add definition for max collective/throttle for helicopters that compensates for negative collective pitch range
and sets proper collective overhead before alt_hold angle limiter becomes effective
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
See discussion here:
https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/issues/7331
we were getting some uninitialised variables. While it only showed up in
AP_SbusOut, it means we can't be sure it won't happen on other objects,
so safest to remove the approach
Thanks to assistance from Lucas, Peter and Francisco
this tries harder to get a good IMU sample for the initial attitude
estimate. I have seen cases of bad IMU data on startup and this makes it
much less likely
termios2 not available on cygwin. This needs a re-think for cygwin. For now let's just hide it by letting it be declared empty by the virtual and totally bypass it in the cygwin build.
AFAIK there is still a bug in ArduPilot where subparams should not start at index 0. This is due to the way the index math and bit shifing works as it incorrectly offsets all 0 index params to 0. We allow 2 levels of sub params - 3 levels in total. So params, sub params and sub sub params. The 0 parameter in all those is unfortunately always references param[0]. So param[0] and subparam[0] and subsubparam[0] will reference the same parameter value. Its why we always say start the index from 1 as the math and bitshifting then works correctly.
Yeah this is worded badly - hard to explain.
This could occur if the spline origin and destination were the same location
In these cases we mark the vehicle as having reached the destination avoid all calculations
For AC3.5 and higher version, serial uartA-USBconsole cannot work. Maybe the code before "setup" has been changed. Ensure that the uartA can be initialized
The Vector2l methods completely duplicate the code of the Vector2f
methods, but aren't used anywhere. They are therefore subject to bitrot
and aren't adding any value. (Also shrinks the build by 8 bytes for some
reason, given that it's unused code I expected to see no difference in
binary size).
Navio2 exports its leds via /sys/class/leds interface. We reuse it in
order not to conflict with GPIO_Sysfs. Otherwise we'd get a Device Busy
error in GPIO_Sysfs::_export_pin().
Removes compile-time selection of RCInput driver for ocpoc_zynq.
PPM and SBUS input are now colocated on the ocpoc board, and it
only needs to run RCInput_ZYNQ. Pulse input is also inverted
to accommodate SBUS input, which has no effect on PPM input.
The check for UART port pointer is not sufficient
to know if the update() was possible or not. When
MarvelmindHedge construction failed, the hedge pointer
might be a nullptr and there are no checks to avoid
nullptr dereference.
The MarvelmindHedge structure had complex initialization
but was done in a C style, with intermixed initialization functions.
malloc() was changed to cleaner new operator. Given that the
file already contained new operator calls it didn't make
sense to have a mix. The files are cpp so C++ operators
are used.
Everybody defines the macro (or should be defining). Let smaller users
that don't have a filesystem to rather protect it with HAL_OS_POSIX_IO,
which also allow them to save more flash space.
/var/lib/<project> is more in line to where projects save their data.
Also, remove APM from dir name as it should had been done some time
ago.
This is only the default (and recommended for any new board). Existing
boards that want to adopt the default can remove their defines.
this logs critical messages while disarmed if we have logged any
messages while armed. This fixes issue #7010 where log files show the
incorrect mode if the log includes any portions where the user
disarmed. It makes analysing users logs very difficult. It also
affects parameters, so we don't always know the true parameter values
in logs from users.
fixes after peer review:
renamed disable to relaxed
make parameters private
default type to 1
enabled method checks backend created
servo range initialised in init method
contrain rate-desired during position control
use set-output-limit instead of set-safety-limit
release_length accepts rate
this fix ensures the output throttle is never in the opposite direction from the desired-speed
there is a possibility that this could lead to rougher throttle response when the vehicle is transitioning from forward to backwards motion because the throttle response will immediately go to zero when the desired speed cross over zero
we could call init on two devices with the same name, which caused
init_ok to be false. This could cause the SMBus battery to fail to
initialise
Thanks to Michael duBreuil for finding this!
On kernels 4.7+ duty_cycle should always be less than period.
Otherways, we'll get a EINVAL.
It makes sense to set duty_cycle to 0, as
duty_cycle doesn't really make sense without a proper period.
A proper way to handle these errors might be to call pwm_adjust_config
in every pwmchip backend but it's unrealistic to hope that all vendors
will do it quickly.
thanks to bnsgeyer for noicing this in issue #6977
this will break existing dual-heli setups, but there are so few people
flying them so far that I think it is a worthwhile change
Peter Barker
Dr.-Ing. Amilcar Do Carmo Lucas
Hiroshi Takey (hiro2233)
Randy Mackay
Matt
dheideman
Andrew Tridgell
mirkix
Pierre Kancir
Pierre Kancir
khancyr
Mark Whitehorn
ChristopherOlson
priseborough
Michael Oborne
Guglie
Tom Pittenger
Patrick José Pereira
Grant Morphett
Leonard Hall
Jacob Walser
HeBin
Chinese66
Michael du Breuil
Guy Tzoler
Samuel Tabor
Georgii Staroselskii
DOMINATOR\Eugene
André Kjellstrup
Daniel Widmann
bnsgeyer
proficnc
alexshirley
Paulo Neves
Lucas De Marchi
Lucas De Marchi
John deVere
Florent Martel
Georgii Staroselskii
Alexey Bulatov
Tom Pittenger