Add support for docking clamps, including automated Copter release #27343
Conversation
peterbarker
force-pushed
the
pr/clamp-release
branch
4 times, most recently
from
b03b09e to
b1d20bf
Compare
|
Is the option bit really needed? |
| @@ -142,6 +143,9 @@ void SRV_Channel::aux_servo_function_setup(void) | |||
| case k_egg_drop: | |||
| set_range(100); | |||
| break; | |||
| #if AP_TIE_DOWN_CLAMPS_ENABLED | |||
| case k_tie_down_release: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my preference for new options would be to set the range to 1.0, its a float now so the value doesn't matter. Eventually I would like to move everything to 0 -> 1 or -1 -> 1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you could also call set_range from landing gear of course, that would remove the need this change.
|
This does feel like it might be more of a scripting feature. We do have |
|
I agree with @IamPete1, it's so simple that it seems like it could be handled in scripting. I suspect the reason that scripting isn't being used because scripts are a bit more difficult to deploy. If that's the reason then perhaps we should investigate how we could make deploying scripts easier. |
was grabbing vehicle out of mid-air, which is interestin
peterbarker
force-pushed
the
pr/clamp-release
branch
from
b1d20bf to
0bd4d55
Compare
peterbarker
force-pushed
the
pr/clamp-release
branch
from
0bd4d55 to
2d93ee4
Compare
Added metadata. |
| @@ -1000,7 +1000,7 @@ const AP_Param::GroupInfo ParametersG2::var_info[] = { | |||
| // @Param: FLIGHT_OPTIONS | |||
| // @DisplayName: Flight mode options | |||
| // @Description: Flight mode specific options | |||
| // @Bitmask: 0:Disable thrust loss check, 1:Disable yaw imbalance warning, 2:Release gripper on thrust loss, 3:Require position for arming | |||
| // @Bitmask: 0:Disable thrust loss check, 1:Disable yaw imbalance warning, 2:Release gripper on thrust loss, 3:Require position for arming, 4:Enable automated docking clamp release | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could simplify this by removing the FLIGHT_OPTIONS bit and just enable the feature if the user defines the SERVOx_FUNCTION.
| @@ -54,6 +54,11 @@ void Mode::_TakeOff::start(float alt_cm) | |||
| _running = true; | |||
| take_off_start_alt = copter.pos_control->get_pos_target_z_cm(); | |||
| take_off_complete_alt = take_off_start_alt + alt_cm; | |||
| #if AP_TIE_DOWN_CLAMPS_ENABLED | |||
| if (copter.option_is_enabled(Copter::FlightOption::TAKEOFF_TIEDOWN_RELEASE)) { | |||
| copter.landinggear.tie_down_release(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about moving this outside of landing gear. While the tie-down is perhaps physically on the landing gear I'm not sure it's too related is it?
| @@ -1283,6 +1289,26 @@ bool RC_Channel::run_aux_function(AUX_FUNC ch_option, AuxSwitchPos pos, AuxFuncT | |||
| return ret; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #if AP_TIE_DOWN_CLAMPS_ENABLED | |||
| void RC_Channel::do_aux_function_TIE_DOWN_RELEASE(const AuxSwitchPos ch_flag) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you feel about putting "TIE_DOWN_RELEASE" in lower case? It's a little shouty :-)
|
Re lua vs C++, I apparently said C++ was fine at some point (I have no memory) and so if it's OK with @IamPete1 and others, I think it's only fair that we allow it to be added to the c++. I suspect that the flash cost is low and if we did it as a script, I can imagine that adding access to the state takeoff state machine could require as much flash as the C++ equivalent. |
This work sponsored by FreeSpace.