[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Thoughts about the GCS

From: antoine drouin
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Thoughts about the GCS
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:13:26 +0800

Thanks to the multi-agents architecture of Paparazzi, implementing a
ground station is only implementing a ground station and not for
example communications, dataloging or others functionalities.
If anybody wants to starts and maintain ( yeah, that's where it hurts)
a new ground control station, in a widespread language, they are very
welcome. There have already been several attempts that I know of and
which didn't go far or last long.
Anyway, every effort is appreciated.
Maybe a first step in this direction would be to write specifications
- I know it's not the most exciting part, but it sometimes works
better when done before implementation



On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Eric Parsonage <address@hidden> wrote:
> Marko
> Paparazzi probably has the most mature GCS of any of the open source uav
> projects. IMO it would be silly to break it especially now when there is so
> much in flux with hardware (ie LISA) and we need to implement full
> functionality for flight plans for quadrocopters.
> Regards
> Eric
> On 10/06/2010, at 11:13 PM, Marko Thaler wrote:
> Hello everybody!
> I have been observing the communication on the development board with
> regards to the future Paparazzi GCS development and the OCaml programming
> language.
> I have my deepest respect for the work Pascal has done on the GCS and
> Paparazzi in general. Now that we have lost him I gradually start to
> comprehend the enormous hole he has left behind and the implications of
> using a programming language for the GCS that is not widely adopted.
> As I understand the basic problem for future Paparazzi GCS development is
> the lack of OCaml programming skills that are present in the community. At
> the same time in the worldwide open source UAV communities there is a
> stronger and stronger desire for defining open standards for UAV <-> GCS
> communication and provide an open GCS development platform.  Is there a
> common solution to both problems?
> I do not know! However, while surfing the internet I came across
> the QGroundControl from the PixHawk team that tries to provide open
> standards and a general UAV GCS (everything written in GPL-ed
> C++ Qt framework). I understand there would be quite a lot of work to
> transition the Paparazzi system to another GCS (reintegrate communication
> protocol, rewrite the generation of control parameters from the airframe
> file, etc.). But maybe in the long run the Paparazzi community and open
> source UAV communities in general could benefit from using a common GCS
> development platform.
> I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions about the future Paparazzi
> GCS development options.
> Thank you and kind regards,
> Marko
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]