3 ms·
Not sure how different it really is. I have to admit, as someone who is into quads (and embedded software) my first thought was that it would be cheaper to buy
by georgemcbay 12y ago
Not sure how different it really is.
I have to admit, as someone who is into quads (and embedded software) my first thought was that it would be cheaper to buy a $35-60 CC3D or knock-off dedicated APM module and then just add a Raspberry Pi to the quad as a separate unit. Having the two communicate is a bit more complicated but totally doable via serial if you're willing to hack on APM or OpenPilot code and a lot of the use-cases people are bandying about don't actually need the two units to communicate anyway.
- mavkhimenia 12y agoEach approach has it's advantages. Navio was built to serve as a Linux platform for APM which provides more processing power than microcontroller platforms - it's useful for advanced flight algorithms (for example, a lot of new features of APM asuch as EKF are not supported on older APM hardware) and the level of integration between payload apps can be much higher than on two modules with serial link.
- georgemcbay 12y agoYeah this is a good point, if you are tightly integrating the linux bit to the flight controller bit you will get some benefits here, I was focusing primarily on the topics other people keep mentioning like compressed video feeds which don't require that sort of integration. It is certainly an interesting project, though personally I'd be more apt to buy/build a BeagleBone Black cape to achieve this sort of thing over a Raspberry Pi board.