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

Spacecrafts and Thrusters Plugin #1039

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Spacecrafts and Thrusters Plugin #1039

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

Pedro-Roque
Copy link
Member

@Jaeyoung-Lim some changes were needed for the libraries to build (probably a mavlink mismatch on PX4 side.

Commands are now received on the plugin but platform moves much slower than what it should... Something to debug.

@Pedro-Roque Pedro-Roque requested a review from Jaeyoung-Lim May 9, 2024 18:13
@Pedro-Roque Pedro-Roque force-pushed the pr-thruster-plugin branch from 5c15c2e to 5dc1a51 Compare May 13, 2024 14:54
* fix: revert mavlink changes, now compiles with upstream

* fix: sdf thruster locations

* feat: adding zero g world and satellite for demo'ing 3d spacecraft
@Pedro-Roque
Copy link
Member Author

Pedro-Roque commented May 15, 2024

Added DART model for 3D Spacecraft. Will also add a world without asphalt (just ground plane) for the 2D platforms. Will put here pictures with these... But other than that, I think this is pretty much there and to be synced with PX4/PX4-Autopilot#23117

Edit: @Jaeyoung-Lim where is the space world? I think U somewhat duplicated it, but mine doesn't have a ground plane (zero_g).

@Pedro-Roque Pedro-Roque changed the title Going through thruster pluging Spacecrafts and Thrusters Plugin May 15, 2024
getSdfParam<std::string>(_sdf, "actuatorOutputsCommandPubTopic", actuator_outputs_pub_topic_,
actuator_outputs_pub_topic_);
pub_actuator_outputs_ = true;
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we need a separate topic to command actuator outputs?

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 believe I added this thinking that later with multiple agents we can run different gazebo topics - but maybe that is already done with namespacing?

Copy link
Member

@Jaeyoung-Lim Jaeyoung-Lim May 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeap multivehicle simulation is already supported

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.

3 participants