Configuring a flying vehicle that doesn't fit multicopter nor fixed wing

My team is currently designing an unorthodox flying vehicle that actually does not fit the configuration of multicopters nor fixed wing.
The system basically resembles a pendulum; a rope would dangle by a moving point, where our vehicle would be attatched at the end of the rope. The vehicle will be able to provide thrust by using an integrated propulsion system.
In a sense, we are not entirely sure that the attitude and position controller provided by Pixhawk4 would fulfill our needs of regulating the system. Therefore, we plan to design a new control system so that our whole integrated system performs well.
I can imagine that designing the control system with the sophisticated software architecture would be a nuisance. We have taken a look at the documentation, and even at the C++ control system codes themselves (e.g. mc_postition_control.cpp), it just seems to us that getting to know the parameters and software architecture is already hard enough.
My question is: would Pixhawk 4 comply to this situation, or it’s rather better to build my own flight controller? I know this question seems weird to be asked in the Pixhawk 4 forum, but we hope that we’d get an insight from other people that might have encountered similar problems in the past. We are aware of the state of the art design of the Pixhawk 4, but we feel that there’s a certain flexibility that it doesn’t provide.

1 Like