Servers by jDrones

New FC: RadioLink Mini Pix

(Andrea Belloni) #1

I would like to point out this new product, it seems interesting:

[Edited after @hunt0r post]
http://www.radiolink.com.cn/doce/product-detail-133.html

I would like to have more information especially if it works with official Ardupilot or if it use a custom version, as there is a link in the site to download their version of MissionPlanner.

Ciao
Andrea

Semi-Scale JCZK Sikorsky Schweizer 300C Hughes
HolyBro PX 4 mini vs. Radiolink PX 4 Mini
(Hunt0r) #2

I had a problem with your link, but I think I found the page you’re mentioning: http://radiolink.com.cn/doce/product-detail-133.html

@anbello I do not recommend proceeding with this company. They advertise “better altitude hold by software” indicating that they are not using standard ArduPilot firmware, but I believe the GPL software license under which ArduPilot is distributed mandates that if you copy-and-modify the software, you must also release your new software to the public. The spirit is that since you got it for free from others, so you need to keep it free for others to use/modify too.

EDIT: To be fair, I am assuming they copied-and-modified ArduPilot for their firmware. But I do NOT know this to be a fact.

1 Like
(Andrea Belloni) #3

Sorry for the wrong copied / pasted link.
What captured my attention was also the really low price on aliexpress.

I totally agree on the open source argument and GPL use.
If they copied-and-modified ArduPilot for their firmware i would like to see the source on github.

(James Pattison) #4

it uses stm32f405, which is a lot less capable than the f427 in most Pixhawk variants.
Interesting!

(Yogesh Sonar) #5

Hello friends,
This is low cost, small size and light weight flight control board, I dont have good knowledge of board electronic.
Can any one please clear me in simple way that this board can applicable for latest Arduplane firmware same as we use regular Pixhawk . I have to use for Vtol fixed motor tailsitter, where four servo out will use.
Please guide as early as possible.
Thanks

(Andrea Belloni) #6

I don’think you can use Ardupilot project firmware with this board, they have a custom version of Mission Planner on their site and seems that also the firmware is customized.

1 Like
(James Pattison) #7

I was asked to follow up on this.
I have confirmed with radiolink that they have made modifications to ArduPilot, although I don’t know the specifics. Radiolink declined my request for access to their modified source code (but the gpl doesn’t require them to give it to me, as I haven’t bought one of these).
‘official’ ArduPilot will not run on these flight controllers, although this could be resolved if radiolink share their changes.

1 Like
(Yogesh Sonar) #8

Thanks to all for valuable guidelines.

(Toto Mauris) #9

Could you say if its possible to control servos with this board (two 5v servos in a small flying wing) ?

(Yogesh Sonar) #10

(Hunt0r) #11

I encourage all users to avoid this company and to avoid this product.

(peterbarker) #12
  "better altitude hold by software" indicating that they are not
  using standard ArduPilot firmware, but I believe the GPL
  software license under which ArduPilot is distributed mandates
  that if you copy-and-modify the software, you must also release
  your new software to the public. The spirit is that since you
  got it for free from others, so you need to keep it free for
  others to use/modify too.

Sorry, common misconception.

The act of copying and pasting the code into their own code doesn’t mean
they must release their source code to the public. It does become covered
under the GPL, however, and is constrained by the GPL in various ways.

One of the critical things being covered by the GPL means is that if they
distribute a binary produced from that source code they must also notify
that user of the availability of the source code and produce that source
code on demand, licensed under the GPL.

This isn’t to say they company in question hsa done this - I’ve no idea.
But it takes a customer who cares enough to find out.

(Hunt0r) #13

Thank you! I’d like to make sure I understand:
0) If they copied any significant portion of ArduPilot in developing their software, and

  1. If a person obtains their product (with their software on it), and
  2. That person requests the source code,
    then
  3. they must deliver the source code to that person.
    A failure to deliver their source code to that user (who requested it) is a violation of the GPL.

Do I have that right?

(peterbarker) #14

Thank you! I’d like to make sure I understand:
0) If they copied any significant portion of ArduPilot in developing their
software, and

  1. If a person obtains their product (with their software on it), and
  2. That person requests the source code,
    then
  3. they must deliver the source code to that person.
    A failure to deliver their source code to that user (who requested it) is a
    violation of the GPL.

Do I have that right?

Well… make available, not necessarily deliver :slight_smile: But what you’ve got
there is correct AFAIK. Also note that the source code delivered has to
be licensed under the GPL.

The license isn’t actually all that difficult to read, and is quite
interesting, really. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

Also, a key feature is the notification stuff - the user must be informed
of the license.

(Yogesh Sonar) #15

Seller cleared that this product not applicable for latest firmware or any updates. . . . So really APM user should not have to go with that product.

(James Elkins) #16

Veiwing the change log it looks like they only changed some param file since the fork for the firmware. And I didn’t search for a fork of the MP software but using it it looks like a radiolink branded version of the MP 1.3.49.6 and changed to use their github address instead of the official.

I tried using the original MP to flash it and it gave an error of firmware not compatible.

I used their MP to flash then the original MP to set it up.

It seems the firmware file has a board type of 3 versus original is 11… I am debating changing the original board type to match this new mini pix and see if it will flash, but of course this could brick the mini pix… I don’t see any changes to the firmware in the forked plane. Anyone have thoughts, if the firmware isn’t compatible will the mini pix be reflashable to the radiolink version?

O, something I hadn’t considered I guess is they could not have committed the changes…

(James Elkins) #17

Looking over the changes to MP I can see they use a board PID that the original MP doesn’t like, not sure why… i get the error below when using the original MP to try and flash, then it tries and dies with incompatible firmware:

It looks like the only time the px4rl is used is when flashing firmware… haven’t found any code yet that does things differently in MP based on this board type.

( research air) #19

curiosity got the better of me, downloaded there mission planner …won’t connect… 32/64 bit issue?so far not so good

(Mike Boland) #20

No links to price or supply on their website.
Emailed them but as yet no reply.

Looking a lot like vapourware.

( research air) #21

got one from https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/Radiolink-Mini-PIX-Flight-Control- $36.00 US but ??