Yes. It did take awhile to get landing how we wanted to. We actually ended up using the PX4 codebase because we were able to get the crow setup written and implemented for us back in 2014 and it wasnāt available on other flight stacks. Retracts are more of an issue of where you implement them into your airframe than power to utilize them. Our record to date is cruising below 100 watts although that was a tailored test. Still yes, all this necessary for really long electric endurance without the use of hydrogen, solar, etc.
There is some code about quasi-adaptive lidar in a sense but not exactly as you describe. Mainly because the drivers for each lidar are set to a specific range and some of the lidar models can be set to output a range outside of the drivers expected range if pricing invalid data so it is not taken into account in the terrain estimator. I find that terrain estimation, albeit in my view is a bit overly complex, is not the main issue. Itās the process in which the flare is executed. Knowing the true distance to the ground is relatively consistent. We do have teo regularly used test sites that have a tree line before the landing strip in one direction and that does cause a spike in lidar altitude one clearing it but the offset is never too bad. It records quickly enough. It could definitely be improved from a codebase side but again, I see the implementation of flare as the predominant issue.
The planeās distance to the ground and an increases reaction to changes required is partially what weāve been taking about in regards to increased or exagerated PID settings for the landing portion of the flight because the system needs more authority right ten. .
@almaaro a things about this. I would say the average lidar range for the a user is 40m with an effective range around 30m. 10m isnāt realistic for a fixed wing plane and the cost has rapidly decreased for 40m units. There is no point is trying to make something work when it should be done correctly with different hardware that suits the task which is what you are saying. I just mean I donāt imagine a safe and reliable scenario where you try and rely on any autonomous landing using just a lidar with a max range of 10m and effective range of 3-6m. We shouldnāt be trying to cater to that since thatās not what people should be using if they want reliable and accurate landings. Longer range units are simply more practical and safe. Splitting this into two use scenarios where you have a split group and also cater to short-range range detection units is fine but that will more and more become a minority since things like sonar suffer from so many other issues.
The iterative process is methodical, so long as we are not too close to the ground and we donāt have obstacles in the way. That said, we can use terrain estimation or some variant to get an idea of agl prior to range sensor data but that still needs to be tied to some point in the flight path to not cut off people who do simply have valid readings beforehand. Autocorrecting the bari is a great idea. @1Gump maps are much too inaccurate for landing so thatās a no go truly a quality range finder is the best and if we are worried able obstacles, trees, then fused data is a perfect fit.
Before even any differentiation occurs, that is essentially just tuning a framework in place. We need a framework for the landing portion of the flight that is representative of reality and will provide and give smooth flared landings. Thatās before anything else. Im interested in @almaaro PR but not until I can understand how to implement at a higher altitude.
Our aim should be to identify what we want on the landing portion of the code specifically and how and what we want the plane to respond to.
Iāll put some thought into it and put some points down but that should be our aim. I see more of an issue with how we land rather then the HAGL currently.
Also, we have more data from subsequent testing yesterday and today but it isnāt relevant since we were in 25+mph winds on the ground so it will skew any data. Weāll get some more on Monday.
Letās agree on what we want the landing to look like and then if there are certain PRs they can be added to further improve this than that would be great.