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

Fixed althold issue in surface mode for multirotors #10314

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ultrazar
Copy link
Contributor

Some people, including me, were experiencing problems with maintaining altitude in surface mode using mtf-01 sensor.
It seems that the problem was caused by high vibration levels which decreased the accelerometer weight down to 0.3, which is the minimum. But then, this value is squared in navigation_pos_estimator_agl.c, which means it goes down to 0.3*0.3=0.09 which is so low that the accelerometer almost becomes unused. Therefore, it was only using the rangefinder measurements but they have so much delay that the drone becomes unable to maintain a good altitude.

float acc_vibration_factor = scaleRangef(constrainf(accGetVibrationLevel(),ACC_VIB_FACTOR_S,ACC_VIB_FACTOR_E),ACC_VIB_FACTOR_S,ACC_VIB_FACTOR_E,1.0f,0.3f); // g/s

posEstimator.est.aglVel += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.z * ctx->dt * sq(accWeight);

I fixed this issue primarily by disabling the dynamic accelerometer weight and setting it to fixed 1.0 ( which is the value it should get when there are normal vibration levels )

I added a new setting to do that, acc_weight. By default, it is set to zero and that means that its value is determined automatically (as normal). But you can set it to 1.0 and that means the accelerometer weight will always be 1.0.
I particularly tested this version and works well.

Surface mode with 0.3 accelerometer weight:
image
Surface mode with 1.0 accelerometer weight:
image

@ultrazar
Copy link
Contributor Author

#10025

@mmosca mmosca closed this Aug 27, 2024
@mmosca mmosca reopened this Aug 27, 2024
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ void estimationCalculateAGL(estimationContext_t * ctx)
const float accWeight = navGetAccelerometerWeight();
posEstimator.est.aglAlt += posEstimator.est.aglVel * ctx->dt;
posEstimator.est.aglAlt += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.z * sq(ctx->dt) / 2.0f * accWeight;
posEstimator.est.aglVel += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.z * ctx->dt * sq(accWeight);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This feels wrong to me. In AGL mode, the sensor that measures distance to ground should have higher gains than accelerometer. This feels like it was done like this on purpose.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ultrazar ultrazar Aug 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let me explain.
Yes, they did it on purpose, but by the time they wrote this code (5 years ago), the way the accelerometer weight worked was different.

static void estimationPredict(estimationContext_t * ctx)
{
const float accWeight = navGetAccelerometerWeight();
/* Prediction step: Z-axis */
if ((ctx->newFlags & EST_Z_VALID)) {
posEstimator.est.pos.z += posEstimator.est.vel.z * ctx->dt;
posEstimator.est.pos.z += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.z * sq(ctx->dt) / 2.0f * accWeight;
posEstimator.est.vel.z += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.z * ctx->dt * sq(accWeight);
}
/* Prediction step: XY-axis */
if ((ctx->newFlags & EST_XY_VALID)) {
// Predict based on known velocity
posEstimator.est.pos.x += posEstimator.est.vel.x * ctx->dt;
posEstimator.est.pos.y += posEstimator.est.vel.y * ctx->dt;
// If heading is valid, accelNEU is valid as well. Account for acceleration
if (navIsHeadingUsable() && navIsAccelerationUsable()) {
posEstimator.est.pos.x += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.x * sq(ctx->dt) / 2.0f * accWeight;
posEstimator.est.pos.y += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.y * sq(ctx->dt) / 2.0f * accWeight;
posEstimator.est.vel.x += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.x * ctx->dt * sq(accWeight);
posEstimator.est.vel.y += posEstimator.imu.accelNEU.y * ctx->dt * sq(accWeight);
}
}
}

Originally, its value was fixed and there was a setting for that. Therefore, the weight was squared for vel estimations. But when they changed the way the accelerometer weight works, forgot to update this file. Now the problem is that the accWeight can go down to 0.3 automatically and squared is 0.3*0.3=0.09 which is too low. Some rangefinders like the one in the mtf-01 is too slow taking measurements which makes the navigation very unstable.

@@ -385,7 +386,11 @@ static void updateIMUTopic(timeUs_t currentTimeUs)
}
else {
/* Update acceleration weight based on vibration levels and clipping */
updateIMUEstimationWeight(dt);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is changing behavior when not in surface mode.

@mmosca
Copy link
Collaborator

mmosca commented Aug 27, 2024

This appears to be the same as #10308

@mmosca
Copy link
Collaborator

mmosca commented Aug 29, 2024

@breadoven what do you think about this one?

@breadoven
Copy link
Collaborator

@breadoven what do you think about this one?

Didn't have too good a look at it so can't really be sure at the moment.

@marcaz
Copy link

marcaz commented Sep 16, 2024

Any news regarding merging into master?

@Jetrell
Copy link

Jetrell commented Nov 4, 2024

Any news regarding merging into master?

@ultrazar I think the issue with merging this is not that your commit won't fix the problem for rangefinders.
Its whether the original cause of the problem should be reverted. Because its also affecting position estimation and leading to drift, not just the z axis, but xy as well when GNSS precision is lower. And this variably, depending on accelerometer noise, based on the build quality of the copter.

I assumed you've followed the conversations in other PR's surrounding this issue. And you seem to have a good grasp on the problem. Noticing your comments here and here and here .

Have you by chance also made a build that reverted AccWeight changes, To see the effect ?

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.

5 participants