Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

821starter

Hello everyone! I am working to build a transitional quadrotor similar to the quadshot except that it is not based on a flying wing, instead it is more of a large RC airplane with tilting rotors to change flight from quad to plane. I have been working with APM 2.5 and KK 2.0 boards so far but I have realized they aren’t as powerful to do that while still working with GPS.  I am wondering how hard it would be to modify the programming on the Lisa/M from the quadshot to something that meets my needs. I am looking at a 12 lb setup/60” wingspan with a Vtail controlling all forward flight (no ailerons). Any help or advise is highly appreciated- I’m only running windows so it looks like I will need to borrow a separate comp to run UBUNTU. We are a team working on our undergraduate Mechanical Engineering capstone project and unfortunately aren’t as well versed in all the UAV platforms as we could be. Our timeline is have a working/flying prototype by mid May.

 

Thanks!!

 

 

Mark E Richardson

United States Air Force Academy.

 


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Chris Gough-2
12 pounds, 60 inch span - did I read that right?

Chris Gough

On 16/01/2014, at 5:05 PM, "Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13"<[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello everyone! I am working to build a transitional quadrotor similar to the quadshot except that it is not based on a flying wing, instead it is more of a large RC airplane with tilting rotors to change flight from quad to plane. I have been working with APM 2.5 and KK 2.0 boards so far but I have realized they aren’t as powerful to do that while still working with GPS.  I am wondering how hard it would be to modify the programming on the Lisa/M from the quadshot to something that meets my needs. I am looking at a 12 lb setup/60” wingspan with a Vtail controlling all forward flight (no ailerons). Any help or advise is highly appreciated- I’m only running windows so it looks like I will need to borrow a separate comp to run UBUNTU. We are a team working on our undergraduate Mechanical Engineering capstone project and unfortunately aren’t as well versed in all the UAV platforms as we could be. Our timeline is have a working/flying prototype by mid May.

 

Thanks!!

 

 

Mark E Richardson

United States Air Force Academy.

 

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

821starter

Yes, we are essentially attempting to show a customer the capability of long(er) range flight out of something that can land and take off like a quadrotor. There are many many parts to this project, however; for example it has to be able to deploy from a folded configuration to a final configuration. A company provided an awesome inflatable wing that can be inflated with a CO2 cartridge. And we are currently working on the folding/tilting arms. I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out the best motor/prop combo for this setup and it looks like we will go with the Avroto 3015 kv400’s from Monto RC as well as their 15”props.  The 12lbs is for total weight including a 5lb of payload that can be anything from an array of sensors to an extra battery pack…

 

 


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Reto Büttner
Hi Mark

I am sure the Lisa/M from the Quadshot can be adapted to meet your
needs. Piotr Esden-Tempski and Christophe de Wagter know a lot about
the transition technology. They might be able to help you.

Just some general inputs to transition technology:

- The goal is to have a VTOL aircraft that flys faster and further
than a traditional helicopter, multicopter or gyrocopter.
- Transition technology is quite complex. To make it pay you should
achieve at least 150% the speed and 200% the range/endurance of a
comparable traditional helicopter, multicopter or gyrocopter. You
better design for 200% speed and 300% range/endurance.
- This efficiency is not easy to achieve. Many current designs barely
reach the required efficiency, like the Quadshot or the Osprey. Both
lack an efficient wing for cruise flight. The quadshot additionally
lacks an efficient propulsion in cruise flight, the Ospray does that
better having variable pitch props. The lack in performance might be a
reason why the Quadshot hasn't found wide use yet.
- Therefore DARPA has launched a new development programm for a VTOL
aircraft with better performance:
http://defense-update.com/20131213_sikorsky-aurora-flight-sciences-develop-vtol-x-planes-darpa.html
- You need a concept to achieve the required efficiency. You should
consider variable pitch props, use only two of the four props in
cruise flight or have some other smart idea. Otherwise you are not
likely to achieve the required efficiency.
- Tilt rotors are quite complex. They should only be used if the
fuselage needs to be horizontal all the time, like for a troop carrier
as the Osprey. If that is not required, a concept that tilts the whole
airframe is preferred, like the Sikorsky X-Plane, the NASA Puffin or
the Quadshot.
- Your concept has been solved already back in 2007/2008 by the Verti4
(Yann Lecun, France) using standard RC components only:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-yHsQBVv8
http://verti4.blogspot.de/

Cheers
Reto

2014/1/16 Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13
<[hidden email]>:

> Yes, we are essentially attempting to show a customer the capability of
> long(er) range flight out of something that can land and take off like a
> quadrotor. There are many many parts to this project, however; for example
> it has to be able to deploy from a folded configuration to a final
> configuration. A company provided an awesome inflatable wing that can be
> inflated with a CO2 cartridge. And we are currently working on the
> folding/tilting arms. I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out
> the best motor/prop combo for this setup and it looks like we will go with
> the Avroto 3015 kv400’s from Monto RC as well as their 15”props.  The 12lbs
> is for total weight including a 5lb of payload that can be anything from an
> array of sensors to an extra battery pack…
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Chris Gough-2
Yann Lecun's VERTI4 looks about the span Mark is suggesting, but only 450g. At 12 times the wing loading, the wings will just be decoration.

Chris Gough

On 16/01/2014, at 8:19 PM, Reto Büttner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Mark
>
> I am sure the Lisa/M from the Quadshot can be adapted to meet your
> needs. Piotr Esden-Tempski and Christophe de Wagter know a lot about
> the transition technology. They might be able to help you.
>
> Just some general inputs to transition technology:
>
> - The goal is to have a VTOL aircraft that flys faster and further
> than a traditional helicopter, multicopter or gyrocopter.
> - Transition technology is quite complex. To make it pay you should
> achieve at least 150% the speed and 200% the range/endurance of a
> comparable traditional helicopter, multicopter or gyrocopter. You
> better design for 200% speed and 300% range/endurance.
> - This efficiency is not easy to achieve. Many current designs barely
> reach the required efficiency, like the Quadshot or the Osprey. Both
> lack an efficient wing for cruise flight. The quadshot additionally
> lacks an efficient propulsion in cruise flight, the Ospray does that
> better having variable pitch props. The lack in performance might be a
> reason why the Quadshot hasn't found wide use yet.
> - Therefore DARPA has launched a new development programm for a VTOL
> aircraft with better performance:
> http://defense-update.com/20131213_sikorsky-aurora-flight-sciences-develop-vtol-x-planes-darpa.html
> - You need a concept to achieve the required efficiency. You should
> consider variable pitch props, use only two of the four props in
> cruise flight or have some other smart idea. Otherwise you are not
> likely to achieve the required efficiency.
> - Tilt rotors are quite complex. They should only be used if the
> fuselage needs to be horizontal all the time, like for a troop carrier
> as the Osprey. If that is not required, a concept that tilts the whole
> airframe is preferred, like the Sikorsky X-Plane, the NASA Puffin or
> the Quadshot.
> - Your concept has been solved already back in 2007/2008 by the Verti4
> (Yann Lecun, France) using standard RC components only:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-yHsQBVv8
> http://verti4.blogspot.de/
>
> Cheers
> Reto
>
> 2014/1/16 Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13
> <[hidden email]>:
>> Yes, we are essentially attempting to show a customer the capability of
>> long(er) range flight out of something that can land and take off like a
>> quadrotor. There are many many parts to this project, however; for example
>> it has to be able to deploy from a folded configuration to a final
>> configuration. A company provided an awesome inflatable wing that can be
>> inflated with a CO2 cartridge. And we are currently working on the
>> folding/tilting arms. I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out
>> the best motor/prop combo for this setup and it looks like we will go with
>> the Avroto 3015 kv400’s from Monto RC as well as their 15”props.  The 12lbs
>> is for total weight including a 5lb of payload that can be anything from an
>> array of sensors to an extra battery pack…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

821starter
Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.

Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.

What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.

PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?


Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.



Thanks!!!

Mark Richardson
USAF Academy



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

onefastdaddy
Hey Mark,

Have you see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7XgRK7pMoU

Transitioning platform code is written and tested in Paparazzi
already. Note the landings of the winged body (Quadshot) as it nears
landing it switches to hover and lands. The wind was howling that day
(I was there)...easily 20+ MPH.

What makes Paparazzi the one to use is the maturity and depth of the
code. The real world is not still air and perfect conditions.
Paparazzi excels in real world conditions and very imperfect weather.

PixHawk, my opinion is it's new hardware and untested. That project
measures itself primarily in business terms of units made and sold not
successful flights or missions and competitions won. Granted they are
extremely successful in business terms but I have yet to see success
measured in real world missions or competitions. They are very
aggressive marketers and are very good at selling their project so I'm
not surprised you were contacted after posting here. They also have
many members subscribed to this email list.

Paparazzi is used by quite a lot of people actually. It is a very
mature, open and growing community. They are all just quietly doing
academics or research projects very much like yours not sales or
marketing. There are even several commercial platforms with Paparazzi
under the hood. A few Govt projects using Paparazzi based systems.
There are Paparazzi drones flying for more than 7 years in the Arctic
and Antarctic regions doing atmospheric research. These are not people
planning but real, complex missions like yours successfully flying.
Success in Paparazzi terms is measured in members starting, building
and flying the mission intended with 100% accuracy and zero failure.
Success is also measured in winning UAV competitions around the World.
Paparazzi since 2002 has either won or placed top three every year,
year after year. A Paparazzi based team TUDelft won the outdoor and
indoor competition for IMAV2013 by flying simultaneously 12 drones
with a single operator using a single laptop ground station (video URL
given above).

I think you have chosen Paparazzi so I'm probably preaching to the
choir. You've made a great choice. You are in good company here and
there are many in the USA and Worldwide to help you along. Welcome.

David




On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA
CW/CS13 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.
>
> Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.
>
> What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.
>
> PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?
>
>
> Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.
>
>
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> Mark Richardson
> USAF Academy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



--
[hidden email]
http://www.ppzuav.com

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

onefastdaddy
Hello,

This reminds me of something...there was once an IT saying "No one ever got fired for buying IBM"...it's starting to seem like soon it will be no one got poor recommending 3DR. If your project is meant for resale you probably are better off with the 3DR from that whole everyone is using Windows and there's a million of them already out there perspective. I think you see past that and can choose wisely. 

Fortunately Linux is not Quantum Physics and it sounds like you've already installed it. The Windows bullies may punch you in the arm for not conforming but you get past it. It is in many ways much easier to deal with than Windows. Apple OS users used to be called radicals and fanatics and told the same thing about having to use Windows to be accepted. Look at them now.

Also Paparazzi install is pretty small. It would all fit on a thumb drive. You can use any debian based install as well. Linux Mint is a popular one. It takes me all of about 1hr to go from bare metal to installed system with Paparazzi ready to go.

Thank for sharing, welcome again. now that the decision is made lets get to work. I'm looking forward to reading about your success.

-David


On 01/16/2014 09:29 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13 wrote:
Hey there David!

Thanks for taking your time to let me know what's going on in the industry... I feel like I see this situation of sub standard products getting more attention because of aggressive marketing in many other places. I was first introduced to the APM 2.5 a year and a half ago and just like anyone getting introduced to UAV's, I honestly believed that it was the best thing out there. 

Anyways I think my decision was made when I compared the support community for both sides. Some of my posts on the APM forums were actually not approved because I included a YouTube video of what I thought was completely relevant to the subject but used a multiwii controller... anyways that’s an obvious red flag to me and that’s when I looked elsewhere. I got contacted by a Bryan Galusha with the following message which im sure you'd like to read:


" Mark,

I saw your post on the paparazzi dev list, and wanted to make sure you were aware of the pixhawk autopilot.  Unlike the earlier APM 2.5 it has an ARM Cortex M4 processor and some real computing power.  I would really recommend this route over going towards the Lisa/M.

I worked with the Quadshot team to submit an entry into the UAVForge challenge and worked with the Lisa/M and its creator Piotr.  The paparazzi tool chain is really challenging to use, and the support for the PX4/Pixhawk is much better (including windows).

This is just my input from working with both autopilots.

Keep me updated on the transition airframe, it is something we are still very interested in for a number of customer applications.

Thanks,
Bryan Galusha
President
Fighting Walrus"


I am hoping I can get as much support as I have in the past 24 hours throughout the semester to finish this prototype successfully. - Also, I am wondering how soon your Lisa/M will arrive after the order goes through, I am hoping to start tinkering and getting familiar with the interface.

Sincerely,



C1C Mark E Richardson 
CS 13 Bulldawgs
Chief of Safety
USAF Academy




-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Conger
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:04 PM
To: Paparazzi UAV devel list
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Hey Mark,

Have you see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7XgRK7pMoU

Transitioning platform code is written and tested in Paparazzi already. Note the landings of the winged body (Quadshot) as it nears landing it switches to hover and lands. The wind was howling that day (I was there)...easily 20+ MPH.

What makes Paparazzi the one to use is the maturity and depth of the code. The real world is not still air and perfect conditions.
Paparazzi excels in real world conditions and very imperfect weather.

PixHawk, my opinion is it's new hardware and untested. That project measures itself primarily in business terms of units made and sold not successful flights or missions and competitions won. Granted they are extremely successful in business terms but I have yet to see success measured in real world missions or competitions. They are very aggressive marketers and are very good at selling their project so I'm not surprised you were contacted after posting here. They also have many members subscribed to this email list.

Paparazzi is used by quite a lot of people actually. It is a very mature, open and growing community. They are all just quietly doing academics or research projects very much like yours not sales or marketing. There are even several commercial platforms with Paparazzi under the hood. A few Govt projects using Paparazzi based systems.
There are Paparazzi drones flying for more than 7 years in the Arctic and Antarctic regions doing atmospheric research. These are not people planning but real, complex missions like yours successfully flying.
Success in Paparazzi terms is measured in members starting, building and flying the mission intended with 100% accuracy and zero failure.
Success is also measured in winning UAV competitions around the World.
Paparazzi since 2002 has either won or placed top three every year, year after year. A Paparazzi based team TUDelft won the outdoor and indoor competition for IMAV2013 by flying simultaneously 12 drones with a single operator using a single laptop ground station (video URL given above).

I think you have chosen Paparazzi so I'm probably preaching to the choir. You've made a great choice. You are in good company here and there are many in the USA and Worldwide to help you along. Welcome.

David




On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA
CW/CS13 [hidden email] wrote:
Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.

Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.

What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.

PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?


Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.



Thanks!!!

Mark Richardson
USAF Academy



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


--
[hidden email]
http://www.ppzuav.com

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Reto Büttner
In reply to this post by 821starter
Hi Mark

An interesting mission profile you have. I guess you need capability
of storage in minimal space, launch by dropping, autonomous flight to
a predefined spot and landing there. For this the following designs
come to my mind:

- Motorized Parachute, e.g. Para-RC. Pro: Stores extremely small.
Cheap and simple. Easy launch by dropping. Well-mannered flight
behaviour. Con: Does not land exactely vertical, but on very small
space. Not very robust to wind. Not very efficient.

- Gyrocopter, e.g. AC-10. Pro: Stores small. Lands vertical. Robust to
wind. Simple mechanics. Con: Needs a drag chute for launch by
dropping.

- Helicopter, e.g. T-Rex. Pro: Stores small. Lands vertical. Robust to
wind. Maximal maneuverability. Con: Complex, but mature and reliable
mechanics. Needs a drag chute for launch by dropping.

Neither multicopter, fixedwing aircraft nor a combination of both seem
suited for your mission profile at first thought. I guess you have an
interesing option with your inflatable wing. But at first look for
small storage and vertical landing there are more obvious traditional
designs. Make sure you have real advantages to them.

One hint concerning your v-tail design without ailerons: An inverted
v-tail will perform better than a standard one. This because an
inverted v-tail does not generate any adverse roll, but correct roll
when used as rudder.

I hope Piotr and Christophe can help you concerning the Paparazzi
transition technology.

Cheers
Reto

2014/1/17 Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13
<[hidden email]>:

> Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.
>
> Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.
>
> What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.
>
> PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?
>
>
> Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.
>
>
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> Mark Richardson
> USAF Academy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

onefastdaddy
Folding wings also help with small space. Have you see the work by
Prioria Robotics? http://www.prioria.com/

What is your landing requirements?

-David

On 01/17/2014 12:10 AM, Reto Büttner wrote:

> Hi Mark
>
> An interesting mission profile you have. I guess you need capability
> of storage in minimal space, launch by dropping, autonomous flight to
> a predefined spot and landing there. For this the following designs
> come to my mind:
>
> - Motorized Parachute, e.g. Para-RC. Pro: Stores extremely small.
> Cheap and simple. Easy launch by dropping. Well-mannered flight
> behaviour. Con: Does not land exactely vertical, but on very small
> space. Not very robust to wind. Not very efficient.
>
> - Gyrocopter, e.g. AC-10. Pro: Stores small. Lands vertical. Robust to
> wind. Simple mechanics. Con: Needs a drag chute for launch by
> dropping.
>
> - Helicopter, e.g. T-Rex. Pro: Stores small. Lands vertical. Robust to
> wind. Maximal maneuverability. Con: Complex, but mature and reliable
> mechanics. Needs a drag chute for launch by dropping.
>
> Neither multicopter, fixedwing aircraft nor a combination of both seem
> suited for your mission profile at first thought. I guess you have an
> interesing option with your inflatable wing. But at first look for
> small storage and vertical landing there are more obvious traditional
> designs. Make sure you have real advantages to them.
>
> One hint concerning your v-tail design without ailerons: An inverted
> v-tail will perform better than a standard one. This because an
> inverted v-tail does not generate any adverse roll, but correct roll
> when used as rudder.
>
> I hope Piotr and Christophe can help you concerning the Paparazzi
> transition technology.
>
> Cheers
> Reto
>
> 2014/1/17 Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13
> <[hidden email]>:
>> Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.
>>
>> Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.
>>
>> What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.
>>
>> PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?
>>
>>
>> Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!!!
>>
>> Mark Richardson
>> USAF Academy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

821starter
Hey Reto,

 We came up with our prototype requirement based on a combination of
customer needs and what we believed we could develop in the time frame. I
must mention that the mission profile is almost exactly how you've said; but
instead of just landing and being done, having the capability to take off
again to go to different areas. Our customer has asked not to publish the
requirements on line so I cannot go into too much detail on this setting but
I can discuss them with you in a private setting.

We have considered the motorized parachute (powered paraglider) but as you
have said, flying with a paraglider wing is inefficient. Also, since we
would like the ability to move after landing, getting the wing to inflate
just right for a takeoff would be a big challenge.

We have not considered a gyrocopter, this is basically for the same reason
we couldn't go with just a deployable quad, it is not capable of sustaining
a glide. I did see one video of a copter/plane that some company developed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfW4mbrodA which would almost fit our entire
profile; however, just like the VERTI4 it cannot fit in a small space.

Helicopter was the same way... range is insufficient.

So I described this prototype to be launched and deployed with the help of a
drag chute, for our prototype purpose, that is just fine. However, once
perfected and having the ability to inflate the wings in fractions of a
second we would it could to autodeploy without a chute.

Thanks for the tip on the Vtail, I will incorporate that onto our final
prototype.

David,

The landing requirements are anywhere from an open/deserted environment full
of whatever nature has to an urban environment - atop houses/buildings.

And this thing?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152152603155874&set=a.101521526029
05874.1073741834.590205873&type=3&theater
we are actually considering building a carbon wing like the one on it for
out prototype. Its pro/s compared to the inflatable wing are :

no need for CO2/inflating mechanism
lower possibility of damage if props strike wing
lighter than inflatable wing

however, as you can see on the second image, in order for the wing to fold
it is made up of a couple of layers on a mold of the airfoil without an
internal structure -- although this is doable, I doubt we can get as much
efficiency as with the inflatable wing, even in a final model.

I would like to clarify that although we are attempting to have a flying
prototype by may, it does not mean it has to be perfect; in fact, our only
job is to really present this tour customer and for them to decide wether or
not the idea is worth developing further.


Thanks to all!
--Mark






_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

smime.p7s (9K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

onefastdaddy
What is the expected max speed during airborne deployment?

I was thinking something like wingsuits for skydivers that inflate with air pressure. A structure like arms swivel out and create the wings..air fills the holes and make the airfoil.

I imagine if it was self righting (in case it lands upside down) you could just use wire legs extended as landing gear to point the nose up enough for vertical takeoff.

Likely enough air could be blown into the wings to inflate them from the front propeller.

Just thinking out loud. This way you have flexible retractable wings that could enable very high speeds during deployment.

Another thought. Maybe once on the ground a quad is built into this that can separate from the lander and fly off again to one or many other locations. Sort of lunar lander type thing. Deploy from altitude at high speed, winged flight to the ground. Right itself. If you need to re-deploy the top half is a complete quad rotor that separates and flies off.

At the end of the mission(s) do you need it back? Is it expected to go back up or is it a ground based recovery?

-David
On 01/17/2014 02:34 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13 wrote:
Hey Reto, 

 We came up with our prototype requirement based on a combination of
customer needs and what we believed we could develop in the time frame. I
must mention that the mission profile is almost exactly how you've said; but
instead of just landing and being done, having the capability to take off
again to go to different areas. Our customer has asked not to publish the
requirements on line so I cannot go into too much detail on this setting but
I can discuss them with you in a private setting. 

We have considered the motorized parachute (powered paraglider) but as you
have said, flying with a paraglider wing is inefficient. Also, since we
would like the ability to move after landing, getting the wing to inflate
just right for a takeoff would be a big challenge.

We have not considered a gyrocopter, this is basically for the same reason
we couldn't go with just a deployable quad, it is not capable of sustaining
a glide. I did see one video of a copter/plane that some company developed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfW4mbrodA which would almost fit our entire
profile; however, just like the VERTI4 it cannot fit in a small space.

Helicopter was the same way... range is insufficient.

So I described this prototype to be launched and deployed with the help of a
drag chute, for our prototype purpose, that is just fine. However, once
perfected and having the ability to inflate the wings in fractions of a
second we would it could to autodeploy without a chute.

Thanks for the tip on the Vtail, I will incorporate that onto our final
prototype. 

David,

The landing requirements are anywhere from an open/deserted environment full
of whatever nature has to an urban environment - atop houses/buildings.

And this thing?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152152603155874&set=a.101521526029
05874.1073741834.590205873&type=3&theater
we are actually considering building a carbon wing like the one on it for
out prototype. Its pro/s compared to the inflatable wing are :

no need for CO2/inflating mechanism
lower possibility of damage if props strike wing
lighter than inflatable wing

however, as you can see on the second image, in order for the wing to fold
it is made up of a couple of layers on a mold of the airfoil without an
internal structure -- although this is doable, I doubt we can get as much
efficiency as with the inflatable wing, even in a final model.

I would like to clarify that although we are attempting to have a flying
prototype by may, it does not mean it has to be perfect; in fact, our only
job is to really present this tour customer and for them to decide wether or
not the idea is worth developing further.


Thanks to all!
--Mark







_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Reto Büttner
In reply to this post by 821starter
Hi Mark

You need restart capability. That disqualifies paragliders and
gyrocopters. Interesting pictures on facebook. I like both the folding
an the inflatable wing.

Efficiency will not be easy to achieve. The folding wing has limits in
possible airfoil design, as only thin profiles seem possible. The
inflatable wing also has limits in possible airfoil design as a low
profile and high aspect ratio wing will not be possible. Additionally
it will have difficulties in airfoil precision. You have additional
weight and drag by the integrated quadrocopter.

I am still thinking of a traditional helicopter. They are reliable and
mass-produced. They store small, probably quite a bit smaller than
both folding and inflatable wing design. I think with transition
technology you will achieve max. 200%, rather 150% range of a
traditional helicopter. Is the additional 50% range worth the effort
of transition technology?

Why not just use a Quadshot or an Atmos? Being tailless they store
pretty small, maybe just a little bit bigger than a folding or
inflatable wing design. Their design could be further optimized for
minimal storage space. They should meet all your other needs.

Cheers, Reto

2014/1/17 Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13
<[hidden email]>:

> Hey Reto,
>
>  We came up with our prototype requirement based on a combination of
> customer needs and what we believed we could develop in the time frame. I
> must mention that the mission profile is almost exactly how you've said; but
> instead of just landing and being done, having the capability to take off
> again to go to different areas. Our customer has asked not to publish the
> requirements on line so I cannot go into too much detail on this setting but
> I can discuss them with you in a private setting.
>
> We have considered the motorized parachute (powered paraglider) but as you
> have said, flying with a paraglider wing is inefficient. Also, since we
> would like the ability to move after landing, getting the wing to inflate
> just right for a takeoff would be a big challenge.
>
> We have not considered a gyrocopter, this is basically for the same reason
> we couldn't go with just a deployable quad, it is not capable of sustaining
> a glide. I did see one video of a copter/plane that some company developed
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfW4mbrodA which would almost fit our entire
> profile; however, just like the VERTI4 it cannot fit in a small space.
>
> Helicopter was the same way... range is insufficient.
>
> So I described this prototype to be launched and deployed with the help of a
> drag chute, for our prototype purpose, that is just fine. However, once
> perfected and having the ability to inflate the wings in fractions of a
> second we would it could to autodeploy without a chute.
>
> Thanks for the tip on the Vtail, I will incorporate that onto our final
> prototype.
>
> David,
>
> The landing requirements are anywhere from an open/deserted environment full
> of whatever nature has to an urban environment - atop houses/buildings.
>
> And this thing?
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152152603155874&set=a.101521526029
> 05874.1073741834.590205873&type=3&theater
> we are actually considering building a carbon wing like the one on it for
> out prototype. Its pro/s compared to the inflatable wing are :
>
> no need for CO2/inflating mechanism
> lower possibility of damage if props strike wing
> lighter than inflatable wing
>
> however, as you can see on the second image, in order for the wing to fold
> it is made up of a couple of layers on a mold of the airfoil without an
> internal structure -- although this is doable, I doubt we can get as much
> efficiency as with the inflatable wing, even in a final model.
>
> I would like to clarify that although we are attempting to have a flying
> prototype by may, it does not mean it has to be perfect; in fact, our only
> job is to really present this tour customer and for them to decide wether or
> not the idea is worth developing further.
>
>
> Thanks to all!
> --Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

821starter
In reply to this post by onefastdaddy
Hey there David, I have just got the Lisa/M in and am having trouble with the paparazzi center. I'ts most likely because im just very unfamiliar to linux. I was able to successfully install it using the quickstart on Ubuntu 12.04 and had it running. But now I have no Idea how to open it. I've opened a terminal and typed the "./paparazzi" command but that just responds "./paparazzi is a directory".

What am I doing wrong?

-mark

-----Original Message-----
From: paparazzi-devel-bounces+c14mark.richardson=[hidden email] [mailto:paparazzi-devel-bounces+c14mark.richardson=[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Conger
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:04 PM
To: Paparazzi UAV devel list
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Hey Mark,

Have you see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7XgRK7pMoU

Transitioning platform code is written and tested in Paparazzi already. Note the landings of the winged body (Quadshot) as it nears landing it switches to hover and lands. The wind was howling that day (I was there)...easily 20+ MPH.

What makes Paparazzi the one to use is the maturity and depth of the code. The real world is not still air and perfect conditions.
Paparazzi excels in real world conditions and very imperfect weather.

PixHawk, my opinion is it's new hardware and untested. That project measures itself primarily in business terms of units made and sold not successful flights or missions and competitions won. Granted they are extremely successful in business terms but I have yet to see success measured in real world missions or competitions. They are very aggressive marketers and are very good at selling their project so I'm not surprised you were contacted after posting here. They also have many members subscribed to this email list.

Paparazzi is used by quite a lot of people actually. It is a very mature, open and growing community. They are all just quietly doing academics or research projects very much like yours not sales or marketing. There are even several commercial platforms with Paparazzi under the hood. A few Govt projects using Paparazzi based systems.
There are Paparazzi drones flying for more than 7 years in the Arctic and Antarctic regions doing atmospheric research. These are not people planning but real, complex missions like yours successfully flying.
Success in Paparazzi terms is measured in members starting, building and flying the mission intended with 100% accuracy and zero failure.
Success is also measured in winning UAV competitions around the World.
Paparazzi since 2002 has either won or placed top three every year, year after year. A Paparazzi based team TUDelft won the outdoor and indoor competition for IMAV2013 by flying simultaneously 12 drones with a single operator using a single laptop ground station (video URL given above).

I think you have chosen Paparazzi so I'm probably preaching to the choir. You've made a great choice. You are in good company here and there are many in the USA and Worldwide to help you along. Welcome.

David




On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA
CW/CS13 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.
>
> Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.
>
> What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.
>
> PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?
>
>
> Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.
>
>
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> Mark Richardson
> USAF Academy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


--
[hidden email]
http://www.ppzuav.com

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

smime.p7s (9K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

821starter
In reply to this post by Reto Büttner
Reto,

Using a modified quadshot could have been a great idea,  our design has tilting motors which just adds complexity and moving parts. I guess our real goal is to show the customers that their requirements can  potentially solved by making use of these technologies without necessarily having the best prototype. Basically, if we can show them that a couple of undergrads can build and demonstrate a working prototype that can meet most of their requirements they can only imagine what can happen once some real money is behind it.

I have sent Piotr a message 2 weeks ago through Facebook but have not gotten any reply so far.  Is there a better medium to talk with him through? Maybe through just straight e-mail?


Thanks!
-Mark

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

onefastdaddy
In reply to this post by 821starter
Yep, Linux thing.
If you follow the steps exactly it should have worked. Did any steps
given an error except the last one?
Sounds like you didn't do the cd paparazzi then make command before
doing the ./paparazzi
-DC

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA
CW/CS13 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey there David, I have just got the Lisa/M in and am having trouble with the paparazzi center. I'ts most likely because im just very unfamiliar to linux. I was able to successfully install it using the quickstart on Ubuntu 12.04 and had it running. But now I have no Idea how to open it. I've opened a terminal and typed the "./paparazzi" command but that just responds "./paparazzi is a directory".
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> -mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: paparazzi-devel-bounces+c14mark.richardson=[hidden email] [mailto:paparazzi-devel-bounces+c14mark.richardson=[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Conger
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:04 PM
> To: Paparazzi UAV devel list
> Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M
>
> Hey Mark,
>
> Have you see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7XgRK7pMoU
>
> Transitioning platform code is written and tested in Paparazzi already. Note the landings of the winged body (Quadshot) as it nears landing it switches to hover and lands. The wind was howling that day (I was there)...easily 20+ MPH.
>
> What makes Paparazzi the one to use is the maturity and depth of the code. The real world is not still air and perfect conditions.
> Paparazzi excels in real world conditions and very imperfect weather.
>
> PixHawk, my opinion is it's new hardware and untested. That project measures itself primarily in business terms of units made and sold not successful flights or missions and competitions won. Granted they are extremely successful in business terms but I have yet to see success measured in real world missions or competitions. They are very aggressive marketers and are very good at selling their project so I'm not surprised you were contacted after posting here. They also have many members subscribed to this email list.
>
> Paparazzi is used by quite a lot of people actually. It is a very mature, open and growing community. They are all just quietly doing academics or research projects very much like yours not sales or marketing. There are even several commercial platforms with Paparazzi under the hood. A few Govt projects using Paparazzi based systems.
> There are Paparazzi drones flying for more than 7 years in the Arctic and Antarctic regions doing atmospheric research. These are not people planning but real, complex missions like yours successfully flying.
> Success in Paparazzi terms is measured in members starting, building and flying the mission intended with 100% accuracy and zero failure.
> Success is also measured in winning UAV competitions around the World.
> Paparazzi since 2002 has either won or placed top three every year, year after year. A Paparazzi based team TUDelft won the outdoor and indoor competition for IMAV2013 by flying simultaneously 12 drones with a single operator using a single laptop ground station (video URL given above).
>
> I think you have chosen Paparazzi so I'm probably preaching to the choir. You've made a great choice. You are in good company here and there are many in the USA and Worldwide to help you along. Welcome.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA
> CW/CS13 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Reto, thanks so much for the information, I will be contacting Piotr and Wagter and see if they can offer me any guidance on this. As far as the transition deliverables you posted, I don’t think we will attempt to reach such high efficiency just yet;  the innovative part of our project is that the quad tilt rotor has the capability of being stored in an un-deployed configuration and  remotely deploying itself (if everything goes correctly, it will do this mid air after being dropped from 4000' AGL and using a drag chute to slow it down) However, if it all goes correctly, we will most likely see if there is anything we can do to improve efficiency.
>>
>> Chris, after looking at the pictures of the VERTI4 I think you are underestimating 60", that’s 5 full feet which after testing our wing out, seems closer to double the size of the one in the youtube video. Also, the wing was manufactured to be able to handle our total 12lb weight through a 3G turn so hopefully we can catch enough speed that the wing will no longer be just decoration.
>>
>> What are your opinions on the Pixhawk Autopilot, I just had it suggested to me after the last post.
>>
>> PS - I just got a hold of a tiny computer and put UBUNTU on  it, unfortunately I'm not allowed to hook it up to the GOV network we use so I will have to get a 4G wifi hotspot before I can download and start to work with the Paparazzi software  --- also put through a request for an order of the Lisa/M which will hopefully be ordered tomorrow;  what is the shipping time usually on this and what accessories come with it?
>>
>>
>> Again thanks so much to all of you for giving my teams project some time. I will do my best to keep this site updated on the progress and will definitely post questions to get more help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!!!
>>
>> Mark Richardson
>> USAF Academy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
>
> --
> [hidden email]
> http://www.ppzuav.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>



--
[hidden email]
http://www.ppzuav.com

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M

Reto Büttner
In reply to this post by 821starter
Hi Mark

You should find Piotrs contacts by google'ing him. Either in one of his companies or on this mailing list. Try different contacts.

These guys seem to do pretty much what you want to do, but not with Paparazzi unfortunately:

www.wingcopter.com

Check out their videos, it really seems to work well.

I might even have a personal connection to them, Hesselbarth sounds familiar to me as in UMARS.

Cheers
Reto

Am 24.01.2014 um 00:31 schrieb "Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13" <[hidden email]>:

> Reto,
>
> Using a modified quadshot could have been a great idea,  our design has tilting motors which just adds complexity and moving parts. I guess our real goal is to show the customers that their requirements can  potentially solved by making use of these technologies without necessarily having the best prototype. Basically, if we can show them that a couple of undergrads can build and demonstrate a working prototype that can meet most of their requirements they can only imagine what can happen once some real money is behind it.
>
> I have sent Piotr a message 2 weeks ago through Facebook but have not gotten any reply so far.  Is there a better medium to talk with him through? Maybe through just straight e-mail?
>
>
> Thanks!
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel

_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OSX 10.9 install

chrisrobson
In reply to this post by onefastdaddy
Hi everyone,

So a couple of months ago I tried installing paparazzi on OSX snow leopard, and ran into problems installing paparazzi tools.  I’m now trying on a different laptop with OSX 10.9 (Mavericks).  The first thing I tried to do with it was install the two bits of software that I’d previously installed with Macports:  Paparazzi and OpenCV. OpenCV installed ok, then I tried Paparazzi.

Below I’ve wrote out a step by step of what I’m doing, in the hope that it can be solved with your help.

I’ve revisited the paparazzi osx installation page, noted the comments at the top and am using macports to install paparazzi tools as there is no binary installer file for mavericks. 
I’m using a Tiny 2 so I’m skipping the Luftboot and PyUSB steps.

Since I had problems with multiple ports in different places on my last attempt, I looked at the ‘troubleshooting' steps: 
echo $PATH
export PATH=/opt/paparazzi/bin:/opt/paparazzi/sbin:$PATH
This conflicts with the 'Installing from source' instructions immediately below it which asks for the first path entry to be set to /opt/local/bin, so I guessed that the troubleshooting steps are not applicable at this point.  

I followed the ‘Installing from source’ section and managed to install paparazzi tools OK, It did stop on one port with this error:
Error: org.macports.fetch for port gcc-arm-embedded returned: fetch failed

I got past this (I hope correctly) using:
sudo port install gcc-arm-embedded
This worked and I restarted the paparazzi-tools install, below is the tail end of the installation, which as far as I know means it was successful.  

Extracting paparazzi-tools
--->  Configuring paparazzi-tools
--->  Building paparazzi-tools
--->  Staging paparazzi-tools into destroot
--->  Installing paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
--->  Activating paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
--->  Cleaning paparazzi-tools
--->  Updating database of binaries: 100.0%
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  Found 9 broken file(s), matching files to ports
--->  Found 2 broken port(s), determining rebuild order
--->  Rebuilding in order
     ocaml @4.01.0 
     tiff @4.0.3 
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  Found 9 broken file(s), matching files to ports
--->  Found 2 broken port(s), determining rebuild order
--->  Rebuilding in order
     ocaml @4.01.0 
     tiff @4.0.3 
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Fetching distfiles for ocaml
--->  Attempting to fetch ocaml-4.01.0.tar.bz2 from http://lil.fr.distfiles.macports.org/ocaml
--->  Verifying checksums for ocaml
--->  Extracting ocaml
--->  Configuring ocaml
--->  Building ocaml
--->  Staging ocaml into destroot
--->  Unable to uninstall ocaml @4.01.0_0, the following ports depend on it:
--->  ocaml-findlib @1.4_1
--->  ocaml-pcre @7.0.4_0
--->  ocaml-ocamlnet @3.7.3_0
--->  ivy-ocaml @r3577-2013.03.27_2
--->  lablgtk2 @2.18.0_0+x11
--->  ocaml-gsl @0.6.0_3
--->  lablgl @20120306_3
--->  ocamlsdl @0.9.1_4
--->  xml-light @2.2_5
--->  paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
Warning: Uninstall forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Deactivating ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Unable to deactivate ocaml @4.01.0_0, the following ports depend on it:
--->  ocaml-findlib @1.4_1
--->  ocaml-pcre @7.0.4_0
--->  ocaml-ocamlnet @3.7.3_0
--->  ivy-ocaml @r3577-2013.03.27_2
--->  lablgtk2 @2.18.0_0+x11
--->  ocaml-gsl @0.6.0_3
--->  lablgl @20120306_3
--->  ocamlsdl @0.9.1_4
--->  xml-light @2.2_5
--->  paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
Warning: Deactivate forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Uninstalling ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Installing ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Activating ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Fetching distfiles for tiff
--->  Attempting to fetch tiff-4.0.3.tar.gz from http://lil.fr.distfiles.macports.org/tiff
--->  Verifying checksums for tiff
--->  Extracting tiff
--->  Applying patches to tiff
--->  Configuring tiff
--->  Building tiff
--->  Staging tiff into destroot
--->  Unable to uninstall tiff @4.0.3_2, the following ports depend on it:
--->  gdk-pixbuf2 @2.30.3_0+x11
--->  libsdl_image @1.2.12_4
--->  lcms @1.19_5
Warning: Uninstall forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Deactivating tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Unable to deactivate tiff @4.0.3_2, the following ports depend on it:
--->  gdk-pixbuf2 @2.30.3_0+x11
--->  libsdl_image @1.2.12_4
--->  lcms @1.19_5
Warning: Deactivate forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Uninstalling tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Installing tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Activating tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Updating database of binaries: 100.0%
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  No broken files found.
 
After this, I followed the generic instructions to get the source code using git, which was successful.  I then tried ‘make’ which is where it fails, giving multiple warnings that Interface gliblvy.cmi occurs in several directories.

findlib: [WARNING] Interface glibIvy.cmi occurs in several directories: /opt/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib/glibivy, /opt/local/lib/ocaml
File "_none_", line 1:
Error: Error on dynamically loaded library: dlllablgtk2.so: dlopen(dlllablgtk2.so, 138): image not found
make[1]: *** [paparazzicenter] Error 2
make: *** [sw/supervision] Error 2

Any ideas why it would be doing this?

Thanks
Chris 



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OSX 10.9 install

Stephen Dwyer
Hi Chris,

I have been very busy lately with other things so unfortunately I have not had time to properly update the OS X section on the wiki.

Mavericks and Mountain Lion should both be working fine now, including full operation of Paparazzi Center launching agents (Thanks Esden!).

I just recently finished building a binary installer for Mavericks, but it hasn't been tested. I also think that setting up the environment from the binary installers is still broken (haven't had time to debug it, takes a long time to test changes). This is easily created by adding the right path and environment variable changes to your .profile and creating a python symlink to the paparazzi installed python. Need to put this on the wiki. I can upload it if you are interested in testing, but it will take a while.

Again, needs updating, but PyUSB should be a dependency of paparazzi-tools now, so no need to do that. You do need to make sure you are using the right python though. Use macports port select command to change the default python (need to use a symlink if using the binary installer).

The failed fetch just means the server holding the files for that port failed to respond in time. Trying to install again like you did is usually how you solve that.

For the lablgtk2 library, you can see if ocaml can find it with:
ocamlfind query lablgtk2

It should return: /opt/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib/lablgtk2

It is possible that ocaml and ocamlfind and some of the other ocaml libs got a bit messed up (hinted by the broken files/ports). This occasionally pops up with macports and is a real pain. I am not sure how to properly solve the problem. In the past I have had to uninstall all the ocaml related items (it gives a list of dependencies in what you posted) and reinstalling them in that order. It is annoying, and doesn't always work either. I do not have any more insight right now, maybe someone else does.

The reason for the interface occurring in several directories warning is because we have a symlink for most of these libraries to keep compatibility with Paparazzi before v5.0. It is harmless, just makes it look messy. I haven't determined how to disable that warning. There are also a couple other v4.0 compatibility things that are installed that don't need to be there if you are using v5.0 and above only.

Hopefully that helps. If you have any further problems, please feel free to post them. Your extra information you posted this time was useful.

Thanks,
-Stephen Dwyer


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM, chrisrobson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everyone,

So a couple of months ago I tried installing paparazzi on OSX snow leopard, and ran into problems installing paparazzi tools.  I’m now trying on a different laptop with OSX 10.9 (Mavericks).  The first thing I tried to do with it was install the two bits of software that I’d previously installed with Macports:  Paparazzi and OpenCV. OpenCV installed ok, then I tried Paparazzi.

Below I’ve wrote out a step by step of what I’m doing, in the hope that it can be solved with your help.

I’ve revisited the paparazzi osx installation page, noted the comments at the top and am using macports to install paparazzi tools as there is no binary installer file for mavericks. 
I’m using a Tiny 2 so I’m skipping the Luftboot and PyUSB steps.

Since I had problems with multiple ports in different places on my last attempt, I looked at the ‘troubleshooting' steps: 
echo $PATH
export PATH=/opt/paparazzi/bin:/opt/paparazzi/sbin:$PATH
This conflicts with the 'Installing from source' instructions immediately below it which asks for the first path entry to be set to /opt/local/bin, so I guessed that the troubleshooting steps are not applicable at this point.  

I followed the ‘Installing from source’ section and managed to install paparazzi tools OK, It did stop on one port with this error:
Error: org.macports.fetch for port gcc-arm-embedded returned: fetch failed

I got past this (I hope correctly) using:
sudo port install gcc-arm-embedded
This worked and I restarted the paparazzi-tools install, below is the tail end of the installation, which as far as I know means it was successful.  

Extracting paparazzi-tools
--->  Configuring paparazzi-tools
--->  Building paparazzi-tools
--->  Staging paparazzi-tools into destroot
--->  Installing paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
--->  Activating paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
--->  Cleaning paparazzi-tools
--->  Updating database of binaries: 100.0%
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  Found 9 broken file(s), matching files to ports
--->  Found 2 broken port(s), determining rebuild order
--->  Rebuilding in order
     ocaml @4.01.0 
     tiff @4.0.3 
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  Found 9 broken file(s), matching files to ports
--->  Found 2 broken port(s), determining rebuild order
--->  Rebuilding in order
     ocaml @4.01.0 
     tiff @4.0.3 
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Fetching distfiles for ocaml
--->  Attempting to fetch ocaml-4.01.0.tar.bz2 from http://lil.fr.distfiles.macports.org/ocaml
--->  Verifying checksums for ocaml
--->  Extracting ocaml
--->  Configuring ocaml
--->  Building ocaml
--->  Staging ocaml into destroot
--->  Unable to uninstall ocaml @4.01.0_0, the following ports depend on it:
--->  ocaml-findlib @1.4_1
--->  ocaml-pcre @7.0.4_0
--->  ocaml-ocamlnet @3.7.3_0
--->  ivy-ocaml @r3577-2013.03.27_2
--->  lablgtk2 @2.18.0_0+x11
--->  ocaml-gsl @0.6.0_3
--->  lablgl @20120306_3
--->  ocamlsdl @0.9.1_4
--->  xml-light @2.2_5
--->  paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
Warning: Uninstall forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Deactivating ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Unable to deactivate ocaml @4.01.0_0, the following ports depend on it:
--->  ocaml-findlib @1.4_1
--->  ocaml-pcre @7.0.4_0
--->  ocaml-ocamlnet @3.7.3_0
--->  ivy-ocaml @r3577-2013.03.27_2
--->  lablgtk2 @2.18.0_0+x11
--->  ocaml-gsl @0.6.0_3
--->  lablgl @20120306_3
--->  ocamlsdl @0.9.1_4
--->  xml-light @2.2_5
--->  paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
Warning: Deactivate forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Uninstalling ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Installing ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Activating ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Fetching distfiles for tiff
--->  Attempting to fetch tiff-4.0.3.tar.gz from http://lil.fr.distfiles.macports.org/tiff
--->  Verifying checksums for tiff
--->  Extracting tiff
--->  Applying patches to tiff
--->  Configuring tiff
--->  Building tiff
--->  Staging tiff into destroot
--->  Unable to uninstall tiff @4.0.3_2, the following ports depend on it:
--->  gdk-pixbuf2 @2.30.3_0+x11
--->  libsdl_image @1.2.12_4
--->  lcms @1.19_5
Warning: Uninstall forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Deactivating tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Unable to deactivate tiff @4.0.3_2, the following ports depend on it:
--->  gdk-pixbuf2 @2.30.3_0+x11
--->  libsdl_image @1.2.12_4
--->  lcms @1.19_5
Warning: Deactivate forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Uninstalling tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Installing tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Activating tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Updating database of binaries: 100.0%
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  No broken files found.
 
After this, I followed the generic instructions to get the source code using git, which was successful.  I then tried ‘make’ which is where it fails, giving multiple warnings that Interface gliblvy.cmi occurs in several directories.

findlib: [WARNING] Interface glibIvy.cmi occurs in several directories: /opt/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib/glibivy, /opt/local/lib/ocaml
File "_none_", line 1:
Error: Error on dynamically loaded library: dlllablgtk2.so: dlopen(dlllablgtk2.so, 138): image not found
make[1]: *** [paparazzicenter] Error 2
make: *** [sw/supervision] Error 2

Any ideas why it would be doing this?

Thanks
Chris 



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OSX 10.9 install

chrisrobson
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the helpful reply.  I’ve made some progress!

First I checked to make sure I was running the correct version of python, I was fairly sure I’d completed this step but redid it all the same:
...$ sudo port select --set python python27
Selecting 'python27' for 'python' succeeded. 'python27' is now active.

So I tried:
ocamlfind query lablgtk2
Which did return:
 /opt/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib/lablgtk2

I then looked at the list of dependancies, and reinstalled them in order.  This solved the problem with lablgtk2.

Now could then go into my paparazzi directory, and hit make, which seemed to work, but when trying to run paparazzi (I’m in the paparazzi directory and type ./paparazzi) I get this:

...$ ./paparazzi
Fatal error: exception Gtk.Error("GtkMain.init: initialization failed
ml_gtk_init: initialization failed”)  

I had a search for it, but couldn’t find any results for something similar, then found something talking about X11.  It was at this point that I realised that while the X11 icon appears in my application folder, it is in fact a download link to download it, and not intact the software itself…  After feeling a bit silly and downloading XQuartz, Paparazzi Centre loaded and I can run simulations with no problems :).  

I also noticed the paparazzi tools installer for the mavericks binary installation has appeared on the wiki. I might enjoy everything working for a little while before going back and trying it that way instead!

Cheers
Chris

On 26 Jan 2014, at 05:25, Stephen Dwyer <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Chris,

I have been very busy lately with other things so unfortunately I have not had time to properly update the OS X section on the wiki.

Mavericks and Mountain Lion should both be working fine now, including full operation of Paparazzi Center launching agents (Thanks Esden!).

I just recently finished building a binary installer for Mavericks, but it hasn't been tested. I also think that setting up the environment from the binary installers is still broken (haven't had time to debug it, takes a long time to test changes). This is easily created by adding the right path and environment variable changes to your .profile and creating a python symlink to the paparazzi installed python. Need to put this on the wiki. I can upload it if you are interested in testing, but it will take a while.

Again, needs updating, but PyUSB should be a dependency of paparazzi-tools now, so no need to do that. You do need to make sure you are using the right python though. Use macports port select command to change the default python (need to use a symlink if using the binary installer).

The failed fetch just means the server holding the files for that port failed to respond in time. Trying to install again like you did is usually how you solve that.

For the lablgtk2 library, you can see if ocaml can find it with:
ocamlfind query lablgtk2

It should return: /opt/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib/lablgtk2

It is possible that ocaml and ocamlfind and some of the other ocaml libs got a bit messed up (hinted by the broken files/ports). This occasionally pops up with macports and is a real pain. I am not sure how to properly solve the problem. In the past I have had to uninstall all the ocaml related items (it gives a list of dependencies in what you posted) and reinstalling them in that order. It is annoying, and doesn't always work either. I do not have any more insight right now, maybe someone else does.

The reason for the interface occurring in several directories warning is because we have a symlink for most of these libraries to keep compatibility with Paparazzi before v5.0. It is harmless, just makes it look messy. I haven't determined how to disable that warning. There are also a couple other v4.0 compatibility things that are installed that don't need to be there if you are using v5.0 and above only.

Hopefully that helps. If you have any further problems, please feel free to post them. Your extra information you posted this time was useful.

Thanks,
-Stephen Dwyer


On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM, chrisrobson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everyone,

So a couple of months ago I tried installing paparazzi on OSX snow leopard, and ran into problems installing paparazzi tools.  I’m now trying on a different laptop with OSX 10.9 (Mavericks).  The first thing I tried to do with it was install the two bits of software that I’d previously installed with Macports:  Paparazzi and OpenCV. OpenCV installed ok, then I tried Paparazzi.

Below I’ve wrote out a step by step of what I’m doing, in the hope that it can be solved with your help.

I’ve revisited the paparazzi osx installation page, noted the comments at the top and am using macports to install paparazzi tools as there is no binary installer file for mavericks. 
I’m using a Tiny 2 so I’m skipping the Luftboot and PyUSB steps.

Since I had problems with multiple ports in different places on my last attempt, I looked at the ‘troubleshooting' steps: 
echo $PATH
export PATH=/opt/paparazzi/bin:/opt/paparazzi/sbin:$PATH
This conflicts with the 'Installing from source' instructions immediately below it which asks for the first path entry to be set to /opt/local/bin, so I guessed that the troubleshooting steps are not applicable at this point.  

I followed the ‘Installing from source’ section and managed to install paparazzi tools OK, It did stop on one port with this error:
Error: org.macports.fetch for port gcc-arm-embedded returned: fetch failed

I got past this (I hope correctly) using:
sudo port install gcc-arm-embedded
This worked and I restarted the paparazzi-tools install, below is the tail end of the installation, which as far as I know means it was successful.  

Extracting paparazzi-tools
--->  Configuring paparazzi-tools
--->  Building paparazzi-tools
--->  Staging paparazzi-tools into destroot
--->  Installing paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
--->  Activating paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
--->  Cleaning paparazzi-tools
--->  Updating database of binaries: 100.0%
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  Found 9 broken file(s), matching files to ports
--->  Found 2 broken port(s), determining rebuild order
--->  Rebuilding in order
     ocaml @4.01.0 
     tiff @4.0.3 
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  Found 9 broken file(s), matching files to ports
--->  Found 2 broken port(s), determining rebuild order
--->  Rebuilding in order
     ocaml @4.01.0 
     tiff @4.0.3 
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Fetching distfiles for ocaml
--->  Attempting to fetch ocaml-4.01.0.tar.bz2 from http://lil.fr.distfiles.macports.org/ocaml
--->  Verifying checksums for ocaml
--->  Extracting ocaml
--->  Configuring ocaml
--->  Building ocaml
--->  Staging ocaml into destroot
--->  Unable to uninstall ocaml @4.01.0_0, the following ports depend on it:
--->  ocaml-findlib @1.4_1
--->  ocaml-pcre @7.0.4_0
--->  ocaml-ocamlnet @3.7.3_0
--->  ivy-ocaml @r3577-2013.03.27_2
--->  lablgtk2 @2.18.0_0+x11
--->  ocaml-gsl @0.6.0_3
--->  lablgl @20120306_3
--->  ocamlsdl @0.9.1_4
--->  xml-light @2.2_5
--->  paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
Warning: Uninstall forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Deactivating ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Unable to deactivate ocaml @4.01.0_0, the following ports depend on it:
--->  ocaml-findlib @1.4_1
--->  ocaml-pcre @7.0.4_0
--->  ocaml-ocamlnet @3.7.3_0
--->  ivy-ocaml @r3577-2013.03.27_2
--->  lablgtk2 @2.18.0_0+x11
--->  ocaml-gsl @0.6.0_3
--->  lablgl @20120306_3
--->  ocamlsdl @0.9.1_4
--->  xml-light @2.2_5
--->  paparazzi-tools @2013.03.26_1+pprz_v4
Warning: Deactivate forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Uninstalling ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for ocaml
--->  Installing ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Activating ocaml @4.01.0_0
--->  Cleaning ocaml
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Fetching distfiles for tiff
--->  Attempting to fetch tiff-4.0.3.tar.gz from http://lil.fr.distfiles.macports.org/tiff
--->  Verifying checksums for tiff
--->  Extracting tiff
--->  Applying patches to tiff
--->  Configuring tiff
--->  Building tiff
--->  Staging tiff into destroot
--->  Unable to uninstall tiff @4.0.3_2, the following ports depend on it:
--->  gdk-pixbuf2 @2.30.3_0+x11
--->  libsdl_image @1.2.12_4
--->  lcms @1.19_5
Warning: Uninstall forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Deactivating tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Unable to deactivate tiff @4.0.3_2, the following ports depend on it:
--->  gdk-pixbuf2 @2.30.3_0+x11
--->  libsdl_image @1.2.12_4
--->  lcms @1.19_5
Warning: Deactivate forced.  Proceeding despite dependencies.
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Uninstalling tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Computing dependencies for tiff
--->  Installing tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Activating tiff @4.0.3_2
--->  Cleaning tiff
--->  Updating database of binaries: 100.0%
--->  Scanning binaries for linking errors: 100.0%
--->  No broken files found.
 
After this, I followed the generic instructions to get the source code using git, which was successful.  I then tried ‘make’ which is where it fails, giving multiple warnings that Interface gliblvy.cmi occurs in several directories.

findlib: [WARNING] Interface glibIvy.cmi occurs in several directories: /opt/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib/glibivy, /opt/local/lib/ocaml
File "_none_", line 1:
Error: Error on dynamically loaded library: dlllablgtk2.so: dlopen(dlllablgtk2.so, 138): image not found
make[1]: *** [paparazzicenter] Error 2
make: *** [sw/supervision] Error 2

Any ideas why it would be doing this?

Thanks
Chris 



_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel


_______________________________________________
Paparazzi-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
12