Comments

• 

  Bot Thoughts December 17, 2012 at 2:08pm

  Agree, no need to start over. I would think that's unnecessary work. Question: what's the plan to stay "in sync" with the ardupilot stuff? My simplistic thinking is that a small subset of modules would need extensive revision, but some/most (hopefully) could share the ArduPilot code base? Or...?  

  For example... my swag (without having dived into the ArduRover code much) is that the pose estimation stuff may need to change due to the different types and behaviors of sensors (based on my own experiments).

  Whereas code to comm with the base station could (and probably should) stay relatively untouched so that ArduRover project doesn't add that maintenance work unnecessarily.

  I sure hope I have some time to play with ArduRover at some point since I have a couple spare RC trucks. What I don't have is an APM board nor cash to get one but maybe I can cobble together something essentially compatible.
• 100KM

  u4eake December 17, 2012 at 9:37am

  Thomas, I think thats a good way to go forward.  Thx for the info!
• 

  Daniel Chote December 17, 2012 at 5:55am

  I started a new codebase for my powerwheels rover codebase. But honestly, the fact that I did meant I didnt spend much time adding back any functionality, and I have something that wouldnt be easily mission planner compatible. Im already ready to go back to ardurover code as soon as it has been sanitized, and a better structure for different drive mechanisms are in place.
  
  While a new codebase may make it easier from a code and education standpoint, I fear the deviation would inherently make what is nice about the community as a whole (one fairly consistent codebase across all platforms) go away.  I think having mission planner parameter management, similar setup and loop structures, shared navigation code, makes it easier to switch from rover to multirotor/plane code.  I see some hurdles in optimizing the navigation code for rover, but I think that any enhancements made, could also directly benefit plane and add some interesting features to copter.
  
  I see ardurover being the project that draws the bulk of the users in, due to much lower cost of entry and much lesser impact of crashes. And ultimately being the gateway to the bigger ardupilot community.
  
  Just my 2cents.
  -Dan
• Evaristo Ramos, Jr. December 17, 2012 at 5:48am

  I agree no reason to start completely over, if this is to be a non-flying item then removing all the extraneous items will decrease the size of code. I have some time this week to test out things if the weather holds out here in Houston, I have batteries ready to go. I also need to post up pictures and equipment this week, as long as you all don't grade me on build quality, lol.

  Anyone else Houston that may want to meet up?Roo
• Admin

  Thomas J Coyle III December 17, 2012 at 5:28am

  @u4eake,

  Tridge feels that we should clean up the existing ArduRover code instead of starting over from scratch. We plan to remove all parameters and variables that are not germain to the ArduRover operating requirements. We will also rename various operating parameters to reflect that fact that the code is for a rover and not a plane or copter. In other words we will tailor the existing code to ArduRover requirements and functionality. I am sure that we will add parameters such as the deviation time when avoiding an obstacle and fix the broken "learning" mode.

  Everyone is welcome to provide input has to what to remove and what to add to the functionality of the code during this updating effort.

  Comments?

  Regards,

  TCIII 
• 100KM

  u4eake December 17, 2012 at 12:55am

  So what was the result of that discussion?  What's gonna happen with the ardurover firmware?
• Admin

  Thomas J Coyle III December 16, 2012 at 6:46am

  Hi All,

  I would like to report that Tridge and I have made verbal contact recently and have discussed the path forward for updating/improving the ArduRover firmware, If any member would like to help with this effort please do not hesitate to contact (PM)either Tridge or myself.

  Regards,

  TCIII
• Admin

  Thomas J Coyle III December 13, 2012 at 3:38pm

  Hi Mike,

  Nice to have you share your testing with us. Much appreciated.

  By the way, what valuses do you have your waypoint radius and loiter radius set at? I set mine at 5 and 4 respectively, but I bet that the waypoint radius for a LEA-6 rover equipped with a compass can be reduced to 1 (meter) possibly. Comments?

  Regards,

  TCIII
• Moderator

  Michael Pursifull December 13, 2012 at 3:32pm

  Here is a video from one of those runs. After 23 seconds, it gets very boring. Forgive the background noise, I'm talking on the phone, wishing my friend a happy birthday and squeezing in a quick rover test and the same time...

   
• Moderator

  Michael Pursifull December 13, 2012 at 2:46pm

  Here is a google earth export (had to mess with the data, clamp to ground, etc to get the paths to appear.) These are only paths while in auto, not manual or learning. I'm pleased to have paths to work with. I'm excited to sort these issues out. It is really fun to flick the switch and watch it go. A few of these terminate due to high grasses, but most end in a loop, so I switch out of auto.