[NOT APPROVED] Clone Pixhawk investigation

I’ve got a Pixhawk 2.4.8 that came from GlobalMart Store (Aliexpress) - not promoting one store but just stating the source since that might make a difference. It seemed like one of the higher quality cheap clones at the time. I’ve had it open to put foam around the baro and construction looked very neat and tidy on the circuitboard.
The description now states MS5607 precision barometer, unknown when that changed.
No idea what it came loaded with, I would have immediately updated it and been updating it ever since.
They do provide a link to Ardupilot pixhawk docs, so that’s good.

Note APM 2.8s still feature quite prominantly :frowning:

Deteced hardware
BARO_MS5611
Compass LSM303D
ACC_MPU6000
ACC_LSM303D
GYR_MPU6000
GYR_L3GD20

As a test I loaded:

  • Pixhawk1 - relies on FMUv2 I think, no special messages, all hardware seems detected
  • FMUv2 - warns to install FMUv3 in Messages
  • FMUv3 now installed
1 Like

Pixhawk1 includes fmuv3

Ah Ha, that would be why the Pixhawk1 firmware install didnt warn to install FMUv3
So Pixhawk1 is still the correct firmware to install on a Pixhawk 2.4.x

include …/fmuv3/hwdef.dat

Thanks Dave - you made me check the hwdef like I should have earlier.

But Tridge elaborated on the distinction between fmuv3 and Pixhawk1 relative to IMU detection up in this thread so it’s not as simple as I understood it to be.

May it be some older ground control software that suggests fmuv2 for certain USB devices? Its copies may be still available on some strange websites, to which certain shops may redirect their users.

I recall the older APMPlanner (git hash around cd056ee6d2504f22537eab6df8bf9d175d9f1278) doing firmware detection like that. For that reason, I installed fmuv2 on my 2.4.8 when I had it, and I thought it is the intended way. Maybe ancient Mission Planner versions did something similar.

If That Then This:
minimal drivers to reduce flash usage
include …/include/minimal.inc

And the 2.4.8’s have 2Mb flash.

I totally, 100% agree with you. Ardupilot is open dource, not owned by anyone. It is very important to know what other hardware manufacturers are doing and how compatible they are. Keep up the good work @tridge :+1:

2 Likes

I totally, 100% agree with you. Ardupilot is open source, not owned by anyone. It is very important to know what other hardware manufacturers are doing and how compatible they are. Keep up the good work @tridge :+1:

Many users of 2.4.8 think that this version is a castrated version and can only flash fmuv2 firmware (rumor).

They can’t distinguish what batch the stm32F427 on the 2.4.8 flight controller is, and the merchant will not mark it.

The stm32F427 on the some 2.4.8 is an old batch F427(ver.1, ver.Y ), and can only flash 1MB firmware

I had some great flights with this board. No issues back in the day I did learn that a licensing issues was inplay so I donated to AuduPilot to help. Now I use Jordy stuff fro mRo but i still have my old units installed on old frames like my Hex. Thanks for looking into the FC.

I’m late to this but I think the fact that having fmuv2 firmware leads to the GCS recommending fmuv2 firmware is why fmuv2 still dominates. if true, we should have slowly started to see fmuv3 and fmuv2 slowly switch spots after the 4.3.2 update as more and more people recognize they can run fmuv3 (if they understand the GCS message)

1 Like

I’ve got 2 or 3 clone pixhawks here, I’ve had them for years, I think part of the issue is they’re good value and easy to use. I also have a Matek F405-STD but for bigger quads or planes, having a pixhawk in it’s nice little case with all it’s connections with nice labelled headers is just so much more user friendly, there’s just not many cheap accessible options like that. Especially pre covid you could get a clone pixhawk for $40-50 on aliexpress, they look to be about $90 now though.

I’ll get pics/sensors off my boards in the next few weeks, but as for the firmware, at least one of mine was detected as fmuv2 1mb, until I updated the bootloader and then it was detected as fmuv3 2mb, this was a while ago now, so I’m not sure if it’s smarter now, it was only by running nsh on nuttx that I was able to find out it was actually a 2mb board, and after updating the bootloader I could then flash fmuv3/pixhawk1. I wonder if the older clones with an old bootloader is the reason why fmuv2 is still so popular, it looks like newer clones at least identify correctly now.

I see that 4.3.2+ identifies 2mb and says to flash fmuv3, but is it smart enough that it would still with the old bootloader that at the time nothing could identify it as not a fmuv2 (other than nsh/nuttx).

1 Like