# PX4 Sync / Q&A: April 30, 2025 **URL:** \ **Category:** PX4 Autopilot\ **Created:** [April 30, 2025, 2:43am UTC](https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-sync-q-a-april-30-2025/45350 "2025-04-30T02:43:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![farhang](https://discuss.px4.io/user_avatar/discuss.px4.io/farhang/32/17881_2.png) [@farhang](https://discuss.px4.io/u/farhang)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2025, 2:43am UTC](https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-sync-q-a-april-30-2025/45350/1 "2025-04-30T02:43:04Z")
PX4 Sync / Q&A: April 30, 2025 [Dronecode Calendar](https://dronecode.org/calendar/) ## Agenda - Announcements - Future Events - Flight Testing Update - Release Discussion - Bug Report / Q&A ### Announcements - MacOS CI is broken and we are aware of that , in the process of fixing! ### Next Dronecode Meetup Nothing scheduled yet. If anyone is interested to host a Meetup please reach us out. Always happy to have it organized. ### Future Events - [ICUAS](https://uasconferences.com/2025_icuas/) May 14-17, Charlotte, USA - ROSCon 2025 Singapore: [ROSCon 2025](https://roscon.ros.org/2025/) ### Flight Testing Update The team at [Ascend Engineering](https://www.ascendengineer.com/) (Chicago). are running flight testing for the community. **How to reach out to the team** - GitHub: Tag user **@PX4/testflights** - Discord: [#flight-testing](https://discord.com/channels/1022170275984457759/1330992113835311266) - Weekly on the PX4 Dev Call **How to Request Testing (GitHub)** - Write down the steps to test your issue/pull request - Make sure to note the risk involved in flying - Write down things to look out for / anticipate - eg: “we are looking for no yaw jumps” - Add issue/pull request to the [Flight Testing project board](https://github.com/orgs/PX4/projects/52) - Make sure to specify any hardware/software requirements as much as possible **Resources:** - [Flight Testing Project Board](https://github.com/orgs/PX4/projects/52) - [Tests Cards](https://docs.px4.io/main/en/test_and_ci/test_flights.html) **Comments / Discussion:** - Issues: - Testing the latest 1.16 Beta currently - Fixed Wing / VTOL: - QGC Build: Stable ### Release Discussion / Updates **v1.16 Release Discussion** All set to cut the release. **If anyone has any critical fixes please add them to the project board.** - [GitHub - PX4/PX4-Autopilot at v1.16.0-beta1](https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/tree/v1.16.0-beta1) - Merged: [add new board corvon743v1 by holydust · Pull Request #24769 · PX4/PX4-Autopilot · GitHub](https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/pull/24769) - Fixed Wing known blockers: - Multi Copter known blockers: - Rover Blockers: - Optical Flow: - Simulation known blockers: - Dev Env Blockers: CI fixes for MacOS: [formula: update formulas & adds ci test by mrpollo · Pull Request #88 · PX4/homebrew-px4 · GitHub](https://github.com/PX4/homebrew-px4/pull/88) **Resources** - [Release Project Board Link](https://github.com/orgs/PX4/projects/45) ### Bug report / Q&A 1- [https://github.com/mavlink/qgroundcontrol/pull/12686](https://github.com/mavlink/qgroundcontrol/pull/12686) 2- [PX4 Sync / Q&A: April 30, 2025 - #3 by scf-wx](https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-sync-q-a-april-30-2025/45350/3) → Maybe a more reliable approach which could be maintained in the long run is better to be considered rather than adding more sensors in this situation. 3- [[Bug] PX4 doesn't have a default compiler anymore · Issue #23963 · PX4/PX4-Autopilot · GitHub](https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/issues/23963) → comment on this is on the issue itself. ### PRs for Review 1- [Improve base station configuration by Louis-max-H · Pull Request #178 · PX4/PX4-GPSDrivers · GitHub](https://github.com/PX4/PX4-GPSDrivers/pull/178) → Needs comments from @dagar so it can move forward. ---
**Author:** ![Louismax](https://discuss.px4.io/user_avatar/discuss.px4.io/louismax/32/18925_2.png) [@Louismax](https://discuss.px4.io/u/Louismax)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2025, 9:22am UTC](https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-sync-q-a-april-30-2025/45350/2 "2025-04-30T09:22:56Z")
Hi 👋 I’ve made a PR to display only the parameters compatible with the receiver in the base station menu. I’ll be there at the Q&A to discuss it and give a little presentation if you still have time! 🙂 > > > This PR aim to develop base station menu and depend on this PR for \[GPS Driver\](…https://github.com/PX4/PX4-GPSDrivers/pull/178) > > Description > \----------- > > UBlox menu | Septentrio menu | Manufacturer list > :-------------------------:|:-------------------------: | :---: > !\[\](https://imgur.com/iR8IdIk.png) | !\[\](https://i.imgur.com/fnYAx7w.png) | !\[\](https://i.imgur.com/NZzPxcP.png) > > 1) Proposing different settings according to receiver manufacturer > 2) Base Station mode change from bool to int. That will allow a future PR that have base station (for example, moving base station on boat) > 3) Implement base station menu for Septentrio (base infos, base config) > > \### Explanation. > 1) Manufacturer allow the hide and show of some settings to keep only theses that are implemented. > We use bit mask defined like this : > \`\`\` > readonly property var \_standard: 0b00001 > readonly property var \_trimble: 0b00010 > readonly property var \_septentrio: 0b00100 > readonly property var \_femtomes: 0b01000 > readonly property var \_ublox: 0b10000 > \`\`\` > > To restrict a parameters' visibility to U-Blox + Septentrio : (You can use either | or +) > \`\`\` > visible: manufacturer & (\_ublox | \_septentrio) > \`\`\` > If implemented by all manufacturer : > \`\`\` > visible: manufacturer & \_standard > \`\`\` > This parameter is always visible because it is implemented by everyone, but I think that specifying it each time avoids uncertainties such as, how compatible is this parameter with the receiver? Has the developer thought this through? > Don't hesitate to tell me what you think :) > > To show parameters available for U-blox, set manufacturer to \`\_standard + \_ublox\` > Manufacturer is set automatically when plugin a receiver. > > 2) Base station mode is now : > 0 : Survey-in > 1 : Fixed > This change is compatible with the 4 different drivers that use BaseSettingsType (base\_station.h). > > 3) > a) Base stations info is display by using PosGeodetic information. > b) Some parameters like Ublox min precision don't have an equivalent in Septentrio, here is a quick recap of with parameters is available or not : > > > | Parameters​ | | Ublox​ | Septentrio​ | Femtomes​ | Trimble​ | > | -----------------|------------------ | :----------:| :-----------: | :---------: | :--------: | > | Survey-in (auto)​ | Min duration​ | ✅ | ​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | > | ​ | Min precision​ | ✅​ | | ​ | ​ | > | Specify location​ | Long, Lat, Alt​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | > | ​ | Base precision​ | ✅​ | ​ | ​ | ​ | > | ​ | Set from position​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | ✅​ | > > Survey-in options don't have equivalents for Septentrio receivers. > > Test Steps > \----------- > I have followed this procedure and another intern (@Duck) have done the same on another computer. > \`\`\`bash > git clone https://github.com/Louis-max-H/qgroundcontrol > cd qgroundcontrol > git checkout pr-base-qgc > git submodule update --init --force --recursive > chmod +x tools/setup/\*.sh > docker build --file ./deploy/docker/Dockerfile-build-ubuntu -t qgc-linux-docker . > \`\`\` > Edit the file src/GPS/CMakeLists.txt > To have > \`\`\` > CPMAddPackage( > NAME px4-gpsdrivers > GITHUB\_REPOSITORY Louis-max-H/PX4-GPSDrivers > GIT\_TAG pr-base-station-px4 > SOURCE\_SUBDIR src > ) > \`\`\` > Instead of : > \`\`\` > CPMAddPackage( > NAME px4-gpsdrivers > GITHUB\_REPOSITORY PX4/PX4-GPSDrivers > GIT\_TAG main > SOURCE\_SUBDIR src > ) > \`\`\` > You can now build QGC using : > \`\`\` > docker run --privileged --rm -v ${PWD}:/project/source -v ${PWD}/build:/project/build qgc-linux-docker > ./build/AppDir/AppRun > \`\`\` > > \- Unplug all > \- Plug CubeOrangePlus > \- Select a different manufacturer than the board tested > \- Select the config you want to test > \- Plug base station > \- See if : > - Precision is improved, position is RTK > - Information are displayed > - Manufacturer is autautomaticallyt > > Do these steps for Survey-In, Set location > Test have been made on Ublox and Septentrio, I don't have the equipment to test other GPS systems but they should work has Ublox does. > > Checklist: > \---------- > \- \[x \] \[Review Contribution Guidelines\](https://github.com/mavlink/qgroundcontrol/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md). > \- \[x\] \[Review Code of Conduct\](https://github.com/mavlink/qgroundcontrol/blob/master/.github/CODE\_OF\_CONDUCT.md). > \- \[x\] I have tested my changes. > > > Please let me know if I need to make any changes to this RP so that it can be accepted by the community, this would be my first PR :partying\_face: > > > Ps: The automatic tests could fail because of the need to modify the Makefile, so I'm putting the PR in draft form and I'll come back to you once the PR for the GPS driver has been accepted. ---
**Author:** ![scf-wx](https://discuss.px4.io/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/4da419/32.png) [@scf-wx](https://discuss.px4.io/u/scf-wx)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://discuss.px4.io/t/px4-sync-q-a-april-30-2025/45350/3 "2025-04-30T13:31:17Z")
Hi - I would like to discuss fusion of data from multiple airspeed sensors. We are building a VTOL drone with airspeed sensors at either wingtip and we are interested in combining the data from both sensors for better windspeed and state estimation. We are currently using a fork of PX4 1.14. We are debating two approaches (a) modifying the existing EKF2 to incorporate the airspeed data from both sensors directly in the main EKF2 loop, or (b) creating a second EKF that blends the data from the two sensors, then passes the resulting airspeed estimate into EKF2. We are still at the beginning of this process, and are hoping to get some input on pros and cons of each approach from anyone who has attempted something similar, or anyone with more extensive experience with EKF2. > [@Dual Airspeed Sensors as Simultaneous EKF2 Inputs](https://discuss.px4.io/t/dual-airspeed-sensors-as-simultaneous-ekf2-inputs/45176): > > Hello, I’m currently exploring sensor configurations for a VTOL aircraft and have a specific question regarding the use of multiple airspeed sensors with the EKF (specifically EKF2). I understand that PX4 supports multiple airspeed sensors (e.g., via ASP\_PRIMARY) primarily for redundancy – switching to a backup sensor if the primary one provides bad readings. However, I’m interested in a different approach: simultaneously feeding data from two independent airspeed sensors, mounted near the win…