basic config: add actuators page (replacing motors)

[bkueng]

Initial docs for dynamic control allocation, containing tips and conventions on how to use the new UI (mavlink/qgroundcontrol#9952).

• I'll probably add a direct link from QGC to this page (will need a metadata extension)
• We could add airframe-type specific sections, if there's more specific things to be explained
• Adding more screenshots for different types might be useful, but I did not want to add too many already as they're still in flux

[hamishwillee]

Should we perhaps have at least some of this stuff first as safety warnings before the guidance? e.g. kill switch, safety button, and perhaps removing props?

[bkueng]

Yes we could. Although the switch in the UI already says it.

[hamishwillee]

@bkueng Good start. Some questions in line which will help me nitpick a bit more.

1. Given this is not the default I suggest "for now" we keep both this and the motors page (rather than replacing). On the motors page add a note that this is being superseded - with link.
2. There are questions inline about what airframe selection actually configures. I tried to test but my VM is screwed. Reinstalling.
3. Yes, this will need more images for other airframes, but as you say, might be too early.
4. A video would be great, but could wait too.
5. Might be too early, but are there any other sections in config that will need to change because of this. Specifically I am thinking things like RC / actuator passthrough setup and in http://docs.px4.io/master/en/config/radio.html#additional-radio-setup

My main concern is that it isn't quite clear how much of this you have to do for what airframe. It's a bit like the tuning stuff - we used to say you can just fly a matching airframe without "having" to do this. Now it sounds like we might be having fewer airframes and we expect people to do this.

[bkueng]

My main concern is that it isn't quite clear how much of this you have to do for what airframe. It's a bit like the tuning stuff - we used to say you can just fly a matching airframe without "having" to do this. Now it sounds like we might be having fewer airframes and we expect people to do this.

Assigning the outputs will be the main (and only) change for the user, if it's not an exotic one. I still forsee that we have generic airframes for different MC types (i.e. quad, hexa, coax, ...), where the geometry is preconfigured appropriately.

[hamishwillee]

How do we do this? On this screen we can configure max/min value for some servos but not for motors.

[bkueng]

We can mention that this is mostly relevant when PWM is used. For DShot it's not required.

[hamishwillee]

I can add that, but can you confirm that, for PWM, this is something you have to do outside of this screen/configuration? i wonder if we should provide PWM range setting controls for motors using PWM?

[bkueng]

No, min/max will show up if you have PWM selected (as in the screenshot), and only be hidden if DShot is selected.

[hamishwillee]

@bkueng Note, I have updated this section from reversible to bidirectional motors. Why? Because we were also using reversible to mean a motor that can configure to go in either direction (but not switch while in use)

Do you think perhaps we could also change QGC to use the term "bidirectional"?

[hamishwillee]

@bkueng Did you see this? Are you otherwise good for this to merge?

[bkueng]

Yes bidirectional is fine.

• instead of 'required', can you use something like 'you have the option to...'? Even for rovers you don't need it, if you don't care about only going forwards.
• the option will only be displayed if relevant for the frame type -> you always have the option under 'advanced'

[hamishwillee]

Yes bidirectional is fine.

It would be even better if you changed it in QGC :-).

I've added as (accepted) suggestions below. Note that when I pressed advanced checkbox in Sim last time I did not see the reversible option, which is why I assumed this is a feature of the airframe. Nevertheless I'll assume the sim is incorrect, not the intent.

[bkueng]

Already in the pipeline: PX4/PX4-Autopilot@d23b5fd :-)
Hmm did you check on the geometry side?

[hamishwillee]

This is simulated iris from 23 December, with advanced checked.

[hamishwillee]

Fixed in todays build:

So we can forget this

[hamishwillee]

There are some comments above, but I think this is probably OK to go in now. We can update again when FW and VTOL are fully supported or when control allocation is fully enabled.

Let me know if you want me to merge or not.

[hamishwillee]

@bkueng This is good initial docs for now. Thanks. Merging.