(24-Feb-2024, 11:49 PM)hugnosed_bat Wrote:
Hi Bat,

Respectfully, I have the opposite perspective about this BetaFPV FC board.

the very special thing on darwin aio is that it can do 1s up to 3s, there arent other aios does support 1s and a voltage range up to 3s. there might be still no reason for it in your case.

I agree that there might not be many 1S to 3S boards if that is a requirement.
However, the OP indicates this will be a 2S-3S build...so, the board doesn't need
to be 1S, correct??

i would suggest to stay away from proprietary betafpv products.

Why?  What is proprietary on them and why is it a concern?? 
Interesting. Please enlighten us.

that board design does increase the risk for damage enormous.

I am confused. What risk for enormous damage does it increase?

it doesnt fit most frames well.

The board is a whoop board with a stated 26 x 26 mount spacing which is within the
tolerance of the "whoop" mounting format. The mount gummies will adjust any minor
variance in the space on the frame. So, why would it not fit most frames? Confusing?

its designed for the pico series, it really doesbt match the requirements for a simple 25mm pod on top,
it would need to be covered more. low durability, no versatility, than betafpvs quality controll..

So, the mount gummies are flexible and allow for some variance in the actual
mounting tolerances. At least, I have found this to be true. Plus, I ream the
holes in the frame a bit to allow more tolerance in that area as well. Although
I can not say for sure, I would bet that I could mount most whoop canopies
on it. Maybe. Still, something will fit. Moreover, the OP intends to mount a
GPS module somewhere. Maybe a custom printed canopy.

Hmm. I have used BetaFPV whoop boards and, so far, have not had any issues.
Although some folks have had issues with QC on some products, the items that
I have used all seem to be of decent quality and pretty durable.

I am confused why you say the BetaFPV boards are not versatile ??
This is a whoop board and will fit pretty much any frame with the whoop
mounting format. Plus, the F405 chip with 20A ESCs can be used for a
variety of builds and sizes. 

sorry, i would highly suggest to choose another board for that frame

Hi Bozon,

First, my thoughts about quality control. From time to time any company
of any product, especially Chinese, can have a quality control issue. Yes,
some folks have expressed QC issues with BetaFPV. JEHEMCU was a very
reputable brand, yet, I have gotten bad boards from them. HappyModel
is known for QC that is all over the board Yet, they are a large, well known,
brand that is very cost effective, so they sell a lot of products. In the grander
scheme of things, the only place that I have read about any BetaFPV QC
issues is here on this forum. Any company can (and does) have a questionable
product once in a while.  Consequently, I take things with a grain of salt, 
so to speak. 

Personally, I have used BetaFPV FC boards and have had no issues with them.
They have all worked and continue to work. I will continue to buy them as
they are cost effective, have better value than many, and seem to be readily
available. This doesn't sound like much, but if I can't get a comparable board
of other brands (or not without paying twice the price), then BetaFPV is viable. 

As for the specifics of mount spacing, the whoop format is 25.5 x 25.5.
Yet, whoop format boards seem to have a variance from 25 x 25 to 26 x 26.
I view this more of a "tolerance" than anything else since the gummies are
flexible enough to account for any minor variance. Regardless of mount 
format, I generally ream the frame holes just a bit to provide some lee
way in the frame. Yea, I do this with pretty much all of my frames regardless
of which mount format that I am using as it just makes things go together
better and fit smoother. Again, the gummies allow some flexibility.

My experience is that canopies (being mostly plastic or TPU) also have 
a bit of flexibility. Plus, it is a simple matter to ream the holes a bit to
allow a bit more tolerance. Of course, this would assume that you will
even use an "off the shelf" canopy. Given that you want to mount a
GPS module, it sounds like a custom canopy might be in order; or 
some other type of top deck plate. I have a few ideas.

The specs for this BetaFPV board would allow a wide variety of 
applications for me, even up to a 4-inch build. I like the F405 chip
and generally buy FCs with an ESC rating from 20A to 40A. Plus,
the 2S to 3S input is just right for me as most of my builds use
this specification. Plus, the extra voltage is nice when running a GPS. 
And, there are enough free hard UARTs that you would NOT need to 
remove any resistors on the board. From my perspective, this is a 
pretty flexible FC which I would even consider buying. For me, it is 
better than the Darwin FC, especially if I intended to run a GPS or a 
servo. Maybe, that is just me.

By the way, you would not need to add an external BEC with 
this FC board as it has both 5V and 9V regulators on board.
You won't gain anything by adding another one. Plus, the board
is already set up with a plug for the digital video system.

Overall, I believe that the BetaFPV board is fine and that you
will likely be well please with your choice. 

Now, about mounting that GPS...   Well, there are a few
options, one of which is that you could 3D print a custom
canopy with an integrated GPS holder on top. Yeah, you want
the GPS up high, not down low. A custom designed canopy
is an option if you have a 3D printer. 

Another option is to fabricate a custom top deck plate to mount
under a standard canopy and then use long stand off columns
to raise the GPS mount which could be either TPU or fabricated
from plastic. Since I don't have a 3D printer, this would likely be
what I would do and might be a pretty good option. 

How do you plan to mount the GPS?? What are your thoughts??


Later, iFly   

Hi iFly,

I've already ordered the FC so i'll give it a chance anyway. 
I was curious if I missed something when looking for an FC that would be suitable for my build (among those available and at a reasonable price)
Such a strong opinion about BetaFPV surprised me a little as I know they sell a lot of products. But I'm quite new to FPV I might not have known everything.
I know that QC is different for different manufacturers. I ordered this FC from a local seller, so it will be easier for me to return/exchange it if there anything wrong with it.

I will use this small quad for recreational flying in the park and improving my technique, it doesn't have to be a racing rocket. 
Of course, the building itself will also give me a lot of joy.

I haven't thought about GPS yet. Perhaps when I feel more confident and want to fly a little further than 300m, I will connect it.
I'll probably go for a small canopy with a possible GPS pocket on the roof. I have a 3D printer so I will experiment.

Thanks!

Honestly I don't get Hug's last post. There is zip proprietary stuff for that board, it is no different to the equivalent Happymodel board, which still uses Betaflight.

So backstory/reasoning. Some boards from BetaFPV use proprietary software, in that they made their own configurator and those boards tend to be for the Cetus and that new monstrosity with the moulded batteries. But I can see why they did it. Betaflight gives a zillion ways to break a quad if you don't have a good brain in your head and there is no hand holding like Windows, it's full blown here's a pack of C4 and detonators, RTFM and try not to blow yourself up, level. So the problem is you get people who stick the detonators in the C4 and blow themselves up a lot, because they are dumb (and they come on this board and ask us to fix it or maybe send it back to BetaFPV who probably get quite pissed off about it). So they made their own configurator that only allows you to change some of the options, not enough to brick your quad or make it fly like a dried piece of horse manure. They basically made a Windows version of Betaflight, user level only, no power user and no administrator access. So the vast majority of us are not dumb and we find that annoying, but those drones are not aimed at us anyway so best not to worry about it.

Generally if you avoid the Cetus and whatever the new one is called you will be fine. So you aren't building something with lidar levelling or radar or whatever new fangled features are in those products, so you don't need custom cuts of Betaflight or LiteSilverware with that functionality (the custom versions on the Cetus are basically LiteSilverware, a firmware dating back to brushed quads and a firmware that BetaFPV developed itself back then, basically a fork of NFESilverware, which you can find on their GitHub).

I use BetaFPV products. I use a lot of them and haven't had any real issues with them. When i first started out, I was told (constantly) that my Meteor85 would die and burst into flames, explode and pretty much everything in between. It did die after 2 years after being rammed into the ground a couple hundred times, but that was why I bought it, to learn to fly and you crash a lot while doing that. I have had a bunch of the 5A and 12A FC too, the only issue was actually not caused by BetaFPV. The Betaflight devs released a version that killed the old 5A AIO boards, specifically it wrote data to the gyro and permabricked it. So not actually a BetaFPV problem, a Betaflight problem. Apart from that i have had no problems. I use (in no particular order) BetaFPV VTX, FC, ELRS, Canopies, Frames, Buzzers, Motors and it all works fine. The VTX work fine and support Smartaudio, the ELRS Rx run standard ELRS, the FC use Betaflight, Quicksilver, but probably aren't compatible with INav (but not much is) and everything else is pretty much not heavy on electronics.

So in short your FC is fine. It uses Betaflight, it has a standard whoop mounting format, but it has no OSD chip, but then you are building digital so you don't need one. That is the main difference between the Darwin FC and the BetaFPV, no OSD. The 1S bit is a misnomer because if you were building a whoop you would probably use a 1S whoop FC, which would be lighter than an all singing and dancing digital FC. I know of very few whoops that need 3S. Most use 1-2S and there are better analog compatible FC's that do that.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I use logic when building or planning a build and i go through every part based on weight, functionality and ask myself "is it fit for purpose". If it is, it will probably work and if it doesn't I will still learn something. Failure is just as good a thing as success, as long as you learn something from it.

(26-Feb-2024, 05:36 PM)Pathfinder075 Wrote: Failure is just as good a thing as success, as long as you learn something from it.

Very well said

Thanks!

(26-Feb-2024, 05:17 PM)bozon Wrote: I will use this small quad for recreational flying in the park and improving my technique, it doesn't have to be a racing rocket.

So what you are building is going to be a racing rocket.  It will generate around 1kg of thrust, and with a AUW of around 120g, it is going to be quite nippy.  but that's what you want.  You can limit throttle and the motors to rein it in a bit, use 2S to get it a bit more manageable, but from a raw power perspective, it will have it.  3S on a 2.5" with 1202.5 and HQ 2.5x2x3 props is pretty nippy, on 2S with a bigger Lipo (2S 660) it is a fine cruiser, but will still freestyle, on 1204 it will be somewhat more. That's why i recommended them.  It will be fun.  I love my 1202.5 build on 3S, yours should be just as agile and fun.  Plus you have digital so you can see all those branches and wires before you hit them.

(26-Feb-2024, 09:40 PM)Pathfinder075 Wrote: So what you are building is going to be a racing rocket.

I am aware that I am building a crazy little bee. My point is that I won't be racing it (at least not right away) so I don't need top notch components. I want to learn effective maneuvering, tight turns, basic acrobatics, but also smooth, cinematic movements.
I plan to start with S2 and once I feel comfortable with it, connect S3.

(26-Feb-2024, 09:35 AM)bozon Wrote: Thanks for your comment.
I guess you have had a bad experience with betafpv products.

Sorry for the stupid question, but is there a specific reason why this particular FC needs to be covered?

What would you recommend for that frame instead?
AIO, 2-3S, UART ELRS 2.4HGz on board, BEC suitable for VTX Avatar Walksnail

To help clarify where hugs is coming from, the new 2-3S betafpv AIO has the usb header sticking out the back.  


I've built a quad with it, it is a pain in the arse, "proprietary" layout.   Yes that usb port does get in the way of canopy style toothpick builds.   Having said that I'm a big fan of their (1s and 1-2s) AIOs, they have got a winner there.

(27-Feb-2024, 12:22 PM)ph2t Wrote: To help clarify where hugs is coming from, the new 2-3S betafpv AIO has the usb header sticking out the back.  


I've built a quad with it, it is a pain in the arse, "proprietary" layout.   Yes that usb port does get in the way of canopy style toothpick builds.   Having said that I'm a big fan of their (1s and 1-2s) AIOs, they have got a winner there.

Hi Ph2t,

What "Proprietary" layout?  Am I missing something?  Why is it a PITA?

The JST connector for USB does not bother me, nor does the fact that 
it sticks out the back. In fact, I think that I might actually like that feature.

Personally, I am not a fan of where most whoop format boards have the
USB port located (on the side). Actually, I don't really like the boards that
have the USB oriented "down" as it is for tiny whoop boards, but they
do work well in the little plastic whoop frames, so I just deal with it. 

This board does have an OSD chip, correct? 

I just noticed that is has on-board ELRS. Can this be disabled and an
FrSky, XM+, SBUS receiver be installed? 

I have used other BetaFPV boards with no issues and no complaints.

Thanks.

Later, iFly  

(27-Feb-2024, 12:22 PM)ph2t Wrote: Yes that usb port does get in the way of canopy style toothpick builds.  

I see. The USB port might interfere with the back canopy mount. 
I plan to make a sandwich: frame - FC - VTX - canopy, so I shouldn't run into that issue, but we'll see in practice.

(27-Feb-2024, 01:17 PM)iFly4rotors Wrote: This board does have an OSD chip, correct? 

I just noticed that is has on-board ELRS. Can this be disabled and an
FrSky, XM+, SBUS receiver be installed? 

I don't think it has an OSD chip, it seems  designed for digital only.

The on-board ELRS is something I want, but I'm pretty sure it can be disabled, and any other RX can be used here.

The VTX finally arrived and I already have most of the parts. 
Now i need some spare time to start putting it all together.

For now, I have a few things to think about

1/ Motors - solder or plug.
I'm not sure yet whether solder the motors directly to the ESC or connect them via connectors (which requires me to solder the tiny slots to the FC anyway). Direct soldering will give me a cleaner build - I can have the cables just as long as I need. On the other hand, the connectors will make possible replacement easier. I have to check whether the cables with connectors will not be too long for my taste.

2/ VTX mounting
I plan to make a sandwich: frame - FC - VTX - canopy.
I'm wondering how to put VTX. My intuition tells me that it would be better to mount it with the metal plate upwards for better heat dissipation. 
Putting it with the plate facing the FC would make it easier to lock the antenna connector just by pressing it with the canopy.
In Moblite 7 I have exactly the same VTX which sits very close to the FC, with the plate towards the FC, so the second option seems also possble.

This is what my VTX looks like:



3/ Buzzer  
I don't have one yet. I'm not sure if I should look for one with its own power supply or just a tiny 5V button buzzer. Need to see what is available.

Anyway, I will keep updating the build progress, but if you have any ideas or comments, feel free to share
Thanks!

Hi Bozon,

Using connectors on the motors is a love/hate thing. A person either 
loves them or hates them. I have done it both ways, but much prefer 
using connectors.

What most folks consider the benefits of directly soldering the wires 
to the FC are 1) A better, more solid connection. 2) That the soldered 
wires will not come apart during a crash, and 3) direct soldering can 
have a cleaner look.

The main advantage of using connectors is the ease of swapping motors. 
Some folks (me included) may swap motors several times during the life 
of the craft. Yes, a connector still needs to be soldered to the FC, but this 
is a one time thing. One and done. 

I use different type connectors depending on the size of the build and the 
motors that will be used. 

For builds that will have small motors which may or may not come with 
the connectors, I use the standard JST PH 1.25 3-pin connectors. Also, 
some FC boards do come with the connectors already soldered on. If they 
don't, then I will decide whether to sold a pigtail to the FC or solder the 
mating connector directly to the board is really not hard especially if the 
board has through hole pads for the connector header pins. 

For mid-size builds, I use a standard 3-Wire servo connector.

For larger builds, I use the MR30 3-pin connector.

Later, iFly  

If you want to keep your stack height tight, then soldering motors is the way to go. But personally I prefer motor plugs especially for this size micro, you will find plenty of motors that come with plugs, and I believe the HM 1204 also. The plugs are also easier to solder onto the AIO than wires.

As for the VTX, I think Madstech may have done some thermal camera analysis, but I don't think there is a huge difference which way you orient your board. I have both and not really noticed any difference, but prefer to have the ufl plug on top so it is easier to spot check that the plug did not come out in a crash. Also the small plug for downloading the flash memory is more accessible that way if you plan to use the onboard recording. Some people add some liquid tape to secure the ufl, I print a small TPU bracket and attach it to the adjacent screw to keep it down.

The heatsink is also removable with some gentle prying and will save you a gram or so. The older versions came with it removed, but maybe it offers some physical protection as seems Caddx put it back for the newer ones. Probably half of mine are without heatsink and have not had any issues so far, but I guess for a 2.5" basher maybe better to leave it.

The build turned out to be slightly more challenging than I expected. 

I planned to stack FC and VTX, so I printed a few spacers to separate them. When I tried to put everything together, I heard a quiet sound of something falling on the desk. 
I thought it was a screw, but unfortunately, it was one of the SMD components - looks like some voltage regulator. After a thorough checking of both PCBs, it turned out that the element detached from the FC. I must have pinched it with a spacer during the trial assembly.



It slowed down my project little bit. 

I decided to try to fix it myself.  With a little help from my hot air and a soldering iron, I managed to solder this little thing back in place, and surprisingly, the FC works!



The controller came with two sets of motor sockets - regular and angled. I opted for the angled ones, allowing me to place the FC closer to the frame.



Initially, I planned to model the canopy myself, but due to lack of time, I found one on Thingiverse. I also found nice arm guards, printed a battery and capacitor holder, and put everything together.



It may not be the lightest micro quad, but the motors should be able to handle it



I connected everything, configured Betaflight, RX, motors, and modes, and applied presets for micro quads from UAV Tech. My concerns were about the motor behavior after arming. They didn't spin smoothly but rather discontinuously - as if the throttle level was too low. 
After connecting the FC to the ESC Configurator I found out that the Minimum Startup Power was already set to max so there was no way to increase the level. 



However, the motors responded well to throttle, so I decided to see how it went.

The maiden flight is behind me. The quad flies nicely - I don't have much experience, but I felt it much better than my Moblite 7.
Here's a video from the maiden flight. It is not very impressive - the flips and landing were rather clumsy, but bear in mind I'm still learning to fly. 
The video isn't perfect; it's a little shaky and jello. I need to experiment with camera mounting. 



I used a linear antenna from VTX kit and when flying over the castle playground, the video started to stutter. I'm going to switch the antenna to omni and will see how that helps.

Anyway, for the first flight, I think it's quite okay. There are a few things I need to improve, but I'm already very satisfied with the build.

Great job repairing your FC, successfully doing SMD repairs is not easy. I also broke a component on my WS VTX while installing, but Caddx support was kind to advise the spec so I could get a replacement part.

For 2S, usually there should not be much jello on the WS camera, so if the canopy is from soft TPU, then probably it is too flexy and causing the vibrations. But some HM motors are unbalanced or with bad bearings out of the box. If you are comfortable, you can spun up motors with props one by one in BF (slowly) and check if any one is vibrating excessively. Also enabling rpm filters if you haven't already, will also make it fly smoother.

As for stuttering motors on arm, you can also bump up your motor idle % or use the dynamic idle setting.

And since you flipped the AIO, I was going to say be sure to change the board orientation in BF but seems you have already done that.