Home        Store        Learn        Blog

Designing a rov without pixhawk

We have a question about if we dont use Pixhawk in our systems what will happen?
we want to make a fully controllable system by us, to utilize with more subnautic instruments. also the utilities of the system will have same critic hardwares like acc, gyro etc. also we wanna drive esc’s with a servo controller. also the controllers will be duino, rpi etc. we will design a system about it. for the software part we will develop a stabilize software for motor controllers underwater. What do you think about this system? can we have any unpredicted errors or problems?

1 Like

The Pixhawk is a flight controller board, which serves to monitor the vehicle’s sensors, control the thrusters/peripherals, and communicate with the topside. All three of those components are quite vital to having a functioning ROV, but assuming you’re able to replace them with alternatives then there’s no particular reason you require a Pixhawk in particular.

The main benefit of using a pre-made flight controller board and firmware is not needing to do that development yourself, because a group of people with shared interests and experience have already worked together to create something that consistently works well for the intended purpose, for the majority of users.

If your use-case requires something different, and/or you are interested in creating a competing product that follows some other set of optimisations/compromises, you’re of course welcome to work on creating that. The advantages could be significant if what you want to achieve is difficult or impossible with existing systems.

The main disadvantage is the amount of development required to create a system that works well, and that integrates nicely with other components you want to connect it to. If you have the engineering expertise, time, and budget to achieve that then it’s very possible you’ll be able to create a system that’s more optimised for your specific use case.

This is a broad overview of things you want to include, all of which are quite common in ROVs, so it’s not possible to comment on particularly meaningfully. Every development project can and will have unpredicted errors and problems - the main question is whether overcoming those issues is worth the resources involved, compared to modifying an existing system to better suit your needs :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks for the replying our question @EliotBR

As you said on your post, using Pixhawk comes with benefits. If we discard it from the system, basically we need to develop a stabilizer. We want to design a system, which gives us full controll our side. Right now, we know that, we have to develop a system from esc controller to main computer communication. Also my team has an endeavor to made this project, at least we already get our hands dirty.

We know, Pixhawk is a kind of “plug and play” device, which will helpfull for the non-developer, hobby pilots, that is great but right now, we think we achieved it’s limits. To help for your understand, right now, we need to use more than 3 communication protocols to manage our ROV operations and as you know it’s cumbersome.

All our need is, as you mentioned, is it worth? We know, the project we are trying to design right now, can be develop in a time. In the end, can we achieve a fully autonomous AUV or nothing. Because, with the instruments we use right now, the system can handle by it-self with a software.

Also, we accept any kind of comments, recommendations, critiques and “did you tried this” ideas. Please inform us if you want to add more from you and other pilots/developers.

Thank you for sharing your ideas.