-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
Add control handoff messages for multiple GCS #1954
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand how this works. It is emitted by an autopilot or autopilot payload to say what component or system it is being controlled by right?
So CURRENT_CONTROL_ENTITY_NONE makes sense "i'm not being controlled", but this is nonsensical:
Why? Because the message is received by everything on the network, so if there are multiple GCS they will all think they are the control entity right?
For this I would just emit a mavlink address. Perhaps future proof by making it a uint16_t.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ditto for field below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This message is not intended to be broadcasted to all GCS at the same time. As you correctly pointed out, that would not work with the enum entity. On the other hand i wanted to avoid using the system Id, as in the RAS-A protocol, they want to get rid of the system Id and replace it with the underlying transport protocol address (IP address/port in most cases). So we would need to send this message targeted for each GCS independently stating that they are in control or someone else. AS i don't expect a hugh amount of simultaneous connections, it should be feasible to send such targeted Messages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand the point, but this will not work with MAVLink as it actually is. To be in common messages need to be standard - possible for anyone to take and use with the MAVLink 2 protocol. That is not the case, so I can't really engage on this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What I think you are saying is that a system that wants to send the message would not broadcast it. Instead it would send it to a specific recipient (say GCS A) using whatever mechanism is used for addressing (now system ID, but on RAS-A maybe some other address) and that system would get the enum value that was relevant - i.e. "you are the controller" or "something else is the controller". Is that right?
So this would be sent round robin to all GCS or other things that might want control?
The normal way in mavlink to do this would be to broadcast the the ID of the owning item.