<
address@hidden> wrote:
> I looked at the
>
https://github.com/tudelft-atmos/paparazzi/tree/quadshot/sw/airborne/firmwares/rotorcraft/stabilization
> branch and the changes look very solid. I think this is the way to go.
>
> Roman
>
>
> 2012/2/21 Bart Remes <
address@hidden>
>>
>> chris,
>>
>> look at the
https://github.com/tudelft-atmos/paparazzi/network
>>
>> they are making the quatshot autonomous.
>>
>> It will do basically the same as the vertigo but with
>> other controls organs.
>>
>> Bart Remes
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 17, 2012, Roman Krashanitsa wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris, it was not very much hovering but flying at 80-85 pitch. Moving
>>> very slowly.
>>> But then it can transition to essentially 7 deg pitch horizontal flight.
>>>
>>> Yes, it works totally fine in auto2.
>>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>> 2012/2/17 Chris Wozny <
address@hidden>
>>>>
>>>> Felix,
>>>>
>>>> I know in the past when we used IR sensors instead of an IMU, we just
>>>> mounted the IR sensors on this aircraft such that it thought it was
>>>> level when flying at high angles of attack. This is why I believe such
>>>> a pitch offset will allow the aircraft to fly horizontally with high
>>>> AoA's (especially since Roman has worked with essentially a prior
>>>> version of the same aircraft.) I understand what you're saying about
>>>> the mechanics being different when hovering vs. horizontal flight.
>>>> However, this aircraft will just fly around horizontally with a very
>>>> high AoA and is capable of hovering in AUTO1 (my memory is foggy about
>>>> it hovering in AUTO2.) I hope that my explanation is a little clearer
>>>> than mud :)
>>>>
>>>> - Chris
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Felix Ruess <
address@hidden>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Chris,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure what you expect by telling the aircraft it is horizontal
>>>> > while
>>>> > it actually is pitched up at 80deg. You can do that, but what exactly
>>>> > do you
>>>> > hope to achieve by that?
>>>> > The fixedwing firmware really won't work properly with that (without
>>>> > modifications that is), as the guidance/stabilization there assumes a
>>>> > CTOL
>>>> > without hover capability. Also stuff like roll basically becomes yaw
>>>> > when
>>>> > you suddenly hover, etc.
>>>> > If you have an aircraft capable of both, VTOL/hover and transition to
>>>> > normal
>>>> > flight, you probably want to base that on the rotorcraft firmware
>>>> > (just like
>>>> > the quadshot, but which is arguably much more like a quadrotor in
>>>> > hover) or
>>>> > maybe even make a new firmware taking from the others what you need...
>>>> > What we call a firmware is "just" a main.c with a collection of
>>>> > appropriate
>>>> > peripherals and subsystems listed in a bunch of makefiles.
>>>> > Ok, maybe that is a bit simplified, but basically that's it ;-)
>>>> >
>>>> > Regarding the singularities (of the euler angle representations):
>>>> > Even if your estimation does not have any (e.g. ahrs int_cmpl_quat),
>>>> > if the
>>>> > control is using euler angles, you can of course still run into
>>>> > singularities there... basically anything that takes euler angles as
>>>> > inputs
>>>> > is potentially prone to problems around the singularities.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers, Felix
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Roman Krashanitsa
>>>> > <
address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Chris,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Most possibly, yes. Also this is easy to check - just make
>>>> >> modifications
>>>> >> and look at the telemetry values, it should show 0 deg pitch at
>>>> >> aircraft
>>>> >> hovering orientation.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Roman
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 2012/2/17 Chris Wozny <
address@hidden>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> All,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> If I have a fixed-wing aircraft capable of hovering at high angle of
>>>> >>> attack (80-90 degrees), would it be possible for me to just change
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> BODY_TO_IMU rotation for theta to that angle of attack so that it
>>>> >>> could
>>>> >>> hover at that angle? I'm sure I'd have to adjust some PID gains for
>>>> >>> it to
>>>> >>> function properly. Also, if this is possible, would I have to worry
>>>> >>> about
>>>> >>> singularities at that angle even though I'm using complementary
>>>> >>> quaternions
>>>> >>> on the dev branch?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Best,
>>>> >>> Chris
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>>> >>>
address@hidden
>>>> >>>
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel