AP_Motors: add support for tricopter tailsitter in AP_MotorsMatrix #15447
Conversation
|
I think the issue here is reusing |
|
Doesn't AP_TAILSIT_MOTMX serve to differentiate between the two? It's only supposed to be non-zero for "copter" tailsitters. As far as I know, the only person affected by this breakage is me, and that only for some RF8 sitl models, so I think we're free to rework this in whatever way is best. |
|
A tricopter frame type with a zero AP_TAILSIT_MOTMX is just a tricopter quad-plane, not a tailsitter. The mask stuff should just work for for forward flight with tricopters, that's how tiltrottors also work (with the tilt motor mask param instead). I think its better to use MotorsMatix, you have zero yaw torque, the only thing I can think should be the yaw head room stuff, we could just change the param if one of the no yaw frame class is selected. |
| @@ -491,7 +491,15 @@ void AP_MotorsMatrix::setup_motors(motor_frame_class frame_class, motor_frame_ty | |||
|
|
|||
| switch (frame_class) { | |||
|
|
|||
| case MOTOR_FRAME_QUAD: | |||
| case MOTOR_FRAME_TRI: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think, combine indentation with other CASE
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure what you mean
|
I think TRICOPTER is the subclass of choice here. |
|
@muramura AP_Motors_Tri assumes you have a yaw servo for tilting the rear motor, and a tri-motor "copter tailsitter" doesn't have one, so MotorsMatrix is a better fit. The copter tailsitter code uses control surfaces to achieve yaw control and the Motors subclass only controls roll and pitch. |
|
@kd0aij san. I understand. Thanks for your comment. |
|
we can now do this via scripting, #15708 |
No description provided.