Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Low IR contrast ( https://github.com/paparazzi/paparazzi/issues#issue/17 )

[Felix Ruess]

We could do that as soon as we have a general state interface and not the interface of estimator anymore...

Cheers, Felix

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Chris Gough <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi, this is a theoretical question about IR.bogus (not something I
actually foresee needing).

If both IMU and IR hardware were present, would it be possible to
switch between IMU / IR stabilization based on IR.bogus? i.e. when the
horizon was visible, use IR to stabilize (otherwise fall back to IMU).
I think this would only make sense if the IMU was reset during
IR-stabilized flight (if that is even sensible). For example, a
high-vibration takeoff ("IMU.bogus=true"), followed some time later by
a cruse through heavy cloud (IR.bogus=true).

CG

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Paul Cox <address@hidden> wrote:
> All,
> In my git branch I have added code to the fixedwing firmware to detect
> low (vertical) IR contrast. Below a certain threshold
> (IR_CONTRAST_THRESHOLD_LOW), IR.bogus becomes TRUE and the autopilot uses
> fixed predefined commands (zero out controls and coast until out of the
> clouds). Once the contrast climbs back up to another threshold
> (IR_CONTRAST_THRESHOLD_HIGH), normal operation resumes.  Before this gets
> merged, my question to the group is what default contrast levels do you feel
> would be  appropriate based on your various experiences?
> for more info : https://github.com/paparazzi/paparazzi/issues#issue/17
> Paul

> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>



--
.

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel