-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
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
Landing gear improvement #10842
Landing gear improvement #10842
Conversation
I recall having discussed that and I think that is necessary. |
Sure, this is just a first step of detaching the landing gear out of the attitude setpoint because it really has nothing to do with the attitude and its controller. These changes were necessary to solve our nasty dependency issues because of product customization that lead to a severe maintenance effort to keep up to date with PX4 and that's why we wanted to contribute. Any further work in this direction is appreciated. The only obstacle I see with removing it from the control group is messing with the IO which usually takes more time but that should not hinder us after all. |
a337ddf
to
7f74019
Compare
I rebased because there were conflicts in the position controller because of my own pr #10831 |
- An new message is created just for the landing gear - The old logic is repalaced by publishing this new topic
- It takes the input from the constrains from the active flight task
- Addressing review comments
- landing_gear: refactor state name - Add the keep state to the landing gear message - Adapt FlightTaskManual, FlightTaskAutoMapper, mc_pos_control, to review message definition
- Handled in the flight task
- Use the values from landing_gear.msg
7f74019
to
6128744
Compare
Rebased without conflicts, any reason this is waiting? |
No, good to go. |
Test data / coverage
SITL/HITL and field tested ~20 flights in H520 Firmware before cherry-picking.
Describe problem solved by the proposed pull request
Controlling the landing gear is tied to the attitude setpoint message which is just misusing an existing message that lead to a lot of problems when implementing landing gear behaviour according to product requirements.
Describe your preferred solution
We took the time to solve these problems and make it more flexible and want to contribute this architecture.
Additional context
There were conflicts with #10805. (FYI @bkueng)
State: I'm still porting commits.