Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EKF Dynamics Update #2

Draft
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

EKF Dynamics Update #2

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

Pedro-Roque
Copy link
Member

Solved Problem

Attempt at fixing the EKF for microgravity dynamics.

Solution

For now purely deleting old solution, but can be made to accommodate in parallel.

Test coverage

  • Unit/integration test: none yet
  • Simulation/hardware testing logs: none yet

@Pedro-Roque
Copy link
Member Author

Pedro-Roque commented Nov 7, 2023

For now, I chose to ignore merging-compatible modifications with PX4 main tree - but it could easily be done in this case. Just checking if this is the direction in which we want to go.

Still requires updates on the EKF state (we don't need or want wind estimates, for instance)

@Pedro-Roque Pedro-Roque changed the title Dev ekf ugravity EKF Dynamics Update Nov 7, 2023
@Jaeyoung-Lim
Copy link
Collaborator

For now, I chose to ignore merging-compatible modifications with PX4 main tree - but it could easily be done in this case. Just checking if this is the direction in which we want to go.

Probably a copy-paste on a new module?

Still requires updates on the EKF state (we don't need or want wind estimates, for instance)

This is configurable in upstream by PX4#22172, just FYI

@@ -101,7 +99,7 @@ def predict_covariance(
p = sf.V3(state[State.px], state[State.py], state[State.pz])

q_new = q * sf.Quaternion(sf.V3(0.5 * d_ang_true[0], 0.5 * d_ang_true[1], 0.5 * d_ang_true[2]), 1)
v_new = v + R_to_earth * d_vel_true + sf.V3(0 ,0 ,g) * dt
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you think it would be better to remove the position states completely from the estimates? or do we want this configurable?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just removed the gravity component. But if we make it configurable then it can be user selected with a parameter on running the script.

@Pedro-Roque
Copy link
Member Author

For now, I chose to ignore merging-compatible modifications with PX4 main tree - but it could easily be done in this case. Just checking if this is the direction in which we want to go.

Probably a copy-paste on a new module?

Still requires updates on the EKF state (we don't need or want wind estimates, for instance)

This is configurable in upstream by PX4#22172, just FYI

Then perhaps we could even make a configuration to which dynamics we should use. It would make it more functional perhaps.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants