-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.4k
Add new flight mode: Altitude Cruise #25435
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
fda36d6
to
a93676c
Compare
🔎 FLASH Analysispx4_fmu-v5x [Total VM Diff: 792 byte (0.04 %)]
px4_fmu-v6x [Total VM Diff: 792 byte (0.04 %)]
Updated: 2025-08-29T13:33:11 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"hockey puck mode" 😆
Coast or drift? |
Docs when you're done please. |
Both are valid options. What I don't like about them:
|
967982b
to
0d9a806
Compare
0d9a806
to
aa38cec
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice!
The only nit-picks I'd have are the name Voyager which I'd prefer Cruise, Drift, Coast, ... just because of intuitiveness but it's up for discussion. And I'll have to clean up the inheritance structure of the tasks but this pr is in line with the current architecture.
src/modules/flight_mode_manager/tasks/AltitudeVoyager/FlightTaskAltitudeVoyager.cpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Ouch CI is real. The deadzone for the stick library is currently a multicopter parameter. Short term we could make that part optional e.g. only calculate the deazone expo things if the parameter exists and longer term the deadzone is probably a more global thing that depends on the input and not on the multicopter use case. The expo of course is use case dependent. I haven't thought about that sorry. |
I like "cruise mode" and the mavlink spec says it should not be used for multicopters unless PRd to update. Should we just update the mavlink spec? I do think it's most suitable. Unless "cruise mode" as-is in the mavlink spec serves a slightly different purpose? |
0f540ea
to
b399a4a
Compare
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
…siveness Signed-off-by: Silvan <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
b399a4a
to
bb0fad6
Compare
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
Signed-off-by: Silvan Fuhrer <silvan@auterion.com>
be4bd4e
to
20c5890
Compare
/en/flight_modes_mc/manual_altitude_cruise.md
|
@MaEtUgR @dagar @dakejahl @bresch are you all good with calling it "Altitude Cruise"? The "Voyager" was a bit too abstract.
|
Altitude Cruise sounds good to me! |
Solved Problem
Solution
NAV_DLL_ACT
is strongly recommended for this case to avoid fly-aways)Changelog Entry
For release notes:
Alternatives
Test coverage
Partially flight tested (on MC, without manual control link loss)
Context
The original name proposed was "Cruise mode", but due to the conflict with the standard mode cruise was discarded. "Voyager" implies something similar: a mode that is meant for covering long distances in a manual mode but was deemed to abstract.
Thus the current proposal goes for "Altitude Cruise":
Todos: