4 ms·

No and not even close. Look up Betaflight (racing oriented) and iNav (navigation oriented). Ardupilot is more integration/mission oriented, but it's far from th

by bri3d 7y ago

No and not even close. Look up Betaflight (racing oriented) and iNav (navigation oriented). Ardupilot is more integration/mission oriented, but it's far from the only game in town. A small <250g drone is in the $70-$100 price range, although you will also need a $70+ radio transmitter or some heavy hacking to control it. Most of the (hundreds) of supported control boards are not open hardware in the schematics sense, but some are. The all-in-one PCB integration strategy is cute, but I really don't think it's a great approach from a crash-recovery point of view.

TooSmugToFail 7y ago
> The all-in-one PCB integration strategy is cute, but I really don't think it's a great approach from a crash-recovery point of view. Spot on. However, it's a nice way to lure you into building a quad: just put some motors on, and you're good to go. Fly once, crash, and then go actually build a proper quad.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Small quads generally do remarkably little damage to themselves in most typical crashes. Remember this thing only weighs 102g, and half of that is a battery held on by springs. In typical indoor use (can't get more than a few meters high, unlikely to go faster than a few m/s), this'll crash way more than one time before it show any signs of damage to anything except the (replaceable) props. (Sure, you won't be handing it down to your grandkids in your will, but it's not as disposable as "fly once, crash, throw it away"...)
  - luminousbees 7y ago
    I totally agree with you, it's the most compressed form, in a slim electronics layer, for the most lightweight design. Every grams are used for the best selected components, assembled with passion and fully supported by Ardupilot firmware.
chrisdalke 7y ago
I agree -- and beyond a catastrophic crash, I wonder how practical the PCB frame is for longevity of the quad, vibration dampening, etc.
- luminousbees 7y ago
  Without catastrophic crashes, it's a flying PCB with the finest micro drone's build integrated in its frame. About vibration dampening, if you look at the maiden flight here https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/ardubee-a-ready-to-fly-micro-drone-for-education-and-swarming/54362/11 https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/ardubee-a-ready-to-fly-micro... Don't you think the untuned ArduBee was flying already nicely? The graph of the postfilter acc and gyro is not so bad, the new Dynamic Notch Filter technics in Ardupilot is working so good. Furthermore, the best in his class IMU is put in the center of the frame, where the single 18650 battery, the most of the mass, is fixed in place.
gdsdfe 7y ago
I don't know much about the drone space to be quite honest but I always wondered what it would cost to mess around with swarm algorithms, on actual drones, without breaking the bank. Any pointers?
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  IMO, a lot. Moving things are hard, and drones especially, are _very_ damn hard. One mistake and the drone goes poof! It gets frustrating after a while. Just some pointers if you want to do this: - you need some companion computer on your drone. - GPS alone is not precise enough, you'll get wierd drifts from it all the time, you want something like RTK GPS to be able to keep stuff together. - If you want your positioning to relie on vision, get a global shutter camera, a rolling shutter will make your life harder than it needs to be.
- luminousbees 7y ago
  With ArduBee initiative we are making our best to innovate creating our best solution for swarming, with micro drones, indoor and even outdoor, based on Ardupilot Open Source project. If you have a look at https://ardupilot.org/copter/ https://ardupilot.org/copter/ you could start to have an idea of the included potential.
foobarian 7y ago
Speaking of transmitters, what is a good entry level transmitter/receiver combo to get into for hacking servo-based RC projects? So far I like a Spektrum DX6 controller best I just wish it was a bit smaller for my kid's hands.
- chrisdalke 7y ago
  Look up the Jumper T16 - it’s a multiprotocol transmitter that supports most of the major brands, which means you’re not tied into any brand receiver.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    The Jumper T176 is amazing, if you're going to get a good TX you want to last you a while, get that. If you want a cheap, small one with not too many capabilities but that a child can use, get one of the cheaper FlySky ones.
myself248 7y ago
I've never built a drone yet but I've tried to do a lot of reading, and I don't understand why everything assumes that you have an R/C transmitter in your hand, and then at some point "throw the switch" and make it autonomous. Isn't the entire point of these things that they fly themselves? That's why we call them drones and not R/C helis, right? Why can't I just click "go" on my GUI, and never purchase a TX? Or can I and the distinction just isn't explained in a place that I've found it?
- StavrosK 7y ago
  That's because Betaflight and INAV have evolved from manual/freestyle flying. ArduPilot is the more "autonomous" platform, which you can fly without a TX. You can add a USB telemetry module to your laptop and fly like that, although I've never done (and wouldn't do) that, there are many cases when you need manual control for recovery/failsafes.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  I don't know where you got the idea that autonomy is why we call them drones. FPV drones are all analog and they've been around a while. They assume you have a transmitter, because a majority of non parrot drone users are flying analog.
  - bigiain 7y ago
    Yeah. There was a time maybe 8-9 years back where at least a section of the hobby tried to push back against the people using the term "drone" for any quadcopter/multirotor, and trying to educate people that only things capable of autonomous flight were "drones", while regular non-autonomous quadcopter really are just RC helicopters. We lost that fight a long time ago. (And I'm not even sure we were "right" to be honest. The term "drone" got used back in WW2 era for radio controlled aircraft used for target practice. There sure as hell were not autonomous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioplane_OQ-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioplane_OQ-2 )
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago

by bri3d 7y ago

TooSmugToFail 7y ago

> The all-in-one PCB integration strategy is cute, but I really don't think it's a great approach from a crash-recovery point of view. Spot on. However, it's a nice way to lure you into building a quad: just put some motors on, and you're good to go. Fly once, crash, and then go actually build a proper quad.

bigiain 7y ago
Small quads generally do remarkably little damage to themselves in most typical crashes. Remember this thing only weighs 102g, and half of that is a battery held on by springs. In typical indoor use (can't get more than a few meters high, unlikely to go faster than a few m/s), this'll crash way more than one time before it show any signs of damage to anything except the (replaceable) props. (Sure, you won't be handing it down to your grandkids in your will, but it's not as disposable as "fly once, crash, throw it away"...)
- luminousbees 7y ago
  I totally agree with you, it's the most compressed form, in a slim electronics layer, for the most lightweight design. Every grams are used for the best selected components, assembled with passion and fully supported by Ardupilot firmware.

chrisdalke 7y ago

I agree -- and beyond a catastrophic crash, I wonder how practical the PCB frame is for longevity of the quad, vibration dampening, etc.

luminousbees 7y ago
Without catastrophic crashes, it's a flying PCB with the finest micro drone's build integrated in its frame. About vibration dampening, if you look at the maiden flight here https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/ardubee-a-ready-to-fly-micro-drone-for-education-and-swarming/54362/11 https://discuss.ardupilot.org/t/ardubee-a-ready-to-fly-micro... Don't you think the untuned ArduBee was flying already nicely? The graph of the postfilter acc and gyro is not so bad, the new Dynamic Notch Filter technics in Ardupilot is working so good. Furthermore, the best in his class IMU is put in the center of the frame, where the single 18650 battery, the most of the mass, is fixed in place.

gdsdfe 7y ago

I don't know much about the drone space to be quite honest but I always wondered what it would cost to mess around with swarm algorithms, on actual drones, without breaking the bank. Any pointers?

RealityVoid 7y ago
IMO, a lot. Moving things are hard, and drones especially, are _very_ damn hard. One mistake and the drone goes poof! It gets frustrating after a while. Just some pointers if you want to do this: - you need some companion computer on your drone. - GPS alone is not precise enough, you'll get wierd drifts from it all the time, you want something like RTK GPS to be able to keep stuff together. - If you want your positioning to relie on vision, get a global shutter camera, a rolling shutter will make your life harder than it needs to be.
luminousbees 7y ago
With ArduBee initiative we are making our best to innovate creating our best solution for swarming, with micro drones, indoor and even outdoor, based on Ardupilot Open Source project. If you have a look at https://ardupilot.org/copter/ https://ardupilot.org/copter/ you could start to have an idea of the included potential.

foobarian 7y ago

Speaking of transmitters, what is a good entry level transmitter/receiver combo to get into for hacking servo-based RC projects? So far I like a Spektrum DX6 controller best I just wish it was a bit smaller for my kid's hands.

chrisdalke 7y ago
Look up the Jumper T16 - it’s a multiprotocol transmitter that supports most of the major brands, which means you’re not tied into any brand receiver.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  The Jumper T176 is amazing, if you're going to get a good TX you want to last you a while, get that. If you want a cheap, small one with not too many capabilities but that a child can use, get one of the cheaper FlySky ones.

myself248 7y ago

I've never built a drone yet but I've tried to do a lot of reading, and I don't understand why everything assumes that you have an R/C transmitter in your hand, and then at some point "throw the switch" and make it autonomous. Isn't the entire point of these things that they fly themselves? That's why we call them drones and not R/C helis, right? Why can't I just click "go" on my GUI, and never purchase a TX? Or can I and the distinction just isn't explained in a place that I've found it?

StavrosK 7y ago
That's because Betaflight and INAV have evolved from manual/freestyle flying. ArduPilot is the more "autonomous" platform, which you can fly without a TX. You can add a USB telemetry module to your laptop and fly like that, although I've never done (and wouldn't do) that, there are many cases when you need manual control for recovery/failsafes.
NikolaeVarius 7y ago
I don't know where you got the idea that autonomy is why we call them drones. FPV drones are all analog and they've been around a while. They assume you have a transmitter, because a majority of non parrot drone users are flying analog.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Yeah. There was a time maybe 8-9 years back where at least a section of the hobby tried to push back against the people using the term "drone" for any quadcopter/multirotor, and trying to educate people that only things capable of autonomous flight were "drones", while regular non-autonomous quadcopter really are just RC helicopters. We lost that fight a long time ago. (And I'm not even sure we were "right" to be honest. The term "drone" got used back in WW2 era for radio controlled aircraft used for target practice. There sure as hell were not autonomous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioplane_OQ-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioplane_OQ-2 )
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago