It would be worth it for me.
1 Like
Why not have an annual subscription service of $30 per year that allowed you to download the latest compiled version free. The sources could be on Github for anyone that wanted to compile their own â how many people would not happily pay for this? And would we even care if people griped?
I wonder how many users of Ardupilot and Mission Planner ever pay a single $1 for developer support. It is human nature though as we have not provided a mechanism for them to support it.
In general I think paying a small subscription fee for the convenience of prebuilt binaries for Ardupilot and Mission Planner would be a very fair way to get some steady funding to pay for overheads without undermining the open source nature of the project. Build instructions and could still be there for anyone that wanted to compile their own binaries for free. I mean who would not pay for this convenience? The average FPV plane costs $600 to $1000 and many people have multiple planes/copters. It is an expensive hobby.
1 Like
And this concept in no way goes against the open-source concept. Many of the Linux flavors make their living off value add services.
1 Like
Iâve always thought 3DR made a major strategic error not doing a âredhatâ of the drone world, providing a supported, stable, compiled firmware level.
1 Like
If someone wants to maintain it, sure! I however do not think that it should use the Ardupilot name. I think that programs maintained under the Ardupilot name it should be free. Welcome to the ArduPilot Development Site â Dev documentation
1 Like
I wouldnât necessarily disagree with you here, but the license has nothing to do with making money or commercial activities. And the Ardupilot name is already used for commercial (ie non-free) activities, eg:
http://www.ardupilotinitiative.com/
https://shop.ardupilot.org/
And this is a good thing for the project, as a whole. A stable, supported, compiled version (ala redhat) would be a great idea and would be worth paying for. Just providing compiled versions of the latest release/master wouldnât be. IMHO.
1 Like
Now here you are opening a real can of worms, for what, the glint of dollar signs in the eye.
You should also consider the speed at which the ArduCode changes, and hence the speed at which the ground station programs need to change to keep up.
Mission Planner has always had patches added in the nick of time, or very shortly after a code change has broken things, so we just download the beta and all is good and we are happy our systems are working again.
If I am paying for an app I expect that app to do the job I am paying for.
So who is liable when the app breaks?
Do you distribute the app with a set FW version that matches?
What if I want to update to the next FW version that has features I need?
Do I have to wait for a validated release of Mission Planner for that FW?
Who is going to do the testing for validation?
Not the thousands of users using it for free?
1 Like
When I pay NPR (National Public radio) $50 a year I do not demand certain programming or think I have a right to anything.
Nothing really changes from they way it is now and no testing is required beyond what happens now-- it is just that some small but steady revenue streams can be applied to development and/or other overheads. Right now Mission Planner exists because one person has taken it upon themself to maintain it.
This is just charging a small annual fee for pre-built binaries. I do not think it is very difficult and it does not have to be hard to get around. That is not the point of it. It gives people a mechanism to support the project.
It could be done with little more than the permissions that apply to the discuss forums now (where I use a Google login as authentication). It could dovetail with Mission Planner. Do you really think that all the Ardupilot users would refuse to pay whatever was decided as a nominal fee for this? Make it $1 a year and have the option to pay more. $10, $20, $30. This is just a nominal fee for access to the auto-build binaries with a potential to allow people to may more.
This is like the free access to the British Museum where you have to walk past the donation box.
Just ideasâŚ
2 Likes
Love Mission Planner
I canât believe the work and improvements that have gone into it.
Really appreciate those who âworkâ the project and keep it going.
Would like to see the AUTO LAND feature for fixed wings improved somehowâŚ
seems like most of us get inconsistent landingâŚ
I cool feature would be like a learning mode when performing a manual land (have the software âwatchâ what you do when you land it manually, then have it replicated the pattern, speed and glide slope (touchdown).
1 Like
I noticed this. I say it will be almost impossible to setup x8 unless you arm the craft.
Loving to see the love towards mission planner!
Great idea for MP improvement!
Kelly
Would you be able to advise on how to build this one, keen on working around on this.
1 Like
That would actually be an ardupilot feature, not mission planner
Or LUA scripting ! You could even implement your own Fast Land using a spiral for copter to avoid prop-wash - or anything you like.
1 Like
One MP feature Iâd like to see changed is the Motor Test feature:
- Change from A, B, C, etc to 1, 2, 3, as per motor layout diagrams
- Display the motor layout/numbering diagram
Maybe make the old (A B CâŚ) or new (1 2 3âŚ) test order and layout an option in the MP settings.
The reason I ask is; working on something more complex than just a quad, like a quad X8, can be very confusing when trying to convert between the A B C layout and the documented 1 2 3 motor layout. We can take our time, be careful and test and retest to make sure everything is correct, but it is confusing even for someone with a bit of experience (but we dont do this often) and must be very daunting for new Ardupilots.
I find weâre switching backwards and forwards between an AC motor order diagram and the MP motor test page. Itâd be very handy to have the motor order diagram on the motor test page.
3 Likes
i used to have it like this, but there was not enough information and too many frame types to make this work. this is why it changed to ABCâŚ
As a matter of fact, I HAVE looked at the code, or more aptly, tried to. Anything built by committee is difficult to follow / understand. When one gets lost just trying to follow the control flow, one knows it is way beyond them without some glue that can hold it together logically. No, not wishing for monolithic code. Just a bit more A connects to B, which connects to D, F, H, ZZ and also back to A. And so on.
I just noticed the MissionPlanner motor order diagrams are missing from down the bottom of this page, leaving just the Quad example:
https://ardupilot.org/copter/docs/connect-escs-and-motors.html#motor-order-diagrams