Pixhawk Feedback?

[dazzab]

When I talk about professional applications, I don't mean artistic aerial photography. Lots of people using the system for mapping, 3D imaging, SAR, etc.

I have seen some pretty good artistic videos, some of it even shot from an Iris. Surprisingly good actually. But the people doing it tend to be the "walk softly" type, so I don't have any samples on Youtube to show you.

How convenient.

Of course there are lots of examples of lovely artistic works from simple systems. Although I doubt very highly any of them make a commercial living from it. Things change when your livelihood is on the line. I have some lovely art from a pin hole camera that I made. But I don't think I've ever done a commercial shoot with a pin hole camera.

I've been quite clear that I am speaking specifically about commercial professional photography. I know perfectly well and have stated that Aruducopter/Pixhawk is THE choice for the areas you mention. That doesn't make it the choice for my use which just happens to be the main focus of this forum.

BTW, commercial photography covers a lot more than just 'artistic videos'.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Well, you've really highlighted the issue well. Arducopter is more complicated than other systems. Commercial photographers tend to not want things too complicated, so they avoid it. It's not that something is wrong with the system. It's just not what some people are looking for. That's why it's great that we live in a free market society. You can buy what you like.

But don't misinterpret my lack of Youtube samples, as a fact that nobody is using Arducopter for commercial photography. I know for a fact people are, but can't talk about it. You'll have to choose to either trust me on that, or not. I don't really care.

 

[dazzab]

But don't misinterpret my lack of Youtube samples, as a fact that nobody is using Arducopter for commercial photography. I know for a fact people are, but can't talk about it. You'll have to choose to either trust me on that, or not. I don't really care.

Again, how convenient.

I've lived in the pro photography world most of my life. Photographers don't hide their work even if there are some aspects/work that can be confidential. This speciality is a very small field and some of the main players are right here. I'm sorry Robert but I just can't consider you credible based on this conversation. So it's good that you don't care if I believe you or not.

Put up or ...

 

[Av8Chuck]

All righty then...

You have both made good points, and yes forum are a place where you can put it out there for debate but debating the virtues of professional photography and who can or can't show examples of professional AP is becoming counter productive to the discussion about the PixHawk.

I'm very interested in the PixHawk so I'd like to hear both the good and the bad but if there's a problem I'm more interested in hearing about what the possible solutions might be. There are a lot of variables in this burgeoning industry, not all the components work together as advertised, not everyone is trying to fly the same sort of mission etc., but continuing this debate the way that it is going will only result in a less constructive dialog.

So can we please tone down the rhetoric a bit, its boarding on becoming personal and I doubt that's anyone's intention.

 

[dazzab]

All righty then...
You have both made good points, and yes forum are a place where you can put it out there for debate but debating the virtues of professional photography and who can or can't show examples of professional AP is becoming counter productive to the discussion about the PixHawk.

Really? I think if someone is going to claim a product is suitable for the typical users of this forum then the very least of expectations would be to show some examples. As I said, that's the great thing about photography, the results speak for themselves.

I get your point though and I'm happy not to persist. It's very late here and I'm off tomorrow to do a few days of shooting with my copters anyway. Hopefully I will come back with some nice results showing that it actually does snow in Australia.

 

[Av8Chuck]

I'm from Geelong, so I do know it snows in Australia. Have a great trip and happy flying, look forward to seeing the results.

 

[dazzab]

I'm from Geelong, so I do know it snows in Australia. Have a great trip and happy flying, look forward to seeing the results.

Cool. I may be down your way to do my CASA training in the near future. If so, maybe we can catch up and do some flying?

 

[Av8Chuck]

That would be great except I'm currently living in California. If you find yourself over here I'd love to go flying with you.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Thanks Chuck, I agree. To put it bluntly, not a single one of the issues or problems that dazzab has presented are without solution. I guess that's the take-away from this. The only thing Arducopter doesn't do well, is that when the PIDs are tuned up tight, the control is very sharp. I showed a demo of some changes to fix that, last January... unfortunately the latest release which has them, 3.2, has been a LONG time coming. I'm actually getting a bit frustrated by that fact. The problem there is really because we have exactly one guy working full time on the code (and writing the wiki, and doing tech support...). He's got so many people presenting "plug-in" additions that need to be merged in and tested, he can't even keep up anymore. What Arducopter needs at this point, is some way of getting more funding for more full-time developers.

So anyway, once you are able to make your copter control all soft and mushy like DJI, I can't see any other reason why any commercial photographer would be able to say there's any good reason not to use it. Dazzab hasn't presented a single reason why it *cannot* be used for photography. The only reason left is Analysis Paralysis. Arducopter offers SO MUCH, that it can be hard to drill down and figure it all out so that you can use it for your limited set of requirements. It can be overwhelming. But that is not a fault of the system.

Just flew my 3rd battery on my new quad last night. I just let it sit there in Loiter for 20 minutes while I chatted with a guy at the club, barely paying it any attention at all. At this point, I'm just doing infant-mortality testing before I put the camera on. The system is not hard to use once you know it. It does not take that long to figure it out, or get a new copter dialed in, once you know how it works.

 

[dazzab]

That would be great except I'm currently living in California. If you find yourself over here I'd love to go flying with you.

I'm from Santa Cruz and grew up in Fairfield where I still visit family. I was there about two months ago to visit and attend the sUAS conference in SF. So maybe we will have a chance at some point.

 

[dazzab]

So anyway, once you are able to make your copter control all soft and mushy like DJI, I can't see any other reason why any commercial photographer would be able to say there's any good reason not to use it. Dazzab hasn't presented a single reason why it *cannot* be used for photography.

It's statements like this that make me believe that you don't have the experience required to properly analyse and understand the needs of commercial users.

So, here's a video that pretty clearly sums up a reason not to fly a Pixhawk on a SkyJib. Users can make up there own mind. Skip to 1:30 for the fun part and ask yourself if this is the type performance you would like from your FC. I have a few others as well. I don't publish them as I don't want to be seen as bashing the Pixhawk. It has a lot of possibilities. But someone else will have to risk their equipment from this point on as I had to move on to doing real work. The video is old and things change extremely fast with the Arducopter project. As Robert mentioned the main developer is crazy busy dealing with new things rather than getting the software locked in and ready for production. But huge kudos to him as he's an incredible guy who has made a huge contribution. I don't know how he does it. Quite amazing really.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Where's the logs for that? Let's see what happened.

From my past experience with you, a large part of the problem you had with Pixhawk, is that you couldn't set it up, and your copter wasn't well engineered. The conversation that occurred, which you have mentioned several times, went almost exactly as this one is going now. You keep pushing and pushing, passive-aggressively trying to show that somehow the Pixhawk is flawed. It's really not, and nobody is going to accept you saying that. Push people's buttons enough, as you are doing again here, and eventually people push back.

You had a few issues. They were solved on our end. You had some issues on your end, you didn't solve them, you took it off and put on a DJI system. That's your call. But this continual suggestion that somehow the Pixhawk is not suited for professional use, is getting tired. It's just as reliable as any other sub-military system. It is not perfect. But unlike any other system on the market, it gives you the tools to solve those problems. Whether it's extremely thorough logs to help you find a problem in your setup, or us find a bug quickly. You get to talk directly with the software engineers who write the program. And they are responsive. And you have access to people who REALLY know how this system works to help explain things to you. It's hard to ask for more than that.

At this point, all of your unresolved problems with the system are self-inflicted. So please stop this passive aggressive attack.

 

[dazzab]

Where's the logs for that? Let's see what happened.
You keep pushing and pushing, passive-aggressively trying to show that somehow the Pixhawk is flawed. It's really not, and nobody is going to accept you saying that. Push people's buttons enough, as you are doing again here, and eventually people push back.

I am being responsible by reporting to people what happened. Your representation is biased and I will continue to point that out. As I said, people can make up their own minds as it's all there for them to see for themselves. I am not passively attacking the Pixhawk. I am presenting another side based on experience and evidence. Such as having access to the developers. Well, maybe. See the forums for how people feel about that.

One thing I haven't mentioned here Robert is that I have probably been involved in the Ardupilot project longer than you have and work with the lead Arucopter developer in a S&R project. I probably know history that you as a volunteer are not aware of. Representing yourself as an expert because you are a volunteer is questionable. I also have qualification in both IT and Photography which I'm confident that you don't. I'm not just a nutter trying to poison the Ardupilot project and I resent your implications. I'd be willing to bet that I've contribute more than you have albeit not in code. I know you are a very clever technical person but there's a lot more to a project than code. Give it a rest Robert and let people make up their own minds. If you want to make any more veiled attacks on me please do it by contacting me in private. I'm more than happy to discuss anything with you.

And at the end of the day I'm most happy to see anyone try the Pixhawk as I did to see how it goes for them. I'm totally willing to assist them in that. But I can't take the risk myself anymore. I'm also very anxious to see some real results rather than opinions. So lets hope some pros and commercial users start coming forward so we can hear how they are going.

Best wishes.

 

[dazzab]

Where's the logs for that? Let's see what happened.
You keep pushing and pushing, passive-aggressively trying to show that somehow the Pixhawk is flawed. It's really not, and nobody is going to accept you saying that.

Please show me where I have said that the Pixhawk is flawed. Quite the contrary I have made many posts about it's good features which I can quote to you if you like.

Your sensitivity to the topic really worries me. Your inability to provide real world proof really worries me. I've only made some points to support my view that the Pixhawk is not ready for prime time. You asked me to do that. I'm sorry you didn't like what I had to say. That's your issue not mine.

If you want to continue it will have to be in private. I think the other users here deserve better and have been most patient.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Ok Darrell, those are pretty presumptuous statements. I don't think you know that much about me. I'll just leave it at that.

So where are the logs from that video? Could very well have been that you ran it out of power for all I know. But the logs will show it. Either it's a bug, and we fix it. Or you have a setup problem, and we can help you with it. That is how this project works. We don't respond well to hand-waving and videos. We use data, which the project has allowed you to collect.

 

[Old Man]

I've tried Naza, Wookong, A2, and APM 2.6, and Pixhawk 3.2. I rather liked the lazy operation of Naza and Wookong, A2 was a disaster, and I have yet to experience a problem with the 2.6 or Pixhawk. Aerial photography for me is something done for fun and when I want to see a movie or commercial I'll turn on the tube or rent a video. The aerial photography market is saturated with photographers, cinematographers, and rank amateurs using rotors of one type or another taking pictures and making video to spend any time getting really good at it or spending thousands of $$ on cinema type equipment. All the kids running around with their Phantoms are soon to be driving down the fees people can charge for MR photography. Business always gravitates to the lowest bidder and far too many don't know the difference between wages, profit, or understand setting aside for expansion/reserves. They'll work for beans when steak had been the norm. The larger, more expansionist and profitable markets lie in other areas, with highly specialized equipment that none of the major rotor outfits make equipment for, at this time. The payloads are those that are and will be supplied by firms specializing in aerospace technology, serving customers that are not always looking to be in the public limelight.

So no, I don't have a showreel in the artistic merit sense. What there is would befuddle most that saw some it and generate more questions than I would desire to answer, as well as betray customers that prefer making money via advanced technology others don't yet use. For a good many of those applications Pixhawk works perfectly because it possesses flexibility and features that are not available elsewhere, although DJI is trying hard to incorporate some of them. If they ever decide their customers are important enough to keep they will start working on using components that aren't the cheapest and least dependable on the planet and focus on correcting their software issues. They got real excited about their Ronin and stopped doing anything else not related to it, and it won't fit most large MR's. New toy, to heck with the MR customers. In the meantime we'll keep reading about the guy that just crashed his $12,000.00 rig, $15,000.00 gimbal, and the rented Epic hanging underneath.

 

[JoeBob]

Just ordered my first Pixhawk 15 minutes ago.

After reading this thread, I'm glad I got one before they sell out!

 

[dazzab]

Just when you thought it was safe to read this thread.

I may have mentioned that I ordered a tiny copter to play with. Of course, I'm planning on putting one of my Pixhawks on it even though it might be too small for that. After all, this one is just for goofing around with. Maybe a bit of FPV etc. So I log on to DIYDrones and there's a blog post by someone else who has done the same thing using HobbyKing's mini APM. Cool, I can see how it went for this user. Lo and behold 14 hours ago is a posting by a developer giving good news that he's figured out why Arducopter was not performing as well as it should on mini quads and that he's fixed that. The improvements will be in the next beta release for those who care to test it.

Should I give the Pixhawk another go or just use what most people do on these mini quads?

 

[dazzab]

I've tried Naza, Wookong, A2, and APM 2.6, and Pixhawk 3.2. I rather liked the lazy operation of Naza and Wookong, A2 was a disaster, and I have yet to experience a problem with the 2.6 or Pixhawk. Aerial photography for me is something done for fun and when I want to see a movie or commercial I'll turn on the tube or rent a video. The aerial photography market is saturated with photographers, cinematographers, and rank amateurs using rotors of one type or another taking pictures and making video to spend any time getting really good at it or spending thousands of $$ on cinema type equipment. All the kids running around with their Phantoms are soon to be driving down the fees people can charge for MR photography. Business always gravitates to the lowest bidder and far too many don't know the difference between wages, profit, or understand setting aside for expansion/reserves. They'll work for beans when steak had been the norm.

What a depressing post. Unfortunately I have to agree with you. I've been moving between the view that I got in to it too late and the view that there's always a market for quality and innovative creative approaches. I've spent years preparing and now have to commit another $10,000 for certification and insurance (I'm in Australia) if I want to work commercially.

But it's even worse than that. Even if I want to shoot for personal enjoyment you can't shoot in a lot of places without liability insurance. That's fair enough, but you can't get liability insurance unless you are a certified operator. And I already mentioned the cost of that. So basically the only way to get out there and do what I want to do is to work commercially whether I like it or not. So if the market isn't there I'm screwed.

The only thing I can think to say is, 'Sigh'.

 

[Av8Chuck]

What a depressing post. Unfortunately I have to agree with you. I've been moving between the view that I got in to it too late and the view that there's always a market for quality and innovative creative approaches. I've spent years preparing and now have to commit another $10,000 for certification and insurance (I'm in Australia) if I want to work commercially.

But it's even worse than that. Even if I want to shoot for personal enjoyment you can't shoot in a lot of places without liability insurance. That's fair enough, but you can't get liability insurance unless you are a certified operator. And I already mentioned the cost of that. So basically the only way to get out there and do what I want to do is to work commercially whether I like it or not. So if the market isn't there I'm screwed.

The only thing I can think to say is, 'Sigh'.

It took 50 years to go from B&W to color TV, it took almost 75 years to go from analog to digital TV and it has taken more than 35 years to go from SD to HD, in the US they are still broadcasting SD channels. So as much as it feels like technology is changing rapidly a little context would be nice...

Clearly there have been a lot of advancements in MR's over the past three years, but nothing compared to what it will be like three years from now, I'm not even sure I can imagine how much better this will become. The problem here in the US, and I suspect that this has poisoned the well elsewhere, is that the FAA has thoroughly confused people, and unfortunately confused people don't do anything. So young people who don't even know who the FAA is are not confused so they're buying up Phantoms, hanging out a shingle and claiming to be commercial aerial photographers. The people the confusion is effecting most are those responsible people who are waiting for the regulation that they hope will clear up the confusion, there's a lot of money and people waiting on the sidelines of this new industry.

You haven't missed anything, this industry is just getting started.