Pixhawk vs Naza V2

[jimbo385]

Well I have tried to get to the bottom of this but that other big forum runs round n round in circles!

So I understand that Naza is basically plug n play (fly!) and the Pixhawk needs a little more input.

I have had a Crius AIOP with MultiWII in the past and frankly didn';t get on with it and in the end, sold it. Just couldn';t get the quad to fly right. Now, I';m older and wiser so understand a lot more about the physics of this sport.

I understand that I will need to load and configure the firmware and I';m happy with that but what about configuring for flight?

I';m thinking about getting a Tarot 690Pro for the new FC.

Would love to hear your comments and experiences.

Cheers

[jimbo385]

I';ve also just gone and found this!

http://witespyquad.gostorego.com/rtfhawk-2-4.html

Full spec including GPS etc is less than £115!

Is this any good?

[JerryCampbell]

I just received my RTFHawk yesterday. The first board was bad so I had to return it. A pain but all looks good now. I understand that there have been some bad boards on both Pixhawk and clones. BUT, there are thousands of them out there flying now.
   There is certainly more to it than plug and play.
Check out this link for more info.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2142174

If you just want to fly, I would go for the NAZA. If you want a ROBOT with infinite possibilities, I would go for the PIXHawk or clone.
Good Luck
Jerry

[jimbo385]

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for the info. I am currently on page 21 of over 100 on that thread!

It looks like the RTFHawk is the way to go.

Cheers

Jim

[sevet]

I just received my RTFHawk yesterday. The first board was bad so I had to return it. A pain but all looks good now. I understand that there have been some bad boards on both Pixhawk and clones. BUT, there are thousands of them out there flying now.
   There is certainly more to it than plug and play.
Check out this link for more info.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2142174

If you just want to fly, I would go for the NAZA. If you want a ROBOT with infinite possibilities, I would go for the PIXHawk or clone.
Good Luck
Jerry

What was bad with it?
I had problems on the RTFHawk board with booting, it just sometime had 3 beeps (on that lousy clone speaker), and sometimes booted.
Finally it didn';t boot at all.
I formatted the SD, and now it boots, it even boots faster.

[Oakie]

and managed to upset one of the developers!

open source.......

All told, it';s still an inexpensive option........

I am shore it wont be long and the far east will follow, any guessing at? $50?

Well i still have so much to do with 2.6/7/8 and the 3.1 50mm foot print! OMG.

good luck!

[JerryCampbell]

What was bad with it?
I had problems on the RTFHawk board with booting, it just sometime had 3 beeps (on that lousy clone speaker), and sometimes booted.
Finally it didn';t boot at all.
I formatted the SD, and now it boots, it even boots faster.

Mine wouldn';t save anything so when you rebooted you had to recalibrate everything. Not Good.
I';m sitting here now wiring it.
Looks good so far.
jerry

[sevet]

UPDATE: Even after formatting and testing a few times... today at the field the SD failed. checked on a PC and it also sometimes stops working.

SD i got with the RTFHawk is screwed.
Put a different one and works every time.

I was using arducopter 3.2-rc2
I think at some point the older versions saved on the SD, could have been your problem as well the bad SD

[JerryCampbell]

UPDATE: Even after formatting and testing a few times... today at the field the SD failed. checked on a PC and it also sometimes stops working.

SD i got with the RTFHawk is screwed.
Put a different one and works every time.

I was using arducopter 3.2-rc2
I think at some point the older versions saved on the SD, could have been your problem as well the bad SD

I read that some people had bad cards or cards that needed reformatting. That was not the case with me. I swapped and reformatted and did whatever else I could to make it work but no go. I did not want to send it back. 

[jimbo385]

How are you guys getting on with the RTFHawk?

[Paulham]

Mines in the post. I';ll let you know how I get on with it once its here

[kogashuko]

The real question, why a pixhawk? What does it really do that an APM2.5 cant do?

[Paulham]

The real question, why a pixhawk? What does it really do that an APM2.5 cant do?

Expandability, The APM project has boomed, but the ATMEL processor is slow and now full up!

The Pixhawk uses a 32bit processor which is faster and has loads of space for new features.

[kogashuko]

Does it do anything for the current firmware or are we still waiting for features to be built in.

Just ordered a APM 2.7 from hobbyking that I intend on putting on my alien quad and moving my standard 2.6 to the mini quad. Reason for this is because I soldered the board on the 2.6 so I can power it with the onboard esc BEC and not have to screw with the voltage sensor. My full size quad has more space for the added voltage sensor.

Anyway, I would see the standard APM as being better suited for a mini quad than a bigger pixhawk. At the same time if I am happy with the way mine run I dont see any need to go to the pixhawk until I need more features or build a quad that can use them.

Finally, does the new pixhawk support brushless gimbals without a separate control board? I am hoping at somepoint someone will build this into an iteration of an APM.

[jimbo385]

Very good question on the brushless gimbals!

Have a look at the last paragraph here.

http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/build-your-own-multicopter/

I think that the future is now wide open with regards to the Pixhawk whereas the APM is now very limited. Not saying that its not a good board but one is more likely to get brushless gimbal control on the Pixhawk than you would on the APM.

[flybywire]

Hmm, I have see this dilemma played out in the IT world on a daily basis.  People just seem to buy stuff because either so-and-so says it';s great, or because it ';does'; this-that-and the other.
PLease just ask yourself "what do you want it to do?"  My DJI equipment does flight control, GPS, RTH, waypoints, OSD (now HD downlink with lightbridge) oh, and for the purists, manual mode as well.  It also is plug and play, and very reliable.

No I don';t have shares in DJI, but I really should.

Hope you get what you ';need'; (as the rolling stones once said).

[jimbo385]

PLease just ask yourself "what do you want it to do?"  My DJI equipment does flight control, GPS, RTH, waypoints, OSD (now HD downlink with lightbridge) oh, and for the purists, manual mode as well.  It also is plug and play, and very reliable.

I agree with what you have said. However, not everyone can afford a Wookong or an A2!

[flybywire]

I agree with what you have said. However, not everyone can afford a Wookong or an A2!

THe Naza V2 does (can do!) waypoints, osd etc etc, pretty much everything the Wookong/A2 does, but for less dosh.

[jimbo385]

[quote
THe Naza V2 does (can do!) waypoints, osd etc etc, pretty much everything the Wookong/A2 does, but for less dosh.
[/quote]

I';m glad that it does but let';s have a look at the costs associated!

Even going for the original Pixhawk, its less expensive that a fully kitted out Naza V2 with Ground Station.

Don';t get me wrong, I think that the Naza is a fabulous piece of kit it';s just expensive. Also, there';s a configuration learning curve with the Pixhawk as it';s not as "Plug n Play" as the Naza. I think that';s one of the reasons that some have gone APM and now, there';s a new kid on the block.

I have a Naza Lite and I love it!

[flybywire]

Cool!  To be fair, money wasn';t mentioned in your original post.   

I was just really attempting to make a point that I think is a valid one, that one should take a hard look at what it is one really wants or needs (if you';re making a business out of it) before buying anything.  I simply opted for the DJI route because I had ';dabbled'; with other stuff and had negative results, which ultimately would have put me off the ';hobby';!
Not to say I didn';t learn a good deal on the way of course, which is one thing I do like open source stuff for, if you do want to get under the hood of theses things, then that';s commendable.

There is always more than one way of achieving anything in this world of course and I welcome new developments with open arms.
I';ve always been wary of sending stuff up in the air weighing considerable amounts with GPS based systems that I cannot feel total confidence with, so I would always be wary of anything open source, unless I feel that I have understood everything in the setup and left nothing to chance.
Having said that, I';m getting great results with my CC3D, and have a Naze 32 on it';s way from HK, so before anybody accuses me of being blinkered, think again!