Are we trying to implement a general solution for a specific problem? What exactly caused “it didn’t”, and what was the unusual flying location?
I don’t know if you’ve seen my post about a crash I had when my plane did an RTL after it had landed (caused by the geofence being too close to the runway). Geofence breach RTL after landing = crash
I’m not trying to change the subject, just thinking that the whole auto land design maybe needs some thought end-to-end, including input from @iampete and @WickedShell and others, rather than just patching individual issues with possible unintended consequences.
I could live with that. Then it’s a user choice one way or the other to set it up or leave it. It will need a wiki update. I should learn how to do that just to help out…
Are you sure? How about this? You are landing a quad on a ship … an unexpected large wave buffets the vessel just as you are about to touchdown with the quad. You abort the landing - but you still want to land - so - go around? (start again)?
So does this mean we need to get QGroundControl changed? If it’s data driven I guess it might work, but right now there is no option in QGC to set RTL_AUTOLAND to -1
Admittedly I’m not a regular user of QGC. I mostly only use it from my iPad in the field with a few vehicles. But I think you can use the “advanced settings” in a parameter to override the basic choices.
Oh I see you can do that - you have to select “Advanced Settings” and then “Manual Entry” - so this means that for the wizard generated drag and drop landing in QGC, it will always throw this error on arming and the user will have to figure out that they need to manually override this value.
It kind of defeats the “user friendly” idea of having the landing setup wizard no?
I use QGC whenever I can, mostly because I got rid of my last Windows machine more than 10 years ago, I only have Macs, one in the office, one for the field.
Are the docs generated from Parameters.cpp? If so can I suggest you use the text I have put above, including the rally point , I think (maybe), it’s clearer than just “OnlyForGoAround”. I added a screen shot to show why it’s important.