Skip to content
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

EKF2: add usage to new exposed covariance #11092

Closed
wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

TSC21
Copy link
Member

@TSC21 TSC21 commented Dec 23, 2018

Brings PX4/PX4-ECL#543 in, by getting use of the new covariances interface methods.

Tested with SITL.
test_odometry_new_covariance_methods

@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Dec 23, 2018

FMU-v2... annoying us again.

@TSC21 TSC21 changed the title Pr update ecl get covariance EKF2: add usage to new exposed covariance Dec 23, 2018
@TSC21 TSC21 force-pushed the pr-update_ecl_get_covariance branch from 6751313 to fd0cd1b Compare December 24, 2018 15:46
@CarlOlsson
Copy link
Contributor

I tested this in SITL using

make px4_sitl gazebo HEADLESS=1

and the estimator_status covariance fields were not updating (only the first element)

PR
image

master
image

Do you know why?

@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Jan 7, 2019

I have not checked estimator_status, only odometry. I can take a look.

@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Jan 7, 2019

@CarlOlsson I think I have fixed it in 9c92002. Cn you have a try?

@CarlOlsson
Copy link
Contributor

yes now it seems to work (Y)

@TSC21 TSC21 force-pushed the pr-update_ecl_get_covariance branch from 9c92002 to 43e0d84 Compare January 7, 2019 22:38
@TSC21 TSC21 force-pushed the pr-update_ecl_get_covariance branch 4 times, most recently from 29fa407 to 8670668 Compare February 2, 2019 00:31
@TSC21 TSC21 closed this Feb 2, 2019
@TSC21 TSC21 reopened this Feb 2, 2019
@TSC21 TSC21 force-pushed the pr-update_ecl_get_covariance branch from 8670668 to 7f3c1a3 Compare February 14, 2019 10:38
@TSC21 TSC21 force-pushed the pr-update_ecl_get_covariance branch from 1f625bd to 5116d08 Compare April 29, 2019 22:01
@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Apr 29, 2019

@Tony3dr can I have a test from you here? Thanks!

@Tony3dr
Copy link

Tony3dr commented Apr 29, 2019

@Tony3dr can I have a test from you here? Thanks!
@TSC21 absolutely, we will run some test tomorrow.

@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Apr 29, 2019

@Tony3dr can I have a test from you here? Thanks!

@TSC21 absolutely, we will run some test tomorrow.

Thanks Anthony!

@dannyfpv
Copy link

dannyfpv commented Apr 30, 2019

Tested on Pixhawk 4 v5 Indoor flight test

Modes Tested

Takeoff: Good
Stabilized Mode: Good.

Flight Test:
Arm and Take off in the stabilized mode= no issues
Throttle Test = no issues
Pitch, Roll, Yaw, Land = no issues

Notes:

Took off in stabilized mode for approximately 1:30, No issues noted good flight in general. The vehicle behaved as expected.

Flight log:

https://review.px4.io/plot_app?log=c223569f-87b1-44d2-8ed9-c9330d32e6f6

@jorge789
Copy link

jorge789 commented Apr 30, 2019

Indoor flight test on Pixhawk Cube V3:

Modes Tested

Takeoff: Good
Stabilized Mode: Good.

Flight Test:
Arm and Take off in the stabilized mode ✓
Throttle Test ✓
Pitch, Roll, Yaw ✓
Land ✓

Notes:

Took off in stabilized mode for approximately 1:30, No issues noted good flight in general. The vehicle behaved as expected.

Flight log:

https://review.px4.io/plot_app?log=72b97f22-3429-4397-afbd-42f140d112e4

Indoor flight test on PixRacer V4:

Modes Tested

Takeoff: Good
Stabilized Mode: Good.

Flight Test:
Arm and Take off in the stabilized mode ✓
Throttle Test ✓
Pitch, Roll, Yaw ✓
Land ✓

Notes:

Took off in stabilized mode for approximately 1:30, No issues noted good flight in general. The vehicle behaved as expected.

Flight log:

https://review.px4.io/plot_app?log=77956a27-beea-4b5e-8ced-b03dcf831dfa

@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Apr 30, 2019

@jorge789 thanks for the flight testing! @dagar still hiting low stack. We need to rethink the approach.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 29, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Jul 30, 2019

Still relevant and needing the required changes so to run online without blowing the stack. @dagar any suggestions would help.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 13, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jan 13, 2020
@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Jan 13, 2020

Not stale. Needs to be revisited.

@jkflying @kamilritz

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Jan 13, 2020
@TSC21
Copy link
Member Author

TSC21 commented Jan 21, 2020

I suppose this will be handled later. I am closing for now, as the current solution is not applicable anymore.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants