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

Plane/Copter: ardupilotmega's RADIO and common's RADIO_STATUS messages disagree on txbuf definition but are treated the same #213

Open
nickwithers opened this issue Jul 22, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@nickwithers
Copy link

[Not sure if this should be considered an ArduPilot/MAVLink issue or a MAVLink/MAVLink upstream one but feel here's the best place to start]

The "ardupilotmega" dialect defines a RADIO message with the same field names and types as the "common" RADIO_STATUS message (with a different ID).

ArduPilot appears to treat both messages the same in MAVLink handling code, e.g.: https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/blob/master/ArduCopter/GCS_Mavlink.cpp#L1283 .

In ardupilotmega against the RADIO message, txbuf is described as being How full the tx buffer is as a percentage [ https://mavlink.io/en/messages/ardupilotmega.html#RADIO , https://github.com/ArduPilot/mavlink/blob/master/message_definitions/v1.0/ardupilotmega.xml#L1236 ] and in common, the inverse (Remaining free transmitter buffer space) [ https://mavlink.io/en/messages/common.html#RADIO_STATUS , https://github.com/ArduPilot/mavlink/blob/master/message_definitions/v1.0/common.xml#L4092 ] for RADIO_STATUS.

Sending a RADIO message to ArduPilot with txbuf set to 0 to indicate, according to its description, that "the tx buffer" is 0% full leads to it throttling back messaging (see GCS_MAVLINK::handle_radio_status()).

Is the ardupilotmega description of the RADIO messages txbuf flag in need of correction? Should the RADIO and RADIO_STATUS messages be treated differently?

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant