FW position control add takeoff minimum pitch parameter

[dagar]

This is currently passed through via mavlink, but I don't think it makes sense to set per mission. This is a vehicle parameter.

• fixes New Parameter request: "minimum takeoff pitch" #6787

@Antiheavy

[Antiheavy]

Agree.

Once this goes in place, then QGC could hide the takeoff pitch value in the waypoint editor which is a big flight safety improvement. People fat figure the wrong pitch into that field and cause the vehicle to crash on launch -- i've done it a couple times and I've seen others do it too.

This also makes Takeoff mode actually useful for PX4 Fixed Wing since the pitch can be set appropriately for each vehicle, instead of some previously hard-coded value. Was it hard coded to 10 degrees previously for Takeoff mode? actually... is that being fixed here?

[Antiheavy]

original issue post here: #6787

[dagar]

Conflicts resolved and rebased on master.

[Antiheavy]

@dagar we can help with flight testing a branch that has this. FYI @Kjkinney

[Antiheavy]

we should make a scan for all launch mode features for both mission takeoff and QGC button takeoff behaviors. e.g. how does this fit in #9858 (comment)

[Antiheavy]

@philipoe @tstastny @ryanjAA @acfloria your input would be appreciated for this fixed wing related PR. original feature request here: #6787

[Antiheavy]

can we add this to the Fixed Wing project board?
https://github.com/PX4/Firmware/projects/22

[philipoe]

I totally agree that this needed to be changed/fixed. I did a quick review and found no issues with the code changes related to the pitch min parameter. However, there is also a lot of variable name changes mixed into this one commit that i thus did not review...

[dagar]

Rebased on master (and simplified).

[dagar]

Simpler version of this PR without the other FW position controller changes. #11373

[Antiheavy]

@dagar is this PR overcome by the newer #11845 ?

[stale]

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.

[Antiheavy]

Hmmmm. @dagar this is the version we’ve been flying for months. Works great.

[stale]

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

[hamishwillee]

@RomanBapst This still looks sensible. Any reason why it hasn't gone in?

[RomanBapst]

@hamishwillee Yes, looks sensible. I'll have to rebase it and merge.

[ryanjAA]

This will be good to have. No reason to really ever change takeoff pitch per mission unless testing something. I have enjoyed an accidental 35 degree full flap takeoff instead of a 25 deg test (that should be essentially impossible unless very deliberate) which this will help users not do.

[hamishwillee]

Thanks @RomanBapst - I hope soon :-0

[Antiheavy]

I have enjoyed an accidental 35 degree full flap takeoff instead of a 25 deg test (that should be essentially impossible unless very deliberate) which this will help users not do.

guess what happens when someone thinks they are typing in their takeoff altitude into the pitch field! yep, done it.... that is why we rolled in something nearly identical to this PR a year ago.

[hamishwillee]

Ping @RomanBapst - rebasing and merging reminder :-)

[stale]

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

[Antiheavy]

This (or something similar) should really go into to upstream. We’ve been running this PR for well over a year now. Many 1000’s of flights. As both I and @ryanjAA have pointed out there is a safety concern about the current requirement to type in a Takeoff pitch value into each mission. Are there know users this would negatively impact? @dagar @RomanBapst

[ryanjAA]

I agree. Takeoff pitch really should be set either as a parameter or harder to access mission setting since it shouldn’t be easily accessible to the point of accidentally changing it. I never change it unless it’s a test but I do like knowing I see it when planning a mission as it validates the planning is correct (although I don’t need to see cruise speed and that’s a parameter so it’s just getting used to it I suppose). This does make sense to have as parameter or possibly viewable in qgc mission planning so if there are negative reasons not known maybe we approach this from the qgc side and make it simply harder to change than a simple text box but one way or another too easy of access isn’t ideal.

[LorenzMeier]

Closing as stale.