NA board bottom ArduPilot PCB bottom: ArduPilot bottom AttoPilot PCB bottom: AttoPilot board bottom
E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • T3
    icebear November 25, 2013 at 11:39am

    I must add that the Picopilot is what hooked me to hobby UAVs in the first place so I still have a few in my UAV museum :). They work fine if used with electric motor glider type airframes, for which I think they were intended.

    Nowadays I prefer other systems like the Gluonpilot...

  • Moderator
    Sgt Ric November 25, 2013 at 10:43am

    Wow, I hadn't thought about PicoPilot for awhile, and curious what's happening at UNAV these days.

    Here is the link to their latest autopilot http://u-nav.com/3501-autopilot.aspx

    ...Still priced out of reality.

  • Moderator
    Sgt Ric November 25, 2013 at 10:29am

    Perhaps @Michael hadn't noticed the date of the original thread.

    But thanks for the post  @Michael , interesting to hear others had issues as well.

     

  • Moderator
    Gary Mortimer November 25, 2013 at 10:19am

    Wow way to bring a historic post Michael! Most folks on here don't know they are born with multiple cheap autopilots to buy these days ;-)

  • Michael Leasure November 25, 2013 at 9:54am

    had 2 picopilots, neither worked reliably, customer service nonexistant or rude.  save your money.  Ardu and Atto, both fine units. 

  • Dean June 2, 2010 at 4:25pm
    "and the PCB layout itself is hobby-grade (no effort to extend the ground planes to fill all available space, which is the trick good designers use to cut down on RF noise). "

    Not necessarily true. You don't always knee-jerk fill open areas with ground planes around analog components. The ground plane copper fill is more important for digital portions of the PCB. So don't go hard on the PicoPilot for lack of copper fill. Dave had the good sense to add an OpAmp current amplifier between the AD gyro and the PIC ADC inputs.
  • T3
    Krzysztof Bosak April 14, 2009 at 7:08am
    "Would be fun to do a side-by.side with all available autopilots..."
    Not too much, since this would be a test of PID tuning skills, not the autopilots.
  • Michael April 11, 2009 at 8:46pm
    That would be a good idea, the results would be very interesting.
  • T3
    icebear April 11, 2009 at 5:16am

    Still, I think the Pico performs well - look at the attached GPS track of 8 consecutive laps of 1 kilometer. Would be fun to do a side-by.side with all available autopilots...
  • Michael April 10, 2009 at 5:02am
    @ Krzysztof

    "Let's make it clear: u-nav failed to deliver Microsoft-style marketing? No major breakthrough every 1 year? No number of waypoins doubling every 7 months? No price halving for out-of-stock product? No 70% price reduction for universities that buy over 300 licenses?"

    That is a little over the top, however, this is a professional company selling these components and as such I would expect a little more care in the presentation and quality of their product. More functionality does not just refer to way points, but the system as a whole and being able to adapt the product to suit their clients needs. No one is expecting a 'major breakthrough every 1 year', yet, being able to customize or update the system to keep in touch with the technology would be a good option to have.

    "No price halving for out-of-stock product? No 70% price reduction for universities that buy over 300 licenses" People are happy to pay for quality, I am not suggesting they offer what you have stated, however, the increases in technology, on the balance, make things cheaper not more expensive to the consumer.
This reply was deleted.