Anyone knows what are the differences between the old cube orange and the new orange+ ??
I see new orange+ is quite a lot cheaper than the old standard orange.
There is some great discussions over at the cubepilot Facebook about this.
The + has some new sensors and a new processor I think. The main reason to why a + variant came out it to lower the price. The new cube it designed with the component shortage and price changes in mind. That’s why it’s cheaper. That’s what I think is the reason at least.
The + is in beta right now but that’s just because it’s new and not many have used it yet. When it becomes more widely used, it probably will go out of beta.
Thank you very much. Is it safe to fly in your opinion?
I would use it. There is always some risk in using new stuff but I would go for it
1 Like
Orange + has two processors and a new IMU and some other minor changes.
This due to part shortage.
Newer parts better autopilot.
Cube Orange+ has one processor and 3 IMU’s
Hey Everyone, im curious about arducopter firmware version implications on the cube orange vs the cube orange+. Looking at the arducopter change logs cubeorange+ is officially supported as of arducopter version 4.2.3. However, there is a specific reason i need to continue using firmware older than that on the cubeorange+, i’ve gotten arducopter 4.0.0 to build from source by changing values in firmware build files and it builds fine and everything seems to be working fine but i’m curious if there may be latent effects i’m not considering and to generally see other opinions.
If you’ve backported the hwdef successfully, I think that should be sufficient, but the prevailing opinion you’re likely to encounter is that you ought to find a way to upgrade your system to the latest stable release. There have been hugely significant improvements to Copter’s codebase since 4.2.
Minor correction - the Orange+ continues with the processor/co-processor architecture common to most Cube autopilots.
3 Likes
You’re right Yuri, thanks for the correction!
1 Like
@Yuri_Rage Thanks for the quick replay! I fully agree with you, unfortunately, i am stuck with this firmware based of a third party device that i am told will not be updated to function with newer firmware.
Name (and shame), maybe it is possible to maintain compatibility with the device on newer firmware.
Actually, I completely understand, and I understand why you may not be able to name and shame the responsible party.
Once an entity has tested/validated hardware/software to their satisfaction, it can be extremely difficult to convince them that an update is worth pursuing, no matter the perceived gain. I have countless industry examples, but I can’t be specific in a public forum. It’s an unfortunate reality, especially when dealing with large corporate/government entities and costly or high priority programs.
Sometimes it’s a sad case of “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” but more often, time and resources to re-validate an updated system simply don’t exist, especially when the process(es) by which that validation is done are inefficient and/or naive.
@Yuri_Rage your second paragraph sums up exactly the situation I’m in. So i will keep testing the backported firmware to make sure there aren’t any latent effects.
2 Likes