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

SITL multi-vehicle mission issue #9046

Closed
lamping7 opened this issue Mar 8, 2018 · 14 comments
Closed

SITL multi-vehicle mission issue #9046

lamping7 opened this issue Mar 8, 2018 · 14 comments
Assignees
Labels
Sim: SITL software in the loop simulation stale

Comments

@lamping7
Copy link
Member

lamping7 commented Mar 8, 2018

untitled

uav1: sys ID 10 | QGC on 14497 | mavros on 14493 | SITL_UDP_PRT 14490
uav2: sys ID 20 | QGC on 14597 | mavros on 14593 | SITL_UDP_PRT 14590

This is with slightly different model configs and different launch parameters than the iris with the provided multi_uav launch provided by PX4 to make the port values more clear. The above ports are shown to be true, from px4 at startup:

INFO  [mavlink] mode: Normal, data rate: 4000000 B/s on udp port 14591 remote port 14597
INFO  [mavlink] mode: Onboard, data rate: 4000000 B/s on udp port 14592 remote port 14593
...
INFO  [mavlink] mode: Normal, data rate: 4000000 B/s on udp port 14491 remote port 14497
INFO  [mavlink] mode: Onboard, data rate: 4000000 B/s on udp port 14492 remote port 14493

As QGC and MAVROS are interfaces to the same thing, the issue applies to both. This is in a ROS-based simulation.

This is interesting because the whole mission isn't getting set to that of the other vehicle. Rather, waypoint details are being over written. See the photo: uav2 only had 3 wps, so after uav1 hit uav2's 3rd wp, it went back to its own 4th wp

I tied with various version combinations of mavlink, mavros, sitl_gazebo, and px4. I didn't find a combination that performed as expected.

@lamping7 lamping7 added the Sim: SITL software in the loop simulation label Mar 8, 2018
@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

lamping7 commented Mar 8, 2018

It was proposed that dataman and rootfs be looked into. @dagar

@dagar
Copy link
Member

dagar commented Mar 9, 2018

I likely won't get to this for a few days, but we need a unique location for each instance's working directory ("rootfs").

@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

There's quite a bit of history on this and related topics. #5181 #5255 #5162

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jan 26, 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.

@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

lamping7 commented Feb 1, 2019

I think this is still an issue.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 15, 2019

Closing as stale.

@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

@dagar Do we consider a change like this to address the problem? lamping7/Firmware@15325ff

@dagar
Copy link
Member

dagar commented Jul 11, 2019

That seems fine for now. Personally what I'd want to do is take a step back and figure out the full picture, then implement it cleanly top to bottom.

PX4 Linux (include SITL, raspberry pi, ocpoc, ROS 1&2 (catkin), multi vehicle sim, etc)

  • where should px4 actually install? both local and system wide (packaging)
  • where do the supporting install files go (airframes, mixers, etc)
  • where does configuration and logging live?
    • this is the part that enables handling multi-sim cleanly
  • bonus: process management (systemd)
    • packages for deploying to linux boards
    • Basis of package for PX4 simulation that could actually be quite important going forward. Thinking of Mavlink SDK developers or general end users. (@JonasVautherin)

@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

Agreed... All good questions for discussion. This is a quick and dirty solution, based off #9088. I'd rather not add the launch files you see that there in the commit link above. No need to add more to maintain. A doc showing that should suffice.

@julianoes
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for following up @lamping7. I've read this issue the first time and I have to say it's one of the funnier ones 😄.

@JoachimVeulemans
Copy link

I was having the same issue as #12444. I've created a Dockerfile, for quick and easy testing, where all the needed software is already installed. I thought that it might come in handy when someone wants to quickly test a solution for the presented problem described here.

The Dockerfile is available at PXLRoboticsLab/PX4_SITL_Docker. Feel free to create an issue when there is a bug or improvement needed.

@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

A fix is in the pr #12482

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Oct 15, 2019

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 Oct 15, 2019
@lamping7
Copy link
Member Author

Closed via #12482

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Sim: SITL software in the loop simulation stale
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants