Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
CC3D Atom
« on: April 01, 2016, 08:31:39 pm »
Hi guyz,

 are the Atom source files on the git hub the latest?

I've found the source files a while back somewhere, but I think that design didn't had MPU 6000 sensor and this does have it listed in the BOM.


Are there some known hardware issues with the design?


Reasons why I'm asking...

I'm not an EE, more like an flyer enthusiast that likes to design multirotor frames and as such I'm probably an end user.

With that said, I have few ideas regarding ergonomics of the board it self, added functionality of having IC step down regulator and removing the pins out of the picture.

Nothing major really, merely something I think it could improve the usage experience.


That's why I thought to come here and ask about it, I know there's some seriously talented and skilled folks in here and that it's probably the best place to ask about things like that.



The license...

Altho I'm not an EE, will be designing a different layout board and transfer the components to it for prototyping purpose so it would fit my need of what I want from an FC on my fpv quad.

That's all fine and dandy but it's not something I just want to do so I could perhaps enjoy the possible benefits of more convenient component board placement but rather if it truly means more comfort and there's interest I would like to enable others to get one.


But!  I'm not here to rip anyone's hard work and effort neither I would ever want it to do it that way!

In fact quite the opposite. Respect the Hardware License and promote an software and the project it self I personally have had great experience with, The Libre Pilot.

So I guess, this is the point I would really appreciate if perhaps there would be someone that is willing to help me a bit and tell what Is needed to get permission for CC3D atom FC production and sale.

Would I need to pay royalties per board sold and things like that.

I'm not interested in setting a profit margin on the FC it self, just pay the production cost and if required royalties.So it pays it's production and distribution. No more nor less.


Obviously, if I would sort out all the steps mentioned above I would hire an actual EE to work on this.

Truly appreciate any help with this!

Kind regards,
Dragomir
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 09:02:16 pm by Daxo »
Innovation Matters

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2016, 06:59:49 am »
I hope I didn't insult in any way to either of the projects.

Merely trying to use the open source hard work to improve the flight control to serve the end users with it's benefits with full respect to their work.

I would thought that's the very essence of such project effort.

Regarding the LibrePilot part,

it goes without saying that the support part for the 'product' would be entirely on my part as it wouldn't be right to put additional user pressure on the project, developers have far more important work than supporting someone else's 'product'.

Kind regards,
Dragomir
Innovation Matters

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2016, 07:00:25 pm »
Long shoot considering the interest on my previous query's but here It goes.

For few days I'm viewing few EE's profile, I've narrow it down to few but before that part I wanted to ask if someone could say how many hours could it take for the EE to make an FC design from scratch involving stm32 and MPU 6050.

I need to see how much money I need to have before engaging the project.

Ofc he would have an atom design as guideline so that should narrow it down faster.

But ofc, I don't want the copy of the Atom, I just want an Fc board that has what Atom has, sensor wise and stm32 controller that can be flashed with LP.

Much obliged,
Dragomir
Innovation Matters

f5soh

  • *****
  • 4548
    • LibrePilot
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2016, 07:54:51 pm »
Hi,

First the Atom follow the CC3D's BOM and schematic, this means STM32F103 and MPU-6000.
CC3D is more or less 5 years old design, works fine but out of memory and features almost frozen.

Why do not design something modular using board already designed you can find easily ?
In my opinion starting a new design based on CC3D is like waste money and time.

Laurent

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2016, 09:31:47 pm »
Hi Laurent,

thanks for taking the time to help me out.


Your points are well made, In fact I also think it's a waste of time and money to make the same thing in the end, just the different circuitry route.

However, my impression is that acquiring a license for atom production seams unlikely so if that's not an option then I guess I'll have to make my own.


Upgrading STM or sensors is certainly something that can be done when you have the license but without it what's the point when you cant make it available to others.


There's a lot of reasons why I would want to engage in making an FC as an end user, for one, why not make it more 'friendly' installation wise.
 
a simple box 'chip style' which has castellated holes around the edges instead of pins and possibly connectors, if a box like that, expanding it's features hardware wise comes natural not to mention the vast potential in frame designing or model build/maintenance/repair/upgrade by the user.

a possibility, by the time the footprint get's  back to 36x36 with add-on-dock board I guess there could be full sensor range, voltage regulation, inverters etc to the simplest end user need like direct esc signal and ground routing with minimum weight cost or wiring/soldering PITA. 

Flexible and practical I guess.









Innovation Matters

lucas

  • **
  • 67
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2016, 10:41:57 pm »
Hi Daxo.

The CC3D and the CC3D Atom are is licensed under CC-BY-SA, that´s the only REAL Open Source Hardware license.

That means if you are going to make exact copies (clones) of the original CC3D designs you are free to do it.  Even if you want to sale them and make money out of them!!

If you want to make changes to the design you are Obliged to relase your new designs with the same license (CC-BY-SA): release the schematics, gerber files and BOM to whoever buys your product.  (You don´t have to make them public on the net, you can send a copy of the schematics, gerbers and BOM to every buyer of your product)

And here lies the beauty of Open Source Hardware OSH:

Anybody would have the license to make copies (clones) of your new boards and sell them for profit... and if they wanted to modify them they would have to license them under CC-BY-SA and so on..


https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Thanks to Laurent for clarifying as I was under the impression the Atom was under CC-BY-SA license as well. 

Guess you are gonna have to base your design on the full size CC3D and shrink it yourself ;D
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 11:44:30 pm by lucas »

lucas

  • **
  • 67
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2016, 10:53:40 pm »
I like your idea of easy to use and mount flight controllers.

Have you seen this PDB:

https://theflynoshop.com/product/orion-series-pdb-7-0/

Why not design something like it for the Atom?  It ticks most your boxes: 

Esc signal and ground routing (The one in the link has the ESCs routed the Multiwii way)
Voltage regulator (Possibility for direct mounting a Pololu)
It accomplishes what you want with the castellated pads, but using through holes.

Only down side I guess is that it has a higher profile than the add-on-dock board you are envisioning.

f5soh

  • *****
  • 4548
    • LibrePilot
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2016, 11:18:36 pm »
Atom is Creative Commons BY-NC-SA - Non commercial use only

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

lucas

  • **
  • 67
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2016, 11:41:54 pm »
thanks Laurent, gonna edit my original post to avoid more confusion.


Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2016, 06:42:24 am »
Lucas,

That really does help a great deal to understand the license a lot better, Thank you.

Makes sense regarding the obligation to provide source files if making a derivative from the original design, besides if the solution is good it will be adopted by the users and later by the shops/manufacturers so the goal would be achieved and it would become a lot cheaper and more accessible to users.

Laurent, thanks for pointing out the diff between cc3d and atom license. I guess shrinking the CC3D would be best way to do it, first thing that comes to my mind as end user is to replace 3.3v components with 5v ic and use voltage dividing but it's something better left to the EE.

Lucas, that board looks really nice, I might get one to check it out.

I can't believe how similar it is to something I've been working on lately. But, just that, similar, tho I like that board none the less.

Innovation Matters

lucas

  • **
  • 67
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2016, 08:45:11 am »
Daxo, currently LP supports STM32F411, STM32F405, STM32F427.  Why not design a new board with one of these MCUs?

I think Laurent knows what he's talking about when he says designing a new board based on a CC3D is not a good idea.

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2016, 05:03:31 pm »
For sure, Laurent seams like a really nice guy always helping out, regardless of person in need skill set.

 He helped me more time than I can count on various subjects, and he is right regarding the fc as well.


I'm not an expert in the field so I don't know how hard is it to support one of those better MCU's, component wise. Probably only the spec diff, But, I certainly will explore the option.

I mean, what's the point of spending quite a bit to hire an actual engineer with list of required specific expertise if you don't try to do more than just the footprint and power ic.

Btw, funny, I just saw this and it's crazy how close it is to what we've been talking. Rough around the edges sure but close.

http://www.banggood.com/Eachine-Racer-250-DIY-Parts-CC3D-Naze32-w-600MW-5_8G-32CH-transmitter-Built-in-OSD-HD-Camera-p-1035409.html?bid=7190?p=O521051806009201506W



gonna follow up if someone makes a build thread about it, good ground for user feedback.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 05:17:52 pm by Daxo »
Innovation Matters

Daxo

  • ***
  • 123
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2016, 05:38:47 pm »
Just took a few and went to compare the specs between MCU found on CC3D and these that you've listed.


What would be minimum upgrade MCU specs compared to the one on cc3d, something like STM32F411? 

Considering that just MCU alone can get in 10$+ range.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 05:47:04 pm by Daxo »
Innovation Matters

lucas

  • **
  • 67
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2016, 06:09:34 pm »

...
Btw, funny, I just saw this and it's crazy how close it is to what we've been talking. Rough around the edges sure but close.






A Castellated Naze...haven´t seen that one myself and I spend half my day at Bangood.

Just took a few and went to compare the specs between MCU found on CC3D and these that you've listed.


What would be minimum upgrade MCU specs compared to the one on cc3d, something like STM32F411? 

Considering that just MCU alone can get in 10$+ range.

Of the three MCUs I listed the STM32F411 is the one with lower specs and lower price.

The STM32F427 is the most recent one that´s supported, you could see how a Support Pull Request can be submitted by looking at the F427 one:

https://bitbucket.org/librepilot/librepilot/pull-requests/91/lp-149-add-stm32f427-429-437-439-chip/diff

If you are going to hire an EE you might as well consider using and STM32F303 MCU.  It is pin compatible with the STM32F103 of the CC3D, meaning, you could use the CC3D design and just replace the MCU.  But it is currently unsupported...

Some time back lilvinz ported OpenPilot to a DiscoveryF3 board:  https://github.com/lilvinz/OpenPilot/wiki/Discovery-F3-what-this-is-about

But you should ask Laurent and the Dev team if it makes any sense designing a board with an F3.

hwh

  • *
  • 1018
Re: CC3D Atom
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2016, 07:34:19 pm »
...Why do not design something modular using board already designed you can find easily ?...

There's a reason for Laurent saying that.  If you build a board that's different electrically from an existing board then you have to write and debug firmware for it.  You also have to modify the GCS software to support it.  The cost to do that is many times more than the cost you're talking about to hire someone to design the board.

For instance, Far West Rotors (http://www.farwestrotors.com/) designed the Falcon F4 board.  Electrically it's compatible with the Revo Nano and it runs the same firmware.  They just changed from the nano size board to the standard 36mm square board size.   The Chinese "Revolution Mini" is electrically compatible with the revolution board but in a smaller form factor and with the oplink moved to an optional external board.  It runs the regular revolution firmware.

You're much better off doing something like that where the LP software will support the board without you having to spend the money hiring a programmer and maintaining a separate fork of the project for your board.