NAZA M Lite vs Ardupilot vs Knockoff APM vs Others?

[hotbrass2005]

FYI, I'm pretty sure terrain following requires the pixhawk, which has more memory to store topo data...

Yep:

http://plane.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-terrain-following/

What's a little confusing about APM is that it stands for "ArduPilotMega" which is in reference to the original hardware, but it's also used to refer to the software project, which also runs on the PX4/Pixhawk hardware.

Sometimes people say "apm supports terrain following with version 3.4" in reference to the software, but forget to add "with the pixhawk hardware"

That RTFlyer hardware you listed is the older "APM hardware" -- if you want terrain following, you need the RTFHawk hardware.

Ah okay. That is a very good distinction to understand. With a similarly equipped RTFHawk kit, I'm looking at $211 from readytoflyquads. So I guess now I have another decision to make. Lol. Do I bite the bullet and get the full "hawk," go with the RTF APM 2.6 set, or try to find a pixhawk clone on ebay that is in my price range.

What all do I gain with the Pixhawk clone over the standard APM clone? I understand that it has more processing power, more memory, and is more "futureproof," but functionally it seems about the same other than the terrain follow feature (which is cool, but is not a necessity for me).

Supposedly the APM 2.6 can get bogged down if you start having it control a gimbal and such too. I've done some reading on that and was planning on getting a gimbal that had an independent control board anyway, so that MiNi 3d gimbal would be ideal. Also like that it's only $149 and looks super smooth! Thanks for that suggestion The-One-Who-Never-Crashes! So what do you guys recommend for this decision? It's exciting that there are so many good options out there, but it makes making a decision tough!

 

[makattack]

I can't really offer any recommendations. I have both systems, but have found the pixhawk to be simply more complex than the apm hardware if only because it supports many more features.

Here is a summary of what I like about the pixhawk over APM:

* Direct support for SBUS without special custom software/firmware flashing, hacking, or conversion of SBUS to PPM.
* EKF processing of sensors to provide better integrated flight capabilities and fault tolerance -- basically, it flies better and with fewer surprises when flying in robot modes
* Better vibration isolation features -- when integrated with mission planner, it can just simply save more logs and send them over telemetry to your groundstation to help mitigate vibrations

That's not getting into the other advanced features it has available that doesn't exist in the older hardware.

Here's what I dislike:

* More small pico molex connectors than APM, making connecting devices and routing wires a chore.
* More complexity with all the added features which requires time to setup properly.
* The safety features of buzzer and arming switch is yet more stuff to connect and position on aircraft

Overall, I got the two systems more as interesting tech projects to satisfy my own curiosity with these systems. I enjoy flying the systems, and am constantly amazed at their capabilities. Nevertheless, I'm also equally amazed at how time consuming it is to get things working well.

 

[nilsen]

Ah okay. That is a very good distinction to understand. With a similarly equipped RTFHawk kit, I'm looking at $211 from readytoflyquads. So I guess now I have another decision to make. Lol. Do I bite the bullet and get the full "hawk," go with the RTF APM 2.6 set, or try to find a pixhawk clone on ebay that is in my price range.

What all do I gain with the Pixhawk clone over the standard APM clone? I understand that it has more processing power, more memory, and is more "futureproof," but functionally it seems about the same other than the terrain follow feature (which is cool, but is not a necessity for me).

Supposedly the APM 2.6 can get bogged down if you start having it control a gimbal and such too. I've done some reading on that and was planning on getting a gimbal that had an independent control board anyway, so that MiNi 3d gimbal would be ideal. Also like that it's only $149 and looks super smooth! Thanks for that suggestion The-One-Who-Never-Crashes! So what do you guys recommend for this decision? It's exciting that there are so many good options out there, but it makes making a decision tough!

I have also used both the APM and pixhawk, and in my experience the pixhawk seems a lot more stable than the APM when it comes to the Loiter / position hold performance, but in stabilized flight and when controlling the gimbal there was no difference at all, the APM is just fine.
that being said, the APM hardware is end-of-line and some of the newer, exciting features such as Lidar support for obstacle avoidance and new flight modes are not supported as the APM just donesn't have the grunt to handle it all.

I have also used the Naza and currently have one sitting on the bench at home as I find the extra features of the arducopter platform outweigh the ease-of-setup of the Naza. It must be said that the Naza is super stable, it really is, but it's limiting for things like telemetry, waypoint navigation, missions etc.

By the way, I have a tarot 2 axis gimbal for Gopro which I would gladly sell it to you as I really cannot use it and it's just sitting around.

Cheers,
Nils

 

[StuartPB]

Overall, I got the two systems more as interesting tech projects to satisfy my own curiosity with these systems. I enjoy flying the systems, and am constantly amazed at their capabilities.

My first quadcopter was the Quanum Nova which comes with a stripped down version of the APM FC. I wanted telemetry and a voltage meter so I swapped it out for an APM 2.8. I'd seen the feature set of the APM and was curious enough to give it a go. I still have an APM which at some point I'm going to try with Arduplane in one of my planes.

Nevertheless, I'm also equally amazed at how time consuming it is to get things working well.

I learned the hard way about the complexities of the APM and the extensive feature set. It was options overload for me, especially as it was all new to me. I spent hours reading up and tweaking but never really felt satisfied with the end result. I put a lot of that feeling down to the Quanum Nova and that machine's limitations. It was then when I decided to build my own quad. Even then I still felt more hampered by the complexity of the APM than I could enjoy it. So I decided to try the Naza M Lite. It was like a second coming in terms of the handling boost I got over the APM. That wasn't the fault of the APM though, it was my unwillingness to put even more time than I had already into tweaking the APM and inexperience in being able to do so really effectively. I wanted the quadcopter to be a stable video platform and that was it. The Naza won it for me in achieving that. It has left a bit of a challenge for me to personally address though, because I really do want to give APM another shot with a multi rotor set up.

 

[hotbrass2005]

I have also used both the APM and pixhawk, and in my experience the pixhawk seems a lot more stable than the APM when it comes to the Loiter / position hold performance, but in stabilized flight and when controlling the gimbal there was no difference at all, the APM is just fine.
that being said, the APM hardware is end-of-line and some of the newer, exciting features such as Lidar support for obstacle avoidance and new flight modes are not supported as the APM just donesn't have the grunt to handle it all.

I have also used the Naza and currently have one sitting on the bench at home as I find the extra features of the arducopter platform outweigh the ease-of-setup of the Naza. It must be said that the Naza is super stable, it really is, but it's limiting for things like telemetry, waypoint navigation, missions etc.

That says a lot right there. I guess if I was just interested in a flying camera, the Naza would probably be the way to go, but the more I read about mission planning, waypoints, follow me, terrain following, aerial mapping, etc. the more I think this is going to be more than just a gimbal carrier. It will definitely be used for AP, but I would also like to use it for other purposes as well.

By the way, I have a tarot 2 axis gimbal for Gopro which I would gladly sell it to you as I really cannot use it and it's just sitting around.

I may be interested in that. I like that MiNi 3d 3 axis gimbal, but I'm not sure I really need the third axis. Either way, I'm going to have to let the checkbook recover a bit before I get one. My birthday is in January, maybe I can convince my wife that a gimbal would be a great birthday gift.

Even then I still felt more hampered by the complexity of the APM than I could enjoy it. So I decided to try the Naza M Lite. It was like a second coming in terms of the handling boost I got over the APM. That wasn't the fault of the APM though, it was my unwillingness to put even more time than I had already into tweaking the APM

This is still a bit of a concern to me. I have a good friend who has a lot of experience with Arduino programming and I think between the two of us we can at least get it airborne and somewhat stable. Supposedly the autotune feature of the Pixhawk actually does a pretty good job at getting the PIDs close - another plus in my book. I'm not sure how all that works, but we'll see. Hopefully I'm not getting in over my head with this, but there are a ton of references out there for setting things up. I'm sure this is going to take some time to get figured out and I plan on taking it in stages, but for me, that is part of the fun of this hobby: there's always something new to learn.

So after weighing the options, reading the replies you guys left, and assessing the finances, I have decided to go with the Pixhawk. I plan on ordering it from readytoflyquads within the next couple of days. You've been amazingly helpful with this and I appreciate it so much. I do have one more decision to make and that is which GPS module to get: the Ublox 6H or Ublox M8N. I compared the 6M and 6H and decided on the 6H because of the ability to see EU satellites as well as US satelites, but I am having trouble finding a comparison of the 6H to the newer M8N. Which would you recommend for the best flight characteristics and reliability?

 

[nilsen]

This is still a bit of a concern to me. I have a good friend who has a lot of experience with Arduino programming and I think between the two of us we can at least get it airborne and somewhat stable. Supposedly the autotune feature of the Pixhawk actually does a pretty good job at getting the PIDs close - another plus in my book. I'm not sure how all that works, but we'll see. Hopefully I'm not getting in over my head with this, but there are a ton of references out there for setting things up. I'm sure this is going to take some time to get figured out and I plan on taking it in stages, but for me, that is part of the fun of this hobby: there's always something new to learn.

It's really not that complicated at all, you select your frame, wire up the parts and off you go, it'll fly out of the box.

The autotune is good but generally the pids are a bit high so the machine can be quite skittish, I had todrop mine by about 30% and now it's perfect (for my flying style).

 

[Cereal_Killer]

Got a link to that $13 NEO 6M?

This is the GPS I use.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/161301551378?

Looks like the guy's out of the $25 APM's but there are still several sub $30 ones from china if you dont mind a couple weeks for shipping.

 

[hotbrass2005]

This is the GPS I use.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/161301551378?

Looks like the guy's out of the $25 APM's but there are still several sub $30 ones from china if you dont mind a couple weeks for shipping.

Thanks! I ended up ordering a set that has the 6M GPS with it, but I also put an order in for an M8N. Once I get everything built and flying, maybe I'll do a direct comparison of the two units and see how much different they are in accuracy. If the weather cooperates, I'll get some pictures/video and do a full blown review of the two.

One other thing I wanted to ask those of you that have more experience with these things. I was listening to an FT afterhours podcast and they were talking about an APM flyaway that had something to do with the barometer not being covered with a dome? I don't really understand what happened here,l but is this something I'll need to be concerned about with my Pixhawk?

 

[makattack]

That fly-away they referred to in the podcast (Andre's if I'm not mistaken) might have been barometer based, but it might also have been due to vibration or tuning.

All of the flight controllers (APM, naze, etc) that have barometers generally use a device that has a silver rectangular case with two little holes on opposite corners. This unit obviously measures air pressure, but is sensitive to temperature / light as well. On multirotors, where the prop wash might affect the barometer, people mitigate it by covering it with loose cell, dark colored foam.

On the podcast, I think covering the barometer in that fixed wing application is mostly to keep light from affecting it, but there could be airflow issues too.

A lot of APM and Pixhawk cases have this foam already integrated into the case, but it's well worth checking. Obviously, if one's not using a plastic case, and the board is exposed, this is even more critical.

 

[hotbrass2005]

That fly-away they referred to in the podcast (Andre's if I'm not mistaken) might have been barometer based, but it might also have been due to vibration or tuning.

All of the flight controllers (APM, naze, etc) that have barometers generally use a device that has a silver rectangular case with two little holes on opposite corners. This unit obviously measures air pressure, but is sensitive to temperature / light as well. On multirotors, where the prop wash might affect the barometer, people mitigate it by covering it with loose cell, dark colored foam.

On the podcast, I think covering the barometer in that fixed wing application is mostly to keep light from affecting it, but there could be airflow issues too.

A lot of APM and Pixhawk cases have this foam already integrated into the case, but it's well worth checking. Obviously, if one's not using a plastic case, and the board is exposed, this is even more critical.

Gotcha. That is the one I was referring to. The Pixhawk will definitely be mounted in its case, but I will check to make sure it has some foam over the barometer for sure. A flyaway is my biggest concern with moving from the basic KK2/Naze32 flight controllers to this type of flight controller, so I want to make sure I get enough information to give myself the chance at getting some decent flights early in the process without some sort of terrible error. lol

Thanks again for all the replies and help with my decision and learning experience!

 

[The-One-Who-Never-Crashes]

The Pixhawk should come with a little foam pad that covers the barometer. In case it doesn't, this is what it should look like:

One other thing I wanted to ask those of you that have more experience with these things. I was listening to an FT afterhours podcast and they were talking about an APM flyaway that had something to do with the barometer not being covered with a dome? I don't really understand what happened here,l but is this something I'll need to be concerned about with my Pixhawk?

 

[makattack]

A flyaway is my biggest concern with moving from the basic KK2/Naze32 flight controllers to this type of flight controller, so I want to make sure I get enough information to give myself the chance at getting some decent flights early in the process without some sort of terrible error. lol

Thanks again for all the replies and help with my decision and learning experience!

FYI, in general, one shouldn't be too worried about fly-aways *if* they are familiar with their systems and set them up the same way as with the KK2/Naze32, etc systems.

Mostly, that means setup and understand how your failsafe works. With APM/PX4, etc, you can have failsafe trigger RTF, land, etc... or you can just have it shutdown like the KK2/Naze32 and drop from the sky.

The more you rely on the technology -- GPS/barometer assisted flight modes, the more likely it might do something unexpected. As long as you setup your model in the same way you would if it were an acro model -- setup failsafe, do your range checks, ensure full packs and don't fly close to LVC, you should be fine.

If you set it up such that any of the failure modes triggers a autonomous action, be sure you know all the implications of that and be prepared to go back to manual flight (and know how to do so).

 

[The-One-Who-Never-Crashes]

Very well said. The only reason I have GPS on my copters is to have the safety of return-to-home in case I lose my radio link. Often, I have my craft so well trimmed out that it's more stable in "stable mode" than in GPS hold!

FYI, in general, one shouldn't be too worried about fly-aways *if* they are familiar with their systems and set them up the same way as with the KK2/Naze32, etc systems.

Mostly, that means setup and understand how your failsafe works. With APM/PX4, etc, you can have failsafe trigger RTF, land, etc... or you can just have it shutdown like the KK2/Naze32 and drop from the sky.

The more you rely on the technology -- GPS/barometer assisted flight modes, the more likely it might do something unexpected. As long as you setup your model in the same way you would if it were an acro model -- setup failsafe, do your range checks, ensure full packs and don't fly close to LVC, you should be fine.

If you set it up such that any of the failure modes triggers a autonomous action, be sure you know all the implications of that and be prepared to go back to manual flight (and know how to do so).