paparazzi/paparazzi — comment on commit 8b2892c0052ac9b4da597e400e490fa117c44577
File:  line 0
By dewagter:

@Gautier: "Isn't that what you do ?"

Now I need to land the plane, read and store the values of the actuator
message and remember the values from last time, edit xml, do some
computations, compile, flash, reset the RC transmitter trims, take-off
again. This is what I hoped to simplify with this merge request.

@Gautier: "hide an (estimation) error with an other (control) error"

If you trim in auto2, then this might happen indeed. But right now, people
hide a control error (trim) by adding an estimation error (ins_neutral).
Hopefully the ability to do airborne trimming will make it easier to have
both right: switch back to manual, trim (not on the RC but direct in the
airframe file), switch back to auto2 trim the rest with ahrs_neutral [in a
single flight ;-) ].

-Christophe

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Gautier Hattenberger <
reply@reply.github.com>wrote:

> "Ideally you would TRIM your plane in manual, then align your IMU2BODY in
> AUTO1 with the trimmed plane and then auto2 should be perfect right away."
>
> Isn't that what you do ? Because it is exactly the way we trim new
> aircrafts, and most of the time it flies in auto2 at the first or second
> flight.
>
> For the first point, I agree it might be easier to just add an offset to
> the command, but this way we might hide an (estimation) error with an other
> (control) error. Isn't it better to fine tune aerodynamicaly with the servo
> neutrals, then set estimation neutrals in level flight, and in the end the
> control should not need (manual) trim ?
> For the pitch trim on fixedwing, the vertical control loop is not nice
> anyway, but the pitch_neutral is clearly a bad workaround.
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
>
> https://github.com/paparazzi/paparazzi/commit/8b2892c0052ac9b4da597e400e490fa117c44577#commitcomment-692692
>