Would like deep-stall landing models for MdB’s stuff
Better than JSBSim?
JSBSim has a lot of potential
Harder to create a model in JSBSim vs RealFlight
Easy to play in RealFlight
E.g. trying different airfoils, props and geometry for TVBS
Best model, probably
XPlane uses blade element theory, which should be pretty good from the physics perspective. It has a maximum number of elements though, so for complex shapes some linearization errors will be present.
Tridge: main issue is frame rate is quite slow
Working on a plugin to make it faster
But still order of magnitude slower than realflight
Works OK on big vehicles like Cessnas
No good on multicopters
Limitation on motors, too!
Can’t do an octoquad plane
Should be able to get lock-step scheduling in XPlane
AirSim?
Graphics are spectacular
very , very slow
Framerate was a few Hz
Physics engines are very simple
Like the built-in-SITL one, really
Does vision stuff which is great
Apparently getting faster
We don’t support it because tridge doesn’t have a fast-enough machine!
Blender can export vehicles into RealFlight
Elevons rotating around right axis is current problem
Losing some axis orientation stuff in pivots?
Tride is using Blender to attempt to model using free tools
Turbulence model vs wind model
Seems to over-do the turbulence when raising wind
But it is settable…
Much more realistic winds
Small bugfixes in Plane over the last week
Tailsitter transitions in auto have been fixed
New control algorithms coming from Paul for tailsitters
Plane of rotors rather than plane of autopilot
Doesn’t control pitch attitude of wing
Controls pitch attitude of rotors
Lets plane swing in the wind
UTC23:19 - Randy and Copter
Compass fixes in latest -rc
Will make official version in next few days if nothing goes wrong
Also the serial 5 patches went in
Working with Leonard on new loiter algorithm
Pretty good
Responsive in roll/pitch
Response when you let go of the sticks is still problematic
Weaker than it used to be
May do a correction / move around which is no good
Will be PR’d soon
Not enough feedback from people so far!
Loiter is very commonly used, we need to be careful with it
Has to work well
Copter flight-mode objects
Just fiddling about moving functions into the classes
UTC23:24 - Randy and Rover
Rover release coming
Bunch of PRs from Pierre
Much better than what’s out there
Instant reversing issue when pivot-turning is a problem
Users don’t like it….
Before release or after is not clear yet
UTC23:25 - request to get MAVProxy and CUAV changes in
Don’t want to lose the changes that were so helpful during the challenge
Fixes it for newer versions of wx3
Breaks it for older wx implementations
Tridge merged it along with some other bits and pieces
UTC23:33 - CAN Raw with Tom
Random other proprietary can products in-house
Want to convert to uavcan
Eugene’s infrastructure should allow lots of CANs quite well
One enumeration is a problem
Need to add an option for different enums
No UAVcan HW at the moment
Similar problem to other people
Allowing arbitrary CANs would allow for easier integration
Would be nice to have J1939 CAN based servos
RAW Can allows you to switch from UAVCan to raw can which allows you to write directly to the port
Stick in UAVcan or bust scenario ATM
if you look in the ardupilot/canbus gitter channel, someone has tested CANOpen esc’s successfully.
UTC23:41 - incomplete mission upload with Francisco
What should happen if a mission is not fully uploaded?
Constantly updating mission
Need ArduPilot to know if the mission was completely uploaded or not
E.g. you’re in guided mode and something happens
Radio failsafe
New code in AP which changes mode to auto instead of RTL
But only want to change to auto if mission upload complete
RC failsafe and do-land start could start incomplete landing sequence at the moment
Could take some other action instead
Perhaps if next waypoint isn’t available we do something instead?
Could currently end up in a loop in Plane with the do-land-start stuff!
Copter could reject the auto mode change based on whether you are uploading a mission at the time
Mission extension in flight is something people do
Add flag to mission upload
Atomic mission uploads
Consume RAM
MdB: 512 item missions
Still only 8k of memory!
Non-atomic upload if you don’t have enough memory?
Would need extra mavlink messages
Being able to tell what mission is on the autopilot would be good, too!
Need to be able to fetch from the vehicle what it is actually flying
Current mission protocol wouldn’t allow you to atomically upload a mission while retrieving the old one
Transaction ids?
fighting over setting missions
E.g. CC and GCS
Should we start opening up our options based on running Linux?
10:55 AM] (Channel) So, Peter now we can have a look at the PR that extends the max wp per mission on linux boards ??
[10:55 AM] @Luis sounds like Tom would love to get that merged
[10:56 AM] @Peter, everyone that tries to create a circular survey on MP is immediately bitten by the max number of waypoints
[10:57 AM] @Luis: can we improve the circle mission item and get MP to use that?
[10:57 AM] I thought Copters really sucked control-wise with that sort of mission, too?
[10:58 AM] not likely @Peter, Also Don just released a vertical structure scan mission creation that also is unusable on ArduPilot, due to the large number of WP that it generates
We should use a flag in the short term and come back to this later
MIS_OPTIONS bit which says don’t allow entering of auto mode if we are part-way through an upload
Set the mission count?
Rally point counts are a nightmare -mdb
[interleaved discussion in mumble text]
TP: I’m just saying we have a nasty habit of working out the nitty gritty details in this call where sometimes it’s best to make overall decisions in this call, then have other more personal “off-line” discussions to figure out the fine details
[10:58 AM] @Tom: I like the details. I learn stuff.
[11:00 AM] TP: well, as long as we have 2 hour long marathon calls working out the low-level details then we won’t get any higher level people in the discussions from other companies. We waste too much time working on the fine details with 20+ people in a room just listening. I think we could get more people here and have more wider-variety of topics if we didn’t spend 30 minutes on given a topic that some people don’t care. They tune-out and leave
[11:01 AM] @Tom: you want something between our dev call and our partner calls?
[11:02 AM] @peter yes. the partner’s call is usually just us reporting a status. There’s a little bit of discussion but… yeah… a weekly thing with a mixed audience would be nice
