APM2.8 or Pixhawk2.4.8

Hi everyone…pls i need ur help to make a decidion…i want to build an autonomous quadcopter for surveillance and i have trouble deciding b/w Apm2.8 and pixhawk flight controllers…yes i want save cost buh i need efficiency 2…i want to know the obstacles i wud face using either of them

I would prefer Pixhawk

Pixhawk use an Arm cortex 32bit and apm an Arduino 2560
On eBay u get pix for ca 35-40 €

Pixhawk Diff 2:4:6 vs 2:4,8 is that 2.4.8 use a less accurate Barometer

Hope that helps

There is no question about which to choose, the Arducopter firmware for the APM FC was deprecated years ago now so that hardware is obsolete. Pixhawk 2.4.8 is OK and there are many other board choices.

A Pixhawk type is the way to go.
I design the Cube Autopilot, the latest in the series.

Please keep in mind that the so called 2.4.8 is a fake product. This is why we have moved away from the Pixhawk name, too many fakes.

OK, so if the original hardware is Open Hardware, how can a 2.4.8 be “fake”. I have 2 of the 2.4.8s and one 2.4.6, and I notice no difference in how they perform.

Are you saying the “Cube” is NOT Open Hardware?

As has already been mentioned, the APM is obsolete and was deprecated because the firmware code and out grown the APM’s memory capacity.The APM processor uses 8-bit technology. Pixhawk uses 32-bits. The last multirotor firmware for the APM is ArduCopter 3.2.1, The current released version for Pixhawk is ArduCopter 3.6.5, and the current release candidate, ArduCopter 3.6.6-rc1 is in beta testing.

The design schematics are open under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license
Part of this license is the responsibility NOT to pass off derivatives as the original.

The name “Pixhawk” is not open source. It represents the work of a very dedicated team.

Their choice to release their work as “open” in no way removed their copyright to the material, not did it allow people to pass off fake product as real.

The Cube is open under the same license! People are free to make use of the lessons learned and expressed in the schematics, but that’s not a license to make a fake product!

A great example of this is the HK32Pilot, it is basically a Pixhawk 1, but made by hobby king.

They don’t pretend to be a “Pixhawk” they came up with their own name to remove confusion for users.

Pixhawk refers to the board that uses the FMUv2.4.5 schematics released by 3DRobotics. And the ardupilot and PX4 hardware teams.

Pixhawk 2 refers to the FMU v3 design by Philip Rowse (built by 3DR in the Solo)

Pixhawk 2.1 refers to the first “Cube” built by Hex Technology

“The Cube” refers to an Autopilot designed by Philip Rowse, and built by Hex Technology.

Pixracer, designed by Phillip K and built by mRo

Pixhawk 3 designed by Drotek

Pixhawk 4 designed by Holybro

V5 designed by CUAV

The cube Yellow, designed by ProfiCNC/HEX

The cube Orange, designed by ProfiCNC/HEX

The naming IS NOT OPEN

The Schematics are.

The consumer has a right to know what he is getting, and as hardware designers, we have the right to not have scum profit from our reputation without contributing to the community in any way whatsoever.

The Pixhawk 2.4.8 is a fraudulent product


After your very detailed geneology every thing makes perfect sense.

So, if I understand this correctly, had the 2.4.8 been called anything but a Pixhawk it would be a legitimate procuct? If that’s the case, what about the RadioLink Pixhawk? When that came out there were numerous issues, one of which involved having to download firmware using a “custom” version of Mission Planner that was coded to connect to RadioLink’s server… Would you call that board fruadulent as well?

1 Like

Thank you @proficnc, very helpful to us mere mortals to have the genealogy laid out like that.

It really clarified the market for those of us that have to deal with a lot of varied versions.

1 Like

You are weird guys. Instead of being happy for mass-distribution of a product name that you took part in designing and essentially became an appellative you try to fight it.
In many countries “photocopying” is known as “canon” or “xerox”, but it did not make Canon and Xerox companies upset about it, did it?

You have missed the point…
many people say xerox , but they do it on their HP…

If HP sold their products as xerox… that would not be cool.

The name matters.

Absolutely it’s wrong for Radio Link to call it Pixhawk! It’s not even a binary compatible clone.

Yes, the 2.4.8 would be a “legitimate” product if it had its own real name.

Exactly. What if General Motors made a copy of a Ford F-150 truck but they included “added features” that turned the vehicle in to a “lemon.” and then sold it as a Ford. Ford would get a bad reputation and GM sales would go up. Not really fair now is it?

This same thing is going on right now in the RC transmitter world. There is an new kid on the block who is making copies of hardware from a well known brand, copying the open source radio firmware, patching the firmware to run on their copied hardware and then calling it their design. They have done this with two radios so far… Their first “open source” radio was released late last year and their newest copy was released just a few weeks ago. I know for a fact that it took the real manufacturer and the software team over a year and a half to get the real radio to market.

What is really sad is people are snapping up these cheap copies and the don’t give one thought to how this affects those who produce the real thing. In fact, most of these people actually try to defend the copy cat and act like the original hardware and software folks are the bad guys. Is that really fair? I don’t hardly think so…

1 Like

many people say pixhawk but they do it on their 2.4.8 clone

Same thing.

1 Like

It’s the same thing if their clone has its own name… ie, they say… “my Pixhawk has an issue… it’s a HK32Pilot…”

But the issue is… the company has called their product “Pixhawk” which is not cool.