Competing QuadCopter solutions
David Betz
Posts: 14,516
My son is interested in building a QuadCopter to fly a video camera. I suggested that he consider the Elev-8 kit but someone else pointed him to some cheaper and seemingly more capable solutions.
For example, they recommended this flight controller:
http://store.3drobotics.com/products/apm-2-5-kit
It's hard to argule with this. You get a 9DOF IMU as well as a GPS for far less money than the HoverflySport. What am I missing here? Is there some advantage of the Hoverfly boards beyond just that they use Propeller chips? I don't want to advise my son to pay more money for a less capable solution but I am sure there is something I'm missing here that gives an edge to the Hoverfly board.
Similarly, they recommended this flight platform:
http://rctimer.com/index.php?gOo=goods_details.dwt&goodsid=819&productname=
The combination of these two units is significantly cheaper than the Elev-8. What advantages does the Elev-8 have that might make it a better choice than a combination like the one above?
Thanks,
David
For example, they recommended this flight controller:
http://store.3drobotics.com/products/apm-2-5-kit
It's hard to argule with this. You get a 9DOF IMU as well as a GPS for far less money than the HoverflySport. What am I missing here? Is there some advantage of the Hoverfly boards beyond just that they use Propeller chips? I don't want to advise my son to pay more money for a less capable solution but I am sure there is something I'm missing here that gives an edge to the Hoverfly board.
Similarly, they recommended this flight platform:
http://rctimer.com/index.php?gOo=goods_details.dwt&goodsid=819&productname=
The combination of these two units is significantly cheaper than the Elev-8. What advantages does the Elev-8 have that might make it a better choice than a combination like the one above?
Thanks,
David
Comments
Maybe this should be moved to the General Discussion forum where it might get more attention since it's more of a request for general info rather than a completed or specific on-going project per se???
I'm in a similar situation with regards to this quadcopter thing, so I, too, would like to hear the pros and cons of all the options on this.
I'm a bit confused about this too. I have both a HoverFly and two inexpensive controllers. The inexpensive ones work just fine IMO. I think it's been said several times that the HoverFly boards seem to be priced higher than the competing solutions. I don't see how they are worth the extra cost.
I'd suggest going with the less expensive board myself.
From the looks of the Hoverfly website, they are more interested in creating really fancy UAV's for the photography and movie industry...
Edit: I should add that Hoverfly's customer service is excellent. They actually fixed my board for nothing and calibrated it for me last fall. Unfortunately, I haven't had the weather or the time go get back in the air yet.
The other thing is that the ELEV-8 is made in California. I think most people could care less where a product is made but there are some that like to spend their money in the US vs bolstering a foreign economy - and that generally means they will have to pay more.
For a really low priced quad I would look at the Hubsan H107 available on eBay for $50 shipped.
Maybe they oughta start making quadcopters in Indiana? There are a lot of people there with many guns but no jobs. It's gettin kinda scary.
I think that a decent part of their lower price is that they are open source, and therefore not actually trying to make a profit, whereas Hoverfly has employees and is going after the film market. I can't really tell the difference between my Hoverfly Sport board and my own QuadX code running on a protoboard with an ITG3200 breakout. $225 vs ~$50 (plus some soldering).
Regardless of what you direct him to, it'd be worthwhile getting a small one first, like a Blade MQX, just to learn to fly. Far too many people think that these things fly themselves and require no skill, which is a godsend for the people who make replacement parts. A number of these flight controllers, like the APM or DJI boards, actually *can* fly themselves for the most part. They'll follow GPS waypoints and execute a flight path completely autonomously, until a sensor gets a bad reading or you lose GPS signal, or any one of a number of other things that can (and do) go wrong, at which point you need an actual pilot.
Open source projects can and do create opportunities for new products to take-off. I know Hoverfly doesn't want to have competition for the Pro board, but I think they are missing an opportunity here.
Thanks for the tips, everyone. This is the sort of advice I'm happy to receive.
We are working on releasing an updated HoverFly Board adding in an accelerometer, which will in turn allow for auto-leveling. The plan too, is work on an open source firmware that incorporates all the basic features plus auto-leveling. The cost should be under $100 for this unit.
I think once we have this updated board and a good open source firmware, it will be easier for our community of multirotor flyers to develop their own autonomous units and even setup more diverse platforms like the Y4, V4 and other unique types.
What do you guys think?
I think this sounds great!
I often add an extra Propeller board to my multicopters to control stuff like LEDs and cameras. It would be really nice to have one Propeller board running it all.
I've read it's possible to tap into the data from "satellite" receivers. If we had some good quadcopter code for the Propeller, I'd also like to add this ability to receive the serial stream from satellite receiver(s) which would eliminate a lot of the wires.
(I've tapped into the TX side of the Spektrum signal and used a Wii Nunchuck to fly a helicopter but I haven't yet tapped into the receiver end of the serial stream.)
Having open source Propeller quadcopter firmware would open up a lot of possibilities.
Noted and ordered, Rich. Thanks for the heads-up, I've been sitting on the fence for far too long, as Caiaphus sang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yFZolKj9nHI#t=950s
You won't regret it. A few comments about this little (tiny) quad.
> It is small. I knew it would be small but it was still a surprise just how small it is.
> It is pretty durable. I've crashed it several times, into hard things and it has suffered no damage so far.
> Flight time is not quite the advertised 7 - 10 minutes. 5 - 8 is more realistic, and quite adequate.
> The 2.4 ghz controller is pretty nice considering how cheap this thing is. The yaw has a dead zone that bugs me but I am getting used to it.
> It flies very well. The biggest challenge is altitude control, which is very good practice for learning to fly a "real" quad.
> It has enough power to lift a 24g AA cell (70% of it's own weight) but only at full throttle. I wonder what that tiny camera that Rick G used on his ELEV-8 weighs?
> Auto leveling - you can toss it up into the air and it will sort itself out. The controls respond differently than the ELEV-8 because of this. When you let go of the stick it will return to level. When you do the same with the ELEV-8 it won't return to level, it keeps the same attitude.
For those that want to learn to fly quads I might actually recommend this over a flight simulator. Maybe, it's a tough call. For those that already know how to fly, it is a great way to keep your skills up without leaving your desk.
Wow!
That's something!
My resistance if weakening.
Thanks for posting this Rich.
Very true, my Hubsan H107 arrived today. Best $50 I've spent lately. Right up there with my first $50 BS-2 way back when. No regrets on either. Very forgiving, indoors and out. Hopefully this can lift a keychain video camera.
@W9GFO: The battery is a pretty tight friction fit in the body. The only way to get it out is to pull on the wires. Not good long-term. Do you actually remove it every charge cycle, as the manual recommends? Charging for my second flight lesson now.
@Everyone: Get one, it's a hoot. These things can't get much cheaper than $50. All of Rich's comments above are spot-on.
I think the video of Rich chucking the thing in the air is what swayed me the most.
Clearly quicker to assemble than my Elev-8 that has been patiently waiting for assembly for the past 15 months!
You & me both, Brother! Mine's still perfect and pristine in its sealed box. Opening it, assembling and attempts at "flying" will ultimately lead to... James Taylor said it best:
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground."
I had someone tell me this once: Just about anyone can drive an R/C car. The only trick is knowing that when it's coming toward you, the steering is reversed. A model plane is about 5 times harder than that. A model helicopter is about 10 times harder than a plane.
I think an Elev-8 is about the same as a heli. I suspect the Hubsan is about half that difficult.
I concur.
I remember how frustrating it was trying to learn to fly a helicopter on my own. It was one expensive crash after another. I never learned to fly a helicopter until I had a fight simulator (about a dozen years after buying my helicopter).
David Betz bravely posted some of his early ELEV-8 flights on YouTube. I couldn't keep watching his video, too many repressed memories were beginning to surface.
Have I mentioned flight simulators are great?