Replies: 10 comments 11 replies
-
|
This is documented / expected behaviour. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The purpose of RTH is to bring the aircraft home though... The described behavior is 100% guaranteed to crash the aircraft. When would it ever make sense? You can't specify a negative RTH altitude in Inav (for obvious reasons). If an aircraft is in RTH and finds itself below the RTH home altitude, I would think it obviously needs to climb, regardless of anything else. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree with @stronnag. That is how extra is intended to work. You should chose a different RTH method that is more suitable to your location, such as AT_LEAST. EXTRA would make sense if you are always going to be flying above your launch point, with no large obstacles; when current altitude + extra would clear any local obstacles. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Converted to a discussion in case we want to look at the prospect of adding another RTH Mode. EXTRA_MIN_HOME_ALT or something like that. This would add extra to home alt, or climb to home alt, if below it. That can be discussed if this it to be added. The current EXTRA RTH mode works as expected and described, so should not be changed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yep, I understand how Extra mode works, and agree this is actually not related to Extra as such. It is more about what happens after the Extra climb has been performed, and the aircraft finds itself in level RTH flight at a negative altitude. In that situation I would expect the default behavior would be to increase the target altitude to RTH home altitude. IMO, Inav should just ensure that no matter what RTH mode is used, the aircraft doesn't try to fly home at a negative altitude. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please do not change current modes. They work like intended
niedz., 27 mar 2022, 13:20 użytkownik Darren Lines ***@***.***>
napisał:
… To be honest, that sounds like a pretty cool place to fly.
I’m quite happy to make changes. It’s just deciding what would be the best
action. This would only really effect current and extra. Assuming that if
the current altitude is negative, you would want to climb too.
It would be good to get some feedback from the other devs to get their
ideas. The way I see it there are a couple of options.
1. Leave the modes (current and extra) as they are.
2. If RTH Home Altitude is set, make this the minimum RTH Altitude.
3. EXTRA only: If no RTH Home Altitude, make 0 + RTH Altitude the
minimum.
4. Add new _MIN_HOME_ALT modes for current and extra. So that the
current modes retain their functionality.
Thinking about it, a combination of 2 and 3 are probably the best option.
As you say, who wants to RTH at a negative altitude. There’s nothing to say
the current definitions have to stay the same.
@stronnag <https://github.com/stronnag> @DzikuVx
<https://github.com/DzikuVx> what are your thoughts?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#7930 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHMBG3SGHCENS3R4NIRV2LVCBG7TANCNFSM5RYOHTJA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I use MAX if flying in hilly areas ... on the basis you need line of sight which probably means the model is always higher than the hills between you and it in order for that to be true. Or just set |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have thought RTH "Trackback" would be useful. Really nothing more than the Mission Planner that already exists set up to log WPs automatically and then switch to WP mission on Failsafe flying the WPs in reverse. And as you say it wouldn't need that many WPs if it's just to fly back to regain the signal. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
See also the Some notes from a somewhat sub-optimal test session |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Agreed with Mr D's 2 and 3. It will never work to RTH at al altitude lower than the home altitude, unless you're in a submarine and launched from a boat. Any time home is on the ground, negative total RTH altitude will always crash. So while it technically marches documentation, it guarantees a crash and is therefore not sensible. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Current Behavior
I have RTH mode set to EXTRA, with RTH altitude set to 40m. So when RTH is initiated, the airplane immediately climbs 40m and then heads home. However, if RTH is initiated at an altitude of e.g. -100m (which is common at some spots where I fly), the airplane climbs to -60m, and then flies home level, at -60m. This obviously guarantees a crash, unless I take over.
Steps to Reproduce
Expected behavior
After initial climb, if aircraft is below RTH home altitude, aircraft should keep climbing until it reaches RTH home altitude.
FC Board name and vendor:
Matek F411 Wing
INAV version string:
INAV/MATEKF411_S5S6_SS2 4.0.0 Dec 20 2021 / 14:04:20 (GITDIR-N)
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions