any software conversion requires cleanup. that is normal
Must be some way to control this OSH
Why do you think it will be different than last time with Pixhawk…
Give everybody who buy original from you or dealers a PIN number…
PIN is than ok for forums,software,updates,etc…Others can pay contribute to developers and get PIN as well…Amount should be something acceptable for all,lets say 15-20$…
I am just hopeful that people can see what happened last time, and the disruption it caused.
If people want to create cool stuff, there is room for better external sensors etc…
I cannot understand why FC manufacturers keep creating opensource hardware, is it required because it’s a derivative of a opensource pixhawk? It seems a lot of these new boards (pixracer, pixhawk2 etc) are fresh designs and can live on their own license, just because they use compatible components doesn’t bind you in to previous licensing does it?
It’s very clear that opensource hardware is killing the real designers and manufacturers of this hardware, and I don’t see the benefits of it being opensource - the contributions are relatively tiny, no? I would personally far, far prefer you to produce closed hardware and have a sustainable business model for the future. It would create better true competition between the hardware manufacturers rather than the chinese cloners printing cheap copies from design files with scant regard to QC with whatever random components are available that day and putting the real brains out of business. It’s the software/firmware that is important to be open, not the hardware.
@dipspb - has Philip asked you for any of this ‘help’? He’s already stated Altrium is his tool of choice for many years. This is his hardware, his product, it’s up to him to use whatever he wants.
1 Like
@proficnc are you wishing now to withdraw your CC-BY-SA-3.0 licencing of the Pixhawk 2 hardware?
@fnoop As far as I understand it this is not just the work of one person. Here is the text on Proficnc site:
http://www.proficnc.com/content/10-about-us
"The Pixhawk 2.1 grew from the Pixhawk Hardware Project. this project was a group effort by the PX4 and Ardupilot teams, with the support of 3DRobotics"
CC-BY-SA-3.0
"You are free:
to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix—to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license."
If you don’t like the licence, dont use it, but then dont have the OSH logo emblazoned all over your site and all over the advertising and documentation.
Wow! Opensource Software & Hardware, thank you thank you, without Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman I wonder what this forum would be served on, let alone how so much other hardware and software around the world might operate, what a different world it would be.
My first flight controller was the Aduino Mega and then a friend bought me a Pixhawk clone, now we have the soon to be released Pixhawk2. And still open source, thank you proficnc 
I will be buying from one of your regional suppliers close to me.
Open Source grows the makers market, it gives everyone who has the skills to develop tools and toys. We will be using it to further develop a uav that will be built alongside arduino monitoring hardware in a high school environment.
Thankfully there are still a very large number of people whose philosophy supports an open planet model.
1 Like
I downloaded it and it opens OK in my KiCad. The .sch file is text and can be opened in an editor. You can search replace the wire labels for example.
There is a crib sheet here docs.kicad-pcb.org/stable/en/eeschema.pdf
You can get an underbar on wire labels by preceeding the texte with a tilde. Just tested. It works
Agree, it could be the best approach. This way we have to wait for complete schematics pdf to be published.
I would ask you is Philip asked you for any of this ‘advocacy’, but I will not. Because I’m helping not to Philip but to community. I believe that community should have available tools to see and edit OSH artefacts. I thankful to Philip really much and have no intention to help some cloners to steal his design. And I definitely sure he is completely free to use tool of his choice. The same is for us - we can use the tool of our choice to see and edit his project so far as it still open source.
Any reasonable objections?
With most kind regards and respect to all,
Dmitry
1 Like
Hi Skyscraper… the only thing I don’t like about the license, is people complaining after I have published all my work.
I welcome pull requests for changes, I welcome schematic reviews…
Neither of which have ever come from the wider community.
The biggest point you just highlighted… is the content of the license…
"(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)"
so when people make comments about no clone in open… they need to read that part of the license…
I have no issue with people who make creative things… but those that copy and pass it off as the real thing are NOT complying with the license.
THE ONLY Pixhawk 1 boards that are legitimate at the moment are the PH1’s from 3DR.
The ONLY APM 2.x series are the ones from jDrones and 3DR…
The ONLY legitimate PH2.0’s are from 3DR
The only legitimate PH2.1’s are from ProfiCNC/Hex
the license is two way… you give what you take, you contribute back.
PH2.1 will stay CC-BY-SA3.0 I don’t regret that… but I do not understand why people like yourself cannot be polite about it, be grateful for the work of others, and be supportive of their work.
1 Like
@dipspb
If either some pdfs are available or some basic KiCad files are available, I will be happy to help if I can.
Hi @proficnc,
I guess the problem or misunderstanding is the following:
There is a difference between a “community” of OS devs doing something together for fun and the development of a professional and very complex product like the PH2.1.
I am pretty sure that of the 81000 members of DIYDrones (as a community) less than 10 are realy interested in the hardware design details.
So my vote is for closed source HW. It would help all Ardupilot devs in one way ot the other.
Just my 2 cents,
Cheers,
Thorsten
2 Likes
Hello @proficnc.
I’m waiting eager the arrival of the pixhawk 2.1, and I’m pretty sad reading this topic (and the previous one announcing the arrival of the cube).
I can understand your frustration when seeing how others takes your work (without any credit) and make business with it.
I can understand the open source software, but I do not see clear what is behind the open source hardware. With open source software companies can offer services around that software, and as they have to know deeply the software and they are interested in quick developing times with a lot of beta testers everyone have benefits from this arrangement.
In the case of open source hardware I do not see the mutual benefits. I can see a collaborative project between not many people, so they can quickly develop the project. But, why to publish the final design files regarding a 6 layer PCB with small surface mounted components, so only a big company with very specialized manufacturing facilities can make and assemble?
In this case only few ones will benefit, and probably they are not who made the design.
I want to buy a very good product at good price, so probably I prefer self-interested that all this work belongs to who made it, and then they invest part of the profits in making it better and better.
Thanks Phil, please continue with your work !! (And get the manufacturers have ready the pixhawk 2.1 as soon as possible)
2 Likes
Shipping starts today :).
So there is some good news!
1 Like
People, let me assure you, cloners do not use free pcb development tools simply because tools like altium and allegro are their daytime job (as yours) and most cloners are venturing into this as a second/third project.
If you are worried about cloners, don’t go osh, converting source files (of the comparable complexity) is almost trivial between the few most popular pcb cad programs and large license holders (to which cloners usually belong) receive direct assistance from the above mentioned software developers in this.
Imho, osh ecosystem is the biggest selling point of the hardware of this rating (non-automotive/non-aerospace), besides there is nothing that can’t be reversely engineered within a few hours -off the shelf components are used. The only way to succeed, as always, is to keep developing/innovating ahead of competition (cloners) and providing added value services. This can be (shoul be/must be) tied to software development.
A great example will be cell phone market- every year there is something new, why? because of competition which uses almost exactly the same components- companies are forced to compete not on schematic design, but on manufacturing know-how, component sourcing, marketing, products designed for specifc market slots, etc.
If this project will continue it needs to look at what mass market wants- cheap alternative for your lexus (there are about 100 times more corollas that lexuses), make a cheap corolla, sell it, build ecosystem around it, start adding value services. If you won’t make that corolla someone else will… if you do not wish to make cheap FCs its your choice, but there is a reason why the same company makes both Lexuses and Corollas… huge% of components are the same.
time to move on… there are plenty of schematics etc to help people on their way.
The reason I use Altium is because it is the best, the schematics are available to anyone else.
If people want cheap, there are plenty on Banggood that will crash your equipment just as well as any of them.
however, if you would like me to keep developing hardware that is cheap, then purchase from hardware vendors that support my work.
Time to move on
I think you didn’t get my point. You need to come up with limited edition of your hardware… Make it max4 outputs, no can, two telemetry ports, one gps. Try to grasp the idea…
Who are the people buying $60 pixracer clones? Do you think they will fly anything expensive enoght to justify paying $99+ shipping+case price for the original? No, why not sustify their need and sell a limited version?