Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PX4 MAV_CMD_NAV_LOITER_TO_ALT and cleanup #3730

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 12, 2016

Conversation

dagar
Copy link
Member

@dagar dagar commented Jul 5, 2016

No description provided.

"decimalPlaces": 0
},
"param4": {
"label": "Next waypoint start:",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A bit concerned about such a long label fitting on all form factors. I'm going to have to merge and try on a phone to see.

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 7, 2016

This is about my third try at naming this field.

Forward moving aircraft this sets exit xtrack location: 0 for center of loiter wp, 1 for exit location

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Oh, it's that one! I messed around with it for a while and decided to give up until 3.1 :)

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Do you know how to get PX4 SITL to be fixed wing?

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 7, 2016

You have to use master.

make posix_sitl_default gazebo_plane

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 7, 2016

I responded without thinking. This hasn't been merged in PX4 yet.
PX4/PX4-Autopilot#4992

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

No problem. I just want to test the ui layout.

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Isn't this for any fixed wing? Seems like it should be on both PX4 and APM. Also isn't there more than one message affected: mavlink/mavlink#531 (comment)

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 8, 2016

Yes, I suppose I should do that. Not sure about the heading hold.

Could we structure the metadata like this? I think this makes sense with PX4 only using the common mavlink messages.

  • Common
    • Fixedwing (PX4)
      • APM_FixedWing
    • Multicopter (PX4)
      • APM_Multicopter

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

DonLakeFlyer commented Jul 8, 2016

The structure should be:

  • Common
    • Fixed Wing Common (missing in 3.0)
      • PX4
      • APM
    • Multi-Rotor Common (missing in 3.0)
      • PX4
      • APM

It's not about where the command comes from. That doesn't really matter. It's about whether the command works differently and hence needs different ui given vehicle type and/or firmware type.

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 8, 2016

Ok, I figured PX4 and common would be close enough that they could just be the same. Maybe not.

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Common is mavlink generic so it has to have all the fields defined that are available in the mavlink spec. But both PX4 and ArduPilot have many cases where they have not implemented the full set of fields. Because of that you can't use PX4 as Common since it is not to mavlink spec in various places.

@DonLakeFlyer DonLakeFlyer added this to the Release V3.1 milestone Jul 8, 2016
@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Moving this to 3.1

@dagar dagar force-pushed the px4_loiter_to_alt branch from fd9a5a3 to e42c6f1 Compare July 8, 2016 21:13
@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 8, 2016

I've synced up PX4 and APM fixed wing.
Is "Next waypoint start" an acceptable name?

@dagar dagar force-pushed the px4_loiter_to_alt branch from e42c6f1 to 867a0c4 Compare July 9, 2016 16:27
@dagar dagar force-pushed the px4_loiter_to_alt branch from 867a0c4 to b334b28 Compare July 10, 2016 21:36
@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Jul 12, 2016

Merge now or wait for the better hierarchy?

@DonLakeFlyer
Copy link
Contributor

Good for now

@DonLakeFlyer DonLakeFlyer merged commit b1fd918 into mavlink:master Jul 12, 2016
@dagar dagar deleted the px4_loiter_to_alt branch July 12, 2016 17:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants