touche… dots added to appease the character counter
You bring the example of Taranis and Pixhawk but you do not pay for Open TX or Ardupilot software.
Craft and Theory sells the cables as Airborne Projects do but only Craft and Theory ask money for the software.
Starting to pay for software is the beginning of the end of Open Source IMHO
1 Like
That’s a load. If this were true there would be no open source in the first place.
And, INMNSHO “A workman is worthy of his hire.” The folks at C&T worked closely with the A.C. Devs to get the support code added to the firmware, not to mention that C&T are also finsncial supporters.
With that said, your $25.00 gets you the best Pixhawk to Taranis telemetry system on the planet…
Craft and Theory are entitled to distribute their work under whatever terms they choose: there are many proprietary tools that can be used with Ardupilot, and that’s fine. I think the support Craft and Theory provide Ardupilot and it’s users is great, and don’t intend any negativity towards them.
I just think that the wiki needs to be consistent in its approach, and not be biased. This isn’t just the frsky pages, but in many areas. Links to vendors and items has a place, to help users find trusted sources and support the Ardupilot partners, but needs to be carefully managed.
I get your point and agree with you. However, is it wrong for some financial supporters to get preferenetial posting? I often click on the posted links to see the product and then order elsewhere. Users can choose to buy from the linked store or any where else.
Why some, not others? Consistency is what I’m looking for. I think we should definitely promote our partners, but we should do so in an equal/balanced way.
25$ + 20$ , do not forget the cable , 45$ for telemetry while an good autopilot is 99$ , curious.
The “best teelmetry” is just your opinion…
IMO C&T did the wrong thing making pay the cable AND the software, and I hate the “6 months free upgrade policy” .
From the Wiki the C&T products looks like a bit too much mandatory to me , I’ll prefer to see DIY solutions first and after , clearly stated , commercial solutions.
1 Like
And just how much would it cost to add all of the discrete FrSky sensors (if they exist) to get equivelant telemetry, not to mention the time spent writing the necesssry the LUA code for equivelant flight data displays?
Do you really believe that just because ArduCopter and it’s variants are free for the taking, everything that connectes to a device running the firmware or that uses or has access to data generated by the firmware should be free for the taking as well?
I think you are wrong, I bought the cable and the software was included.
good luck on your crusade but these guys make a good product at a reasonable price.
unless you are prepared to develop something at a better price point you are not likely to prevent people from supporting these guys
FlightDeck cost 19,99 $ it is not free
Explain why Airborne Service sells a telemetry cable , with equivalent telemetry but their software and all updates are free Do you think they do not spent time to write the software ?
It’s THEIR CHOICE. Its obvious you don’t like C&T because they charge for software they wrote to support hardware they made. Big deal. So does Microsoft, Apple, and a thousand other companies. Get over it already.
Unless I’m wrong, I think that anyone can submit a wiki page. It just takes the time and effort to write it. I think if someone wrote up pages for the other programs/scripts, they’d get a page.
IMO, supporters should get a gold star or something for supporting the project.
This is exactly what I’m getting at re consistency: yes, wiki contributions are open to all and very much encouraged, but there is a fine line between general information and taking over a page as advertising.
In my view the frsky telemetry pages have become too much of the latter.
I could easily rewrite it (in fact I have, just haven’t merged those changes) but it needs to be a community decision and as yet there aren’t any proper guidelines. The balance between supporting the ArduPilot Partners and not turning the wiki into a rolling advertisement is difficult!
It’s good to see the debate happening though, as it will help shape the approach moving forward.
Please refer to our wiki editing guide http://ardupilot.org/dev/docs/common-wiki_editing_guide.html
Contributions are very much appreciated.
Thank you
Why not just list the available telemetry solutions, add a link to their individual web sites/landing pages and let the chips fall where they may?
I want to point out this new addition to the wiki
http://ardupilot.org/copter/docs/common-here-plus-gps.html and merged by James / Auturgy today
This is another case where we have vendor specific documentation in the wiki and it is fantastic to see a) it being written and b) included in our wiki.
The more vendors and the more users that we have contributing to the wiki the better. And when a vendor increases their sales because they contribute to the wiki and to the project that is also fantastic. We encourage inconsistency because by definition contributing to the wiki gives a fair advantage to a company over one who does no contribute.
Thank you James and Thomas and smullo for your many contributions to the wiki.
Yes: it’s clearly identified as a vendor specific page though, not a general setup page. I think the distinction is important. The Skyrocket pages are another example, where they are vendor specific and separate from the general setup pages. The frustration with the frsky telemetry page being discussed in this thread is that it confuses the two. Ideally I’d like to see partners/vendors like hex, mRo, C&T, drotek, cuav, emlid, etc be supported through the wiki that way, as it’s better for the user base to have everything in one place, but have the general setup pages be vendor agnostic.
@tomlauzon where/how in Lua does one get access to the passthrough data? I find nothing in the OpenTX 2.2 Lua spec. Thanks.
Hi David,
Here it is: https://opentx.gitbooks.io/opentx-2-2-lua-reference-guide/general/sportTelemetryPop.html