Skip to content

Plane: added fast attitude recovery for inverted flight in Q modes - rebased #29480

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

Conversation

priseborough
Copy link
Contributor

Refer to #28320 for discussion and review comments.

lthall and others added 4 commits March 10, 2025 13:57
ensures we can recover from inverted flight quickly
when we start the VTOL motor stabilisation with an attitude beyond
normal attitude limits we will reset the thrust angle target to give
faster recovery
@IamPete1
Copy link
Member

If I recall correctly I think we were happy with this as a implementation of one approach but we were not sure of the best approach. This still takes the shortest path to level, we may want to do some alternate path such as to prefer rolling to try and minimize aero loads. This also effectively bypasses the accel limits causing a "maximum effort" recovery, the point is that its faster, but it might also be so fast as to break the vehicle.

I guess really we can rank methods as a trade off between aggressiveness and speed.

Slowest and least aggressive.

  • accel limited and aerodynamically aware

  • accel limited shortest path (this is what we have now)

  • maximum effort aerodynamically aware

  • maximum effort shortest path (this is what is in this PR)

Fastest and most aggressive.

Which one is best depends on the vehicle and the situation.

@tridge
Copy link
Contributor

tridge commented Mar 11, 2025

@priseborough @IamPete1 I've opened a different PR with a quite different approach which is simpler and produces very good results in SITL testing: #29498

@tridge
Copy link
Contributor

tridge commented Mar 12, 2025

@priseborough the test shows height loss of over 17m on recovery with this PR. It shows zero height loss with #29498

@priseborough
Copy link
Contributor Author

I prefer the #29498 approach

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants