Category: Video

This week we have a guest blog post from Bart Duisterhof and Prof. Guido de Croon from the MAVlab, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering from the Delft University of Technology. Enjoy!

Tiny drones are ideal candidates for fully autonomous jobs that are too dangerous or time-consuming for humans. A commonly shared dream would be to have swarms of such drones help in search-and-rescue scenarios, for instance to localize gas leaks without endangering human lives. Drones like the CrazyFlie are ideal for such tasks, since they are small enough to navigate in narrow spaces, safe, agile, and very inexpensive. However, their small footprint also makes the design of an autonomous swarm extremely challenging, both from a software and hardware perspective.

From a software perspective, it is really challenging to come up with an algorithm capable of autonomous and collaborative navigation within such tight resource constraints. State-of-the-art solutions like SLAM require too much memory and processing power. A promising line of work is to use bug algorithms [1], which can be implemented as computationally efficient finite state machines (FSMs), and can navigate around obstacles without requiring a map.

A downside of using FSMs is that the resulting behavior can be very sensitive to their hyperparameters, and therefore may not generalize outside of the tested environments. This is especially true for the problem of gas source localization (GSL), as wind conditions and obstacle configurations drastically change the problem. In this blog post, we show how we tackled the complex problem of swarm GSL in cluttered environments by using a simple bug algorithm with evolved parameters, and then tested it onboard a fully autonomous swarm of CrazyFlies. We will focus on the problems that were encountered along the way, and the design choices we made as a result. At the end of this post, we will also add a short discussion about the future of nano drones.

Why gas source localization?

Overall we are interested in finding novel ways to enable autonomy on constrained devices, like CrazyFlies. Two years ago, we showed that a swarm of CrazyFlie drones was able to explore unknown, cluttered environments and come back to the base station. Since then, we have been working on an even more complex task: using such a swarm for Gas Source Localization (GSL). 

There has been a lot of research focussing on autonomous GSL in robotics, since it is an important but very hard problem. The difficulty of the task comes from the complexity of how odor can spread in an environment. In an empty room without wind, a gas will slowly diffuse from the source. This can allow a robot to find it by moving up gradient, just like small bacteria like E. Coli do. However, if the environment becomes larger with many obstacles and walls, and wind comes into play, the spreading of gas is much less regular. Large parts of the environment may have no gas or wind at all, while at the same time there may be pockets of gas away from the source. Moreover, chemical sensors for robots are much less capable than the smelling organs of animals. Available chemical sensors for robots are typically less sensitive, noisier, and much slower.  

Due to these difficulties, most work in the GSL field has focused on a single robot that has to find a gas source in environments that are relatively small and without obstacles. Relatively recently, there have been studies in which groups of robots solve this task in a collaborative fashion, for example with Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). This allows robots to find the source and escape local maxima when present. Until now this concept has been shown in simulation [2] and on large outdoor drones equipped with LiDAR and GPS [3], but never before on tiny drones in complex, GPS-denied, indoor environments.

Required Infrastructure

In our project, we introduce a new bug algorithm, Sniffy Bug, which uses PSO for gas source localization. In order to tune the FSM of Sniffy Bug, we used an artificial evolution. For time reasons, evolution typically takes place in simulation. However, early in the project, we realized that this would be a challenge, as no end-to-end gas modeling pipeline existed yet. It is important to have an easy-to-use pipeline that does not require any aerodynamics domain knowledge, such that as many researchers as possible can generate environments to test their algorithms. It would also make it easier to compare contributions and to better understand in which conditions certain algorithms work or don’t work. The GADEN ROS package [4] is a great open-source tool for modeling gas distribution when you have an environment and flow field, but for our objective, we needed a fully automated tool that could generate a great variety of random environments on-demand with just a few parameters. Below is an overview of our simulation pipeline: AutoGDM.

AutoGDM, a fully automated gas dispersion modeling (GDM) simulation pipeline.

First, we use a procedural environment generator proposed in [5] to generate random walls and obstacles inside of the environment. An important next step is to generate a 3D flowfield by means of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A hard requirement for us was that AutoGDM needed to be free to use, so we chose to use the open-source CFD tool OpenFOAM. It’s used for cutting-edge aerodynamics research, and also the tool suggested by the authors of GADEN. Usually, using OpenFOAM isn’t trivial, as a large number of parameters need to be selected that require field expertise, resulting in a complicated process. Next, we integrate GADEN into our pipeline, to go from environment definition (CAD files) and a flow field to a gas concentration field. Other parts that needed to be automated were the random selection of boundary conditions, which has a large impact on the actual flow field, and source placement, which has an equally large impact on the concentration field.

After we built this pipeline, we started looking for a robot simulator to couple it to. Since we weren’t planning on using a camera, our main requirement was for the simulator to be efficient (preferably in 2D) so that evolutions would take relatively little time. We decided to use Swarmulator [6], a lightweight C++ robot simulator designed for swarming and we plugged in our gas data.

Algorithm Design

Roughly speaking, we considered two categories of algorithms for controlling the drones: 1) a neural network, and 2) an FSM that included PSO, with evolved parameters. Since we used a tiny neural network for light seeking with a CrazyFlie in our previous work, we first evolved neural networks in simulation. One of the first experiments is shown below.

A single agent in simulation seeking a light source using a tiny neural network.

While it worked pretty well in simple environments with few obstacles, it seemed challenging to make this work in real life with complex obstacles and multiple agents that need to collaborate. Given the time constraints of the project, we have opted for evolving the FSM. This also facilitated crossing the reality gap, as the simulated evolution could build on basic behaviors that we developed and validated on the real platform, including obstacle avoidance with four tiny laser rangers, while communicating with and avoiding other drones. An additional advantage of PSO with respect to the reality gap is that it only needs gas concentration and no gradient of the gas concentration or wind direction (which many algorithms in literature use). On a real robot at this scale, estimating the gas concentration gradient or the direction of a light breeze is hard if not impossible.

Hardware

Our CrazyFlie needs to be able to avoid obstacles, execute velocity commands, sense gas, and estimate the other agent’s position in its own frame. For navigation, we added the flow deck and laser rangers, whereas for gas sensing we used a TGS8100 gas sensor that was used on a CrazyFlie before in previous work [7]. The sensor is lightweight and inexpensive, but accurately estimating gas concentrations can be difficult because of its size. It tends to drift and needs time to recover after a spike in concentration is observed. Another thing we noticed is that it is possible to break them, a crash can definitely destroy the sensor.

To estimate the relative position between agents, we use a Decawave Ultra-Wideband (UWB) module and communicate states, as proposed in [8]. We also use the UWB module to communicate gas information between agents and collaboratively seek the source. The complete configuration is visible below.

A 37.5 g nano quadcopter, capable of fully autonomous waypoint tracking, obstacle avoidance, relative localization, communication and gas sensing.

Evaluation in Simulation

After we optimized the parameters of our model using Swarmulator and AutoGDM, and of course trying many different versions of our algorithm, we ended up with the final Sniffy Bug algorithm. Below is a video that shows evolved Sniffy Bug evaluated in six different environments. The red dots are an agent’s personal target waypoint, whereas the yellow dot is the best-known position for the swarm.

Sniffy Bug evaluated in Swarmulator environments.

Simulation showed that Sniffy Bug is effective at locating the gas source in randomly generated environments. The drones successfully collaborate by means of PSO.

Real Flight Testing

After observing Sniffy Bug in simulation we were optimistic, but unsure about performance in real life. First, inspired by previous works, we disperse alcohol through the air by placing liquid alcohol into a can which is then dispersed using a computer fan.

Dispersion of liquid alcohol in flight tests.

We test Sniffy Bug in our flight arena of size 10 x 10 meters with large obstacles that are shaped like walls and orange poles. The image below shows four flight tests of Sniffy Bug in cluttered environments, flying fully autonomously, i.e., without the help from any external infrastructure.

Time-lapse images of real-world experiments in our flight arena. Sniffy was evaluated on four distinct environments, 10 x 10 meters in size, seeking a real isopropyl alcohol source. The trajectories of the nano quadcopters are clearly visible due to their blue lights.

In the total of 24 runs we executed, we compared Sniffy Bug with manually selected and evolved parameters. The figure below shows that the evolved parameters are more efficient in locating the source as compared to the manual parameters.

Maximum recorded gas reading by the swarm, for each time step for each run.

This does not only show that our system can successfully locate a gas source in challenging environments, but it also demonstrates the usefulness of the simulation pipeline. The parameters that were learned in simulation yield a high-performance model, validating the environment generation, randomization, and gas modeling parts of our pipeline.

Conclusion and Discussion

With this work, we believe we have made an important step towards swarms of gas-seeking drones. The proposed solution is shown to work in real flight tests with obstacles, and without any external systems to help in localization or communication. We believe this methodology can be extended to larger environments or even to 3 dimensions, since PSO is a robust, multi-dimensional heuristic search method. Moreover, we hope that AutoGDM will help the community to better compare gas seeking algorithms, and to more easily learn parameters or models in simulation, and deploy them in the real world.

To improve Sniffy Bug’s performance, adding more laser rangers will definitely help. When working with only four laser rangers you realize how little information it actually provides. If one of the rangers senses a low value it is unclear if a slim pole or a massive wall is detected, adding inefficiency to the algorithm. Adding more laser rangers or using other sensor modalities like vision will help to avoid also more complex obstacles than walls and poles in a reliable manner.

Another interesting discussion can be held on the hardware required for real deployment. When working with 40 grams of maximum take-off weight, the sensors and actuators that can be selected are limited. For example, the low-power and lightweight flow deck works great but fails in low-light scenarios or with smoke. Future work exploring novel sensors for highly constrained nano robots could really help increase the Technological Readiness Level (TRL) of these systems.

Finally, this has been a really fun project to work on for us and we can’t wait to hear your thoughts on Sniffy Bug!

References

[1] K. N. McGuire, C. De Wagter, K. Tuyls, H. J. Kappen, and G. C. H. E.de Croon, “Minimal navigation solution for a swarm of tiny flying robotsto explore an unknown environment,”Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 35,2019.

[2] W. Jatmiko, K. Sekiyama and T. Fukuda, “A pso-based mobile robot for odor source localization in dynamic advection-diffusion with obstacles environment: theory, simulation and measurement,” in IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 37-51, May 2007, doi: 10.1109/MCI.2007.353419.

[3] Steiner, JA, Bourne, JR, He, X, Cropek, DM, & Leang, KK. “Chemical-Source Localization Using a Swarm of Decentralized Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Urban/Suburban Environments.” Proceedings of the ASME 2019 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. Volume 3, Park City, Utah, USA. October 8–11, 2019. V003T21A006. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/DSCC2019-9099

[4] . Monroy, V. Hernandez-Bennetts, H. Fan, A. Lilienthal, andJ. Gonzalez-Jimenez, “Gaden: A 3d gas dispersion simulator for mobilerobot olfaction in realistic environments,”MDPI Sensors, vol. 17, no.7: 1479, pp. 1–16, 2017.

[5] K. McGuire, G. de Croon, and K. Tuyls, “A comparative study of bug algorithms for robot navigation,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol.121, p. 103261, 2019.

[6] https://github.com/coppolam/swarmulator

[7] J. Burgues, V. Hern ́andez, A. J. Lilienthal, and S. Marco, “Smellingnano aerial vehicle for gas source localization and mapping,”Sensors(Switzerland), vol. 19, no. 3, 2019.[8] S. Li, M. Coppola, C. D. Wagter, and G. C. H. E. de Croon, “An autonomous swarm of micro flying robots with range-based relative localization,” Arxiv, 2020.

[8] S. Li, M. Coppola, C. D. Wagter, and G. C. H. E. de Croon, “An autonomous swarm of micro flying robots with range-based relative localization,” Arxiv, 2020.

Links

ArXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.05490

Code: https://github.com/tudelft/sniffy-bug

Video:

Please reach out if you have any questions or ideas, you can reach us at: b.p.duisterhof@gmail.com or g.c.h.e.decroon@tudelft.nl

If you haven’t visited our store in a while, you may have missed our new addition: the Lighthouse Swarm bundle!

We’ve been working for some time now on improving the Lighthouse decks and its positioning system. Earlier in the year, we have brought the Lighthouse deck out of early access. While working with it, we have seen the great possibilities and the accuracy of this new positioning system. Thanks to Steam’s VR base station that we use as an optical beacon, the Crazyflie calculates its position with an accuracy better than a decimeter and millimeter precision. It gives a tracking volume of up to 5x5x2 meters with sub-millimetre jitter and below 10 cm accuracy while flying. It’s perfect for a swarm, as it’s accurate, precise and autonomous. We’ve flown our Crazyflies with it a number of time and seen some awesome stuff with it!

As an example, here is a demo we’ve shown on a conference back in October. We’ve used 8 Crazyflies equipped with Lighthouse decks and Qi chargers, to make a spiraling swarm. A computer orchestrates the Crazyflies and make sure one is flying at all times, while the others re-charge their batteries on their pads. After a pre-programmed trajectory is finished or when the battery of the flying Crazyflie is depleted, it goes back to its pad while another one takes over. The demo had an all-in mode that runs the trajectory on all Crazyflie with sufficient charge at once, the result is quite impressive and demonstrate the great relative precision of the Lighthouse system:

After the launch signal is sent to the Crazyflies, the computer is not required anymore: the Crazyflie will autonomously estimate its position from the lighthouse’s signals. The Crazyflie can estimate its own X, Y and Z in a global coordinate system.

What’s great with the Lighthouse Swarm is that it allows you to do drone research even if you’re on a tighter budget.

And when we got the opportunity to acquire our own base stations (that are also available in the shop by the way), it seemed only logical to offer a Swarm bundle similar to our Loco swarm bundle. So what’s in it ?

While the positioning will work with one base station, two base stations will allow better coverage of the flight space and better stability; as Kimberly can attest, it’s even possible to set it in your kitchen. The Crazyradios allow communication between the Crazyflies and your computer.

We dedicated a lot of time to the Lighthouse this winter, writing a paper with the help of Wolgangs’ calibration expertise. In this paper, we compared both Lighthouse V1 and V2 with the MoCap system. In all cases, the mean and median Euclidean error of the Lighthouse positioning system are about 2-4 centimeters compared to our MoCap system as ground truth. You can check the paper here, but here is a brief summary we used for our ICRA workshop:

The poster presenting our paper

We are now quite excited to get to see what you will do with this exciting new swarm bundle !

And if you don’t know how to set up the Swarm, you can get started at least with your Lighthouse system in this tutorial or watch Kristoffer explain it in this video:

This week we have a guest blog post from Dr Feng Shan at School of Computer Science and Engineering
Southeast University, China. Enjoy!

It is possible to utilize tens and thousands of Crazyflies to form a swarm to complete complicated cooperative tasks, such as searching and mapping. These Crazyflies are in short distance to each other and may move dynamically, so we study the dynamic and dense swarms. The ultra-wideband (UWB) technology is proposed to serve as the fundamental technique for both networking and localization, because UWB is so time sensitive that an accurate distance can be calculated using the transmission and receive timestamps of data packets. We have therefore designed a UWB Swarm Ranging Protocol with key features: simple yet efficient, adaptive and robust, scalable and supportive. It is implemented on Crazyflie 2.1 with onboard UWB wireless transceiver chips DW1000.

Fig.1. Nine Crazyflies are in a compact space ranging the distance with each other.

The Basic Idea

The basic idea of the swarm ranging protocol was inspired by Double Sided-Two Way Ranging (DS-TWR), as shown below.

Fig.2. The exsiting Double Sided-Two Way Ranging (DS-TWR) protocol.

There are four types of message in DS-TWR, i.e., poll, response, final and report message, exchanging between the two sides, A and B. We define their transmission and receive timestamps are Tp, Rp, Tr, Rr, Tf, and Rf, respectively. We define the reply and round time duration for the two sides as follows.

Let tp be the time of flight (ToF), namely radio signal propagation time. ToF can be calculated as Eq. (2).

Then, the distance can be estimated by the ToF.

In our proposed Swarm Ranging Protocol, instead of four types of messages, we use only one type of message, which we call the ranging message.

Fig.3. The basic idea of the proposed Swarm Ranging Protocol.

Three sides A, B and C take turns to transmit six messages, namely A1, B1, C1, A2, B2, and C2. Each message can be received by the other two sides because of the broadcast nature of wireless communication. Then every message generates three timestamps, i.e., one transmission and two receive timestamps, as shown in Fig.3(a). We can see that each pair has two rounds of message exchange as shown in Fig.3(b). Hence, there are sufficient timestamps to calculate the ToF for each pair, that means all three pairs can be ranged with each side transmitting only two messages. This observation inspires us to design our ranging protocol.

Protocol Design

The formal definition of the i-th ranging message that broadcasted by Crazyflie X is as follows.

Xi is the message identification, e.g., sender and sequence number; Txi-1 is the transmission timestamp of Xi-1, i.e., the last sent message; RxM is the set of receive timestamps and their message identification, e.g., RxM = {(A2, RA2), (B2, RB2)}; v is the velocity of X when it generates message Xi.

As mentioned above, six timestamps (Tp, Rp, Tr, Rr, Tf, Rf,) are needed to calculate the ToF. Therefore, for each neighbor, an additional data structure is designed to store these timestamps which we named it the ranging table, as shown in Fig.4. Each device maintains one ranging table for each known neighbor to store the timestamps required for ranging.

Fig.4. The ranging table, one for each neighbor.

Let’s focus on a simple scenario where there are a number of Crazyflies, A, B, C, etc, in a short distance. Each one of them transmit a message that can be heard by all others, and they broadcast ranging messages at the same pace. As a result, between any two consecutive message transmission, a Crazyflie can hear messages from all others. The message exchange between A and Y is as follows.

Fig.5. Message exchange between A and Y.

The following steps show how the ranging messages are generated and the ranging tables are updated to correctly compute the distance between A and Y.

Fig.6. How the ranging message and ranging table works to compute distance.

The message exchange between A and Y could be also A and B, A and C, etc, because they are equal, that’s means A could perform the ranging process above with all of it’s neighbors at the same time.

To handle dense and dynamic swarm, we improved the data structure of ranging table.

Fig.7. The improved ranging table for dense and dynamic swarm.

There are three new notations P, tn, ts, denoting the newest ranging period, the next (expected) delivery time and the expiration time, respectively.

For any Crazyflie, we allow it to have different ranging period for different neighbors, instead of setting a constant period for all neighbors. So, not all neighbors’ timestamps are required to be carried in every ranging message, e.g., the receive timestamp to a far apart and motionless neighbor is required less often. tn is used to measure the priority of neighbors. Also, when a neighbor is not heard for a certain duration, we set it as expired and will remove its ranging table.

If you are interested in our protocol, you can find much more details in our paper, that has just been published on IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) 2021. Please refer the links at the bottom of this article for our paper.

Implementation

We have implemented our swarm ranging protocol for Crazyflie and it is now open-source. Note that we have also implemented the Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) protocol, and the ranging messages are one of the OLSR messages type. So the “Timestamp Message” in the source file is the ranging message introduced in this article.

The procedure that handles the ranging messages is triggered by the hardware interruption of DW1000. During such procedure, timestamps in ranging tables are updated accordingly. Once a neighbor’s ranging table is complete, the distance is calculated and then the ranging table is rearranged.

All our codes are stored in the folder crazyflie-firmware/src/deck/drivers/src/swarming.

The following figure is a ranging performance comparison between our ranging protocol and token-ring based TWR protocol. It’s clear that our protocol handles the large number of drones smoothly.

Fig.8. performance comparison.

We also conduct a collision avoidance experiment to test the real time ranging accuracy. In this experiment, 8 Crazyflie drones hover at the height 70cm in a compact area less than 3m by 3m. While a ninth Crazyflie drone is manually controlled to fly into this area. Thanks to the swarm ranging protocol, a drone detects the coming drone by ranging distance, and lower its height to avoid collision once the distance is small than a threshold, 30cm.

Build & Run

Clone our repository

git clone --recursive https://github.com/SEU-NetSI/crazyflie-firmware.git

Go to the swarming folder.

cd crazyflie-firmware/src/deck/drivers/src/swarming

Then build the firmware.

make clean
make

Flash the cf2.bin.

cfloader flash path/to/cf2.bin stm32-fw

Open the client, connect to one of the drones and add log variables. (We use radio channel as the address of the drone) Our swarm ranging protocol allows the drones to ranging with multiple targets at the same time. The following shows that our swarm ranging protocol works very efficiently.

Summary

We designed a ranging protocol specially for dense and dynamic swarms. Only a single type of message is used in our protocol which is broadcasted periodically. Timestamps are carried by this message so that the distance can be calculated. Also, we implemented our proposed ranging protocol on Crazyflie drones. Experiment shows that our protocol works very efficiently.

Related Links

Code: https://github.com/SEU-NetSI/crazyflie-firmware

Paper: http://twinhorse.net/papers/SZLLW-INFOCOM21p.pdf

Our research group websitehttps://seu-netsi.net

Feng Shan, Jiaxin Zeng, Zengbao Li, Junzhou Luo and Weiwei Wu, “Ultra-Wideband Swarm Ranging,” IEEE INFOCOM 2021, Virtual Conference, May 10-13, 2021.

This week we have a guest blog post from Wenda Zhao, Ph.D. candidate at the Dynamic System Lab (with Prof. Angela Schoellig), University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS). Enjoy!

Accurate indoor localization is a crucial enabling capability for indoor robotics. Small and computationally-constrained indoor mobile robots have led researchers to pursue localization methods leveraging low-power and lightweight sensors. Ultra-wideband (UWB) technology, in particular, has been shown to provide sub-meter accurate, high-frequency, obstacle-penetrating ranging measurements that are robust to radio-frequency interference, using tiny integrated circuits. UWB chips have already been included in the latest generations of smartphones (iPhone 12, Samsung Galaxy S21, etc.) with the expectation that they will support faster data transfer and accurate indoor positioning, even in cluttered environments.

A Crazyflie with an IMU and UWB tag flies through a cardboard tunnel. A vision-based  motion capture system would not be able to achieve this due to the occlusion.

In our lab, we show that a Crazyflie nano-quadcopter can stably fly through a cardboard tunnel with only an IMU and UWB tag, from Bitcraze’s Loco Positioning System (LPS), for state estimation. However, it is challenging to achieve a reliable localization performance as we show above. Many factors can reduce the accuracy and reliability of UWB localization, for either two-way ranging (TWR) or time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) measurements. Non-line-of-sight (NLOS) and multi-path radio propagation can lead to erroneous, spurious measurements (so-called outliers). Even line-of-sight (LOS) UWB measurements exhibit error patterns (i.e., bias), which are typically caused by the UWB antenna’s radiation characteristics. In our recent work, we present an M-estimation-based robust Kalman filter to reduce the influence of outliers and achieve robust UWB localization. We contributed an implementation of the robust Kalman filter for both TWR and TDOA (PR #707 and #745) to Bitcraze’s crazyflie-firmware open-source project.

Methodology

The conventional Kalman filter, a primary sensor fusion mechanism, is sensitive to measurement outliers due to its minimum mean-square-error (MMSE) criterion. To achieve robust estimation, it is critical to properly handle measurement outliers. We implement a robust M-estimation method to address this problem. Instead of using a least-squares, maximum-likelihood cost function, we use a robust cost function to downweigh the influence of outlier measurements [1]. Compared to Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) approaches, our method can handle sparse UWB measurements, which are often a challenge for RANSAC.

From the Bayesian maximum-a-posteriori perspective, the Kalman filter state estimation framework can be derived by solving the following minimization problem:

Therein, xk and yk are the system state and measurements at timestep k. Pk and Rk denote the prior covariance and measurement covariance, respectively.  The prior and posteriori estimates are denoted as xk check and xk hat and the measurement function without noise is indicated as g(xk,0). Through Cholesky factorization of Pk and Rk, the original optimization problem is equivalent to

where ex,k,i and ey,k,j are the elements of ex,k and ey,k. To reduce the influence of outliers, we incorporate a robust cost function into the Kalman filter framework as follows:

where rho() could be any robust function (G-M, SC-DCS, Huber, Cauchy, etc.[2]).

By introducing a weight function for the process and measurement uncertainties—with e as input—we can translate the optimization problem into an Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares (IRLS) problem. Then, the optimal posteriori estimate can be computed through iteratively solving the least-squares problem using the robust weights computed from the previous solution. In our implementation, we use the G-M robust cost function and the maximum iteration is set to be two for computational reasons. For further details about the robust Kalman filter, readers are referred to our ICRA/RA-L paper and the onboard firmware (mm_tdoa_robust.c and mm_distance_robust.c).

Performance

We demonstrate the effectiveness of the robust Kalman filter on-board a Crazyflie 2.1. The Crazyflie is equipped with an IMU and an LPS UWB tag (in TDOA2 mode). With the conventional onboard extended Kalman filter, the drone is affected by measurement outliers and jumps around significantly while trying to hover. In contrast, with the robust Kalman filter, the drone shows a more reliable localization performance.

The robust Kalman filter implementations for UWB TWR and TDOA localization have been included in the crazyflie-firmware master branch as of March 2021 (2021.03 release). This functionality can be turned on by setting a parameter (robustTwr or robustTdoa) in estimator_kalman.c. We encourage LPS users to check out this new functionality.

As we mentioned above, off-the-shelf, low-cost UWB modules also exhibit distinctive and reproducible bias patterns. In our recent work, we devised experiments using the LPS UWB modules and showed that the systematic biases have a strong relationship with the pose of the tag and the anchors as they result from the UWB radio doughnut-shaped antenna pattern. A pre-trained neural network is used to approximate the systematic biases. By combining bias compensation with the robust Kalman filter, we obtain a lightweight, learning-enhanced localization framework that achieves accurate and reliable UWB indoor positioning. We show that our approach runs in real-time and in closed-loop on-board a Crazyflie nano-quadcopter yielding enhanced localization performance for autonomous trajectory tracking. The dataset for the systematic biases in UWB TDOA measurements is available on our Open-source Code & Dataset webpage. We are also currently working on a more comprehensive dataset with IMU, UWB, and optical flow measurements and again based on the Crazyflie platform. So stay tuned!

Reference

[1] L. Chang, K. Li, and B. Hu, “Huber’s M-estimation-based process uncertainty robust filter for integrated INS/GPS,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2015, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3367–3374.

[2] K. MacTavish and T. D. Barfoot, “At all costs: A comparison of robust cost functions for camera correspondence outliers,” in IEEE Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV). 2015, pp. 62–69.

Links

The authors are with the Dynamic Systems Lab, Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto, Canada, and affiliated with the Vector Institute for Artificial intelligence in Toronto.

Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or suggestions: wenda.zhao@robotics.utias.utoronto.ca.

Please cite this as:

<code>@ARTICLE{Zhao2021Learningbased,
author={W. {Zhao} and J. {Panerati} and A. P. {Schoellig}},
title={Learning-based Bias Correction for Time Difference of Arrival Ultra-wideband Localization of Resource-constrained Mobile Robots},
journal={IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters},
volume={6},
number={2},
pages={3639-3646},
year={2021},
publisher={IEEE}
doi={10.1109/LRA.2021.3064199}}
</code>

Ever since the AI-deck 1.x was released in early access, we’ve been excited to see so many users diving in and experimenting with it. The product is still in early access, where the hardware is deemed ready but the software and documentation still needs work. Even so, we try to do our best to make the product as usable as possible. We’re happy to see some of our users doing great stuff, like the pulp-platforms latest paper “Fully Onboard AI-powered Human-Drone Pose Estimation on Ultra-low Power Autonomous Flying Nano-UAVs“.

Firmware and Examples

The AI-deck consists of the GAP8 chip developed by Greenwaves Technologies. On their website there’s an explanation of development tools where you get a general understanding of what you can use. Also their GAP SDK documentation explains how to install and try out some of their examples as well, on both a GAP8 simulator on the computer or on the GAP8 chip on the AI-deck itself.

We also host an separate repository for some AIdeck related examples which runs with the GAP SDK.

Documentation and Support

Recently we also added the AIdeck documentation to the Bitcraze website, generated from the docuemtnation already available in the Github repository. There’s still improvements to make, so if you find any issues or any additions needed, don’t hesitate to help us improve it. On the bottom there is an ‘improve this page’ link where you can give the suggested change, or notify us by posting on the issue list of the AIdeck repository.

Also note that we have a separate AI-deck category on our forum where you can search for or add any AI-deck related questions. Remember that posting the issues that you are having will also help us to improve the platform and hopefully soon get it out of Early Access.

Workshop by PULP-platform

On the 16th of April we hosted a workshop given by PULP-platform featuring Greenwaves Technologies. In the workshop the an overview of the AI-deck and GAP8 was given as well as going through some basic hands-on exercises. About 70 people joined the workshop and we were happy it was so well received.

The workshop is a great source of information for anybody who is just getting started with the AI-deck, so have a look at the recordings on Youtube and the slides on the event page. Also make sure to check out their PULP training page for more tools that also can be used on the AI-deck. A big thanks to the PULP-platform and Greenwaves Technologies for taking part in the workshop!


Also we would like to ask if anybody who joined the workshop, to fill in this small questionnaire so that we can get some more feedback on how it went and how we can improve for the next one.

A few weeks ago we released version 2021-03 including the python library, Cfclient and the firmware. The biggest feature of that release was that we (finally) got the lighthouse positioning system out of early access and added it as an official product to the Crazyflie eco system! Of course we are very excited about that milestone, but the work does not end there… We also need to communicate how to use it, features and where to find all this new information to you – our favourite users!

New Landing Page

First of all, we made a new landing page for only the lighthouse system (similar to bitcraze.io/start) we now also have bitcraze.io/lighthouse. This landing page is what will be printed on the Lighthouse base station box that will be available soon in our store, but is also directly accessible from the front page under ‘Product News’.

This landing page has all kinds of handy links which directs the user to the getting started tutorial, the shop page or to its place within the different positioning systems we offer/support. It is meant to give a very generic first overview of the system without being overloaded right off the bat and we hope that the information funnel will be more smooth with this landing page.

New tutorial and product pages

For getting started with the lighthouse positioning system, we heavily advise everybody to follow the new getting started tutorial page, even if you have used the lighthouse system since it’s early access days. The thing is is that the procedure of setting the system up has changed drastically. The calibration data and geometry are now stored in persistent memory on-board the Crazyflie and the lighthouse deck itself is now properly flashed. So if you are still using custom config.mk, hardcode geometry in the app layer or use get_bs_geometry.py to get the geometry… stop what you are doing and update the crazyflie firmware, install the newest Cfclient, and follow the tutorial!

We also already made some product page for the Lighthouse Swarm bundle. Currently it is still noted as coming soon but you can already sign up to get a notification when it is out, which we hope to have ready in about 1-2 month(s). The lighthouse deck was of course already available for those that can not wait and want to buy a SteamVR base station somewhere else. Just keep in mind that, even though the v1 is supported, in the future we will mostly focus on the version 2 of the base stations.

Video tutorial

Once again we have ventured into the land of videos and recorded a “Getting started with the Lighthouse positioning system” tutorial for those who prefer video over text.

Feedback

We love feedback and want to improve! Please don’t hesitate to contact us on contact@bitcraze.io if you have comments or suggestions!

It’s that time of the year again ! As the days get darker and darker here in Sweden, we’re happy to getting some time off to share some warmth with our families.

And to kick off the holiday season, we prepared a little treat for you ! We enjoyed making a Christmas video that tested how we could use the Crazyflie at home. Since we’re not at the office anymore, we decided to fly in our homes and this video shows the different ways to do so. First, take a look at what we’ve done:

Now let’s dig into the different techniques we used.

  • Tobias decided to fly the Bolt manually. His first choice was to land in the Christmas sock, but that was too hard, thereof the hard landing in top of the tree. We were not sure who would survive: the tree or the Bolt!
  • Kimberly installed two base stations V2’s and after setting up, determined some way points by holding the Crazyflie in her hand. Then she generated a trajectory with the uav_trajectories project (like in the hyper demo). Then she used the cflib to upload this trajectory and make the crazyflie fly all the way to the basket. Her two cats could have looked more impressed, though!
  • Using trials and errors, Barbara used the Flowdeck, the motion commander, and a broken measuring tape to calibrate the Crazyflie’s path next to the tree.
  • Arnaud realized that, with all the autonomous work, we hardly fly the Crazyflie manually anymore. So he flew the Crazyflie manually. It required a bit more training that expected, but Crazyflie is really a fun (and safe!) quad to fly.
  • Marcus used two Lighthouse V2 base stations together with the Lighthouse deck and LED-ring deck. For the flying, he used the high level commander. The original plan was to fly around his gingerbread house, but unfortunately it was demolished before he got the chance (by some hungry elves surely!)
  • Kristoffer made his own tree ornament with the drone, which turned out to be a nice addition to a Christmas tree !

It was a fun way to use our own product, and to show off our decorated houses.

I hope you enjoy watching this video as much as we enjoyed making it.

We are staying open during the Holiday season but on a limited capacity: we still ship your orders, and will keep an eye on our emails and the forum, but things will get a bit slower here.

We wish you happy holidays and safe moments together with your loved ones.

This autumn when we had our quarterly planing meeting, it was obvious that there would not be any conferences this year like other years. This meant we would not meet you, our users and hear about your interesting projects, but also that we would not be forced to create a demo. Sometimes we joke that we are working with Demo Driven Development and that is what is pushing us forward, even-though it is not completely true it is a strong driver. We decided to create a demo in our office and share it online instead, we hope you enjoy it!

The wish list for the demo was long but we decided that we wanted to use multiple positioning technologies, multiple platforms and multiple drones in a swarm. The idea was also to let the needs of the demo drive development of other technologies as well as stabilize existing functionality by “eating our own dogfood”. As a result of the work we have for instance:

  • improved the app layer in the Crazyflie
  • Lighthouse V2 support, including basic support for 2+ base stations
  • better support for mixed positioning systems

First of all, let’s check out the video

We are using our office for the demo and the Crazyflies are essentially flying a fixed trajectory from our meeting room, through the office and kitchen to finally land in the Arena. The Crazyflies are autonomous from the moment they take off and there is no communication with any external computer after that, all positioning is done on-board.

Implementation

The demo is mainly implemented in the Crazyflie as an app with a simple python script on an external machine to start it all. The app is identical in all the Crazyflies so the script tells them where to land and checks that all Crazyflies has found their position before they are started. Finally it tells them to take off one by one with a fixed delay in-between.

The Crazyflie app

When the Crazyflie boots up, the app is started and the first thing it does is to prepare by defining a trajectory in the High Level Commander as well as setting data for the Lighthouse base stations in the system. The app uses a couple of parameters for communication and at this point it is waiting for one of the parameters to be set by the python script.

When the parameter is set, the app uses the High Level Commander to take off and fly to the start point of the trajectory. At the starting point, it kicks off the trajectory and while the High Level Commander handles the flying, the app goes to sleep. When reaching the end of the trajectory, the app once more goes into action and directs the Crazyflie to land at a position set through parameters during the initialization phase.

We used a feature of the High Level Commander that is maybe not that well known but can be very useful to make the motion fluid. When the High Level Commander does a go_to for instance, it plans a trajectory from its current position/velocity/acceleration to the target position in one smooth motion. This can be used when transitioning from a go_to into a trajectory (or from go_to to go_to) by starting the trajectory a little bit too early and thus never stop at the end of the go_to, but “slide” directly into the trajectory. The same technique is used at the end of the trajectory to get out of the way faster to avoid being hit by the next Crazyflie in the swarm.

The trajectory

The main part of the flight is one trajectory handled by the High Level Commander. It is generated using the uav_trajectories project from whoenig. We defined a number of points we wanted the trajectory to pass through and the software generates a list of polynomials that can be used by the High Level Commander. The generated trajectory is passing through the points but as a part of the optimization process it also chooses some (unexpected) curves, but that could be fixed with some tweaking.

The trajectory is defined using absolute positions in a global coordinate system that spans the office.

Positioning

We used three different positioning systems for the demo: the Lighthouse (V2), the Loco Positioning system (TDoA3) and the Flow deck. Different areas of the flight space is covered by different system, either individually or overlapping. All decks are active all the time and pick up data when it is available, pushing it into the extended Kalman estimator.

In the meeting room, where we started, we used two Lighthouse V2 base stations which gave us a very precise position estimate (including yaw) and a good start. When the Crazyflies moved out into the office, they only relied on the Flowdeck and that worked fine even-though the errors potentially builds up over time.

When the Crazyflies turned around the corner into the hallway towards the kitchen, we saw that the errors some times were too large, either the position or yaw was off which caused the Crazyflies to hit a wall. To fix that, we added 4 LPS nodes in the hallway and this solved the problem. Note that all the 4 anchors are on the ground and that it is not enough to give the Crazyflie a good 3D position, but the distance sensor on the Flow deck provides Z-information and the overall result is good.

The corner when going from the kitchen into the Arena is pretty tight and again the build up of errors made it problematic to rely on the Flow deck only, so we added a lighthouse base station for extra help.

Finally, in the first part of the Arena, the LPS system has full 3D coverage and together with the Flow deck it is smooth sailing. About half way the Crazyflies started to pick up the Lighthouse system as well and we are now using data from all three systems at the same time.

Obviously we were using more than 2 basestations with the Lighthouse system and even though it is not officially supported, it worked with some care and manual labor. The geometry data was for instance manually tweaked to fit the global coordinate system.

The wall between the kitchen and the Arena is very thick and it is unlikely that UWB can go through it, but we still got LPS data from the Arena anchors occasionally. Our interpretation is that it must have been packets bouncing on the walls into the kitchen. The stray packets were picked up by the Crazyflies but since the Lighthouse base station provided a strong information source, the LPS packets did not cause any problems.

Firmware modifications

The firmware is essentially the stock crazyflie-firmware from Github, however we did make a few alterations though:

  • The maximum velocity of the PID controller was increased to make it possible to fly a bit faster and create a nicer demo.
  • The number of lighthouse base stations was increased
  • The PID controller was tweaked for the Bolt

You can find the source code for the demo on github. The important stuff is in examples/demos/hyperdemo

The hardware

In the demo we used 5 x Crazyflie 2.1 and 1 x Bolt very similar to the Li-Ion Bolt we built recently. The difference is that this version used a 2-cell Li-Po and lower KV motors but the Li-Ion Bolt would have worked just as well.

Hyperdemo drones and they configurations

To make all positioning to work at the same time we needed to add 3 decks, Lighthouse, Flow v2 and Loco-deck. On the Crazyflie 2.1 this fits if the extra long pin-headers are used and the Lighthouse is mounted on top and the Loco-deck underneath the Crazyflie 2.1 with the Flow v2 on the bottom. The same goes for the Bolt, but here we had to solder the extra long pin-header and the long pin-header together to make them long enough.

There is one catch though… the pin resources for the decks collide. With some patching of the loco-deck this can be mitigated by moving its IRQ to IO_2 using the solder-jumper. The RST needs to be moved to IO_4 which requires a small patch wire.

Also some FW configuration is needed which is added to the hyperdemo makefile:

CFLAGS += -DLOCODECK_USE_ALT_PINS
CFLAGS += -DLOCODECK_ALT_PIN_RESET=DECK_GPIO_IO4

The final weight for the Crazyflie 2.1 is on the heavy side and we quickly discover that fully charged batteries should be used or else the crash probability is increased a lot.

Conclusions

We’re happy we were able to set this demo up and that it was fairly straight forward. The whole setup of it was done in one or two days. The App layer is quite useful and we tend to use it quite often when trying out ideas, which we interpret as a good sign :-)

We are satisfied with the results and hope it will inspire some of you out there to push the limits even further!

This week we have a guest blog post from Bárbara Barros Carlos, PhD candidate at DIAG Robotics Lab. Enjoy!

Quadrotors are characterized by their underactuation, nonlinearities, bounded inputs, and, in some cases, communication time-delays. The development of their maneuvering capability poses some challenges that cover dynamics modeling, state estimation, trajectory generation, and control. The latter, in particular, must be able to exploit the system’s nonlinear dynamics to generate complex motions. However, the presence of communication time-delay is known to highly degrade control performance.

A composite image showing our real-time NMPC with time-delay
compensation being used on the Crazyflie during the tracking of
a helical trajectory.

In our recent work, we present an efficient position control architecture based on real-time nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) with time-delay compensation for quadrotors. Given the current measurement, the state is predicted over the delay time interval using an integrator and then passed to the NMPC, which takes into account the input bounds. We demonstrate the capabilities of our architecture using the Crazyflie 2.1 nano-quadrotor.

Time-Delay Compensation

In our aerial system, because of the radio communication latency, we have delays both in receiving measurements and sending control inputs. Likewise, since we intend to use NMPC, the potentially high computational burden associated with its solution becomes an element that must also be taken into account to minimize the error in the state prediction.

Crazyflie NMPC response without
considering the time-delay compensation.

To tackle this issue, we use a state predictor based on the round-trip time (RTT) associated with the sum of network latencies as a delay compensator. The prediction is computed by performing forward iterations of the system dynamic model, starting from the current measured state and over the RTT, through an explicit Runge Kutta 4th order (ERK4) integrator. Due to the independent nature of this operation, perfect delay compensation can be achieved by adjusting the integration step to be equal to the RTT. Thus, it is assumed that there is a fixed RTT, defined by τr, to be compensated.

Nonlinear Model Predictive Control

The NMPC controller is defined as the following constrained nonlinear program (NLP):

Therein, p denotes the inertial position, q the attitude in unit quaternions, vb the linear velocity expressed in the body frame, ω the angular rate, and Ωi the rotational speed of the ith propeller. The NLP is tailored to the Crazyflie 2.1 and is implemented using the high-performance software package acados, which solves optimal control problems and implements a real-time iteration (RTI) variant of a sequential quadratic programming (SQP) scheme with Gauss-Newton Hessian approximation. The quadratic subproblems (QP) arising in the SQP scheme are solved with HPIPM, an interior-point method solver, built on top of the linear algebra library BLASFEO, finely tuned for multiple CPU architectures. We use a recently proposed Hessian condensing algorithm particularly suitable for partial condensing to further speed-up solution times.

When designing an NMPC, choosing the horizon length has profound implications for computational burden and tracking performance. For the former, the longer the horizon, the higher the computational burden. As for the latter, in principle, a long prediction horizon tends to improve the overall performance of the controller. In order to select this parameter and achieve a trade-off between performance and computational burden, we implemented the NLP in acados considering: five horizon lengths (N = {10,20,30,40,50}), input bounds on the rotational speed of the propellers (lower bound = 0, upper bound = 22 krpm), discretizing the dynamics using an ERK4 integration scheme. Likewise, we compare the condensing approach with the state-of-the-art solver qpOASES against the partial condensing approach with HPIPM, concerning the set of horizons regarded.

Left: closed-loop trajectories comparing different horizon lengths.
Right: average runtimes per SQP-iteration
for different horizon lengths considering two distinct QP solvers.

As qpOASES is a solver based on active-set method, it requires condensing to be computationally efficient. In line with the observations found in the literature that condensing is effective for short to medium horizon lengths, we note that qpOASES is competitive for horizons up to approximately N = 30 when compared to HPIPM. The break-even point moves higher on the scale for longer horizons, mainly due to efficient software implementations that cover: (a) Hessian condensing procedure tailored for partial condensing, (b) structure-exploiting QP solver based on novel Riccati recursion, (c) hardware-tailored linear algebra library. Therefore, we chose horizon N = 50 as it offers a reasonable trade-off between deviation from the reference trajectory and computational burden.

Onboard Controller Considerations

How the onboard controllers (PIDs) use the setpoints of the offboard controller (NMPC) in our architecture is not entirely conventional and, thereby, deserves some considerations. First, the reference signals that the PID loops track do not fully correspond to the control inputs considered in the NMPC formulation. Instead, part of the state solution is used in conjunction with the control inputs to reconstruct the actual input commands passed as a setpoint to the Crazyflie. Second, a part of the reconstructed input commands is sent as a setpoint to the outer loop (attitude controller), and the other part is sent to the inner loop (rate controller). Furthermore, as the NMPC model does not include the PID loops, it does not truly represent the real system, even in the case of perfect knowledge of the physical parameters. As a consequence, the optimal feedback policy is distorted in the real system by the PIDs. 

Closed-loop Position Control Performance

Our control architecture hinges upon a ROS Kinetic framework and runs at 66.67 Hz. The Crazy RealTime Protocol (CRTP) is used in combination with our crazyflie_nmpc stack to stream in runtime custom packages containing the required data to reconstruct the part of the measurement vector that depends on the IMU data. Likewise, the cortex_ros bridge streams the 3D global position of the Crazyflie, which is then passed through a second-order, discrete-time Butterworth filter to estimate the linear velocities.

To validate the effectiveness of our control architecture, we ran two experiments. For each experiment, we generate a reference trajectory on a base computer and pass it to our NMPC ROS node every τs = 15 ms. When generating the trajectories, we explicitly address the feasibility issue in the design process, creating two references: one feasible and one infeasible. In addressing this issue, we prove through experiments that the performance of the proposed NMPC is not degraded even when the nano-quadrotor attempts to track an infeasible trajectory, which could, in principle, make it deviate significantly or even crash.

Overall, we observe that the most challenging setpoints to be tracked are the positions in which, given a change in the motion, the Crazyflie has to pitch/roll in the opposite direction quickly. These are the setpoints where the distortion has the greatest influence on the system, causing small overshoots in position. The average solution time of the tailored RTI scheme using acados was obtained on an Intel Core i5-8250U @ 3.4 GHz running Ubuntu and is about 7.4 ms. This result shows the efficiency of the proposed scheme.

Outlook

In this work, we presented the design and implementation of a novel position controller based on nonlinear model predictive control for quadrotors. The control architecture incorporates a predictor as a delay compensator for granting a delay-free model in the NMPC formulation, which in turn enforces bounds on the actuators. To validate our architecture, we implemented it on the Crazyflie 2.1 nano-quadrotor. The experiments demonstrate that the efficient RTI-based scheme, exploiting the full nonlinear model, achieves a high-accuracy tracking performance and is fast enough for real-time deployment.

Related Links

This research project was developed by:

Bárbara Barros Carlos1, Tommaso Sartor2, Andrea Zanelli3, and Gianluca Frison3, under the supervision of professors Wolfram Burgard4, Moritz Diehl3 and Giuseppe Oriolo1.

1 B. B. Carlos and G. Oriolo are with the DIAG Robotics Lab, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
2 T. Sartor is with the MECO Group, KU Leuven, Belgium.
3 A. Zanelli, G. Frison, and M. Diehl are with the syscop Lab, University of Freiburg, Germany.
4 W. Burgard is with the AIS Lab, University of Freiburg, Germany.

Li-Ion batteries have packed more energy per gram for a long time compared to Li-Po batteries. The problem for UAV applications has been that Li-Ion can’t deliver enough current, something that is starting to change. Now there are cells that are supposed to be able to deliver 30-35A continuously in the 18650 series, at least according to the specs. Therefor we thought it was time to do some testing and decided to build a 1 cell Li-Ion drone using the Crazyflie Bolt as base.

Since a 18650 battery is 18mm in diameter and 65mm long, the size would affect the design but we still wanted to keep the drone small and lightweight. The battery is below 20mm wide which means we can run the deck connectors around it, that is nice. We chose to use our 3D printer to build the frame and use off the shelf ESCs, motors and props. After a couple of hours of research we selected 3″ propellers, 1202.5 11500kv motors and tiny 1-2s single ESCs for our first prototype.

Parts list:

  • 1 x Custom designed 130mm 3D printed frame
  • 1 x Crazyflie Bolt flight controller
  • 4 x Eachine 3020 propeller (2xCW + 2xCCW)
  • 4 x Flywoo ROBO RB 1202.5 11500 Kv motors
  • 4 x Flash hobby 7A 1-2S ESC
  • 1 x Li-Ion Sony 18650 VTC6 3000mAh 30A
  • Screws, anti vib. spacers, zipties, etc.

The custom designed frame was developed in iterations, and can still be much improved, but at this stage it is small, lightweight and rigid enough. We wanted the battery to be as central as possible while keeping it all compact.

Prototype frame designed in FreeCAD.

Assembly and tuning

The 3D printed frame came out quite well and weighed in at 13g. After soldering the bolt connectors to the ESCs, attaching motors and props, adjusting battery cable and soldering a XT30 to the Li-Ion battery it all weighed ~103g and then the battery is 45g of these. It feels quite heavy compared to the Crazyflie 2.1 and we had a lot of respect when we test flew it the first time. Before we took off we reduced the pitch and roll PID gains to roughly half and luckily it flew without problems and quite nicely. Well it sounds a lot but that is kind of expected. After increasing the gains a bit we felt quite pleased with:

#define PID_ROLL_RATE_KP  70.0
#define PID_ROLL_RATE_KI  200.0
#define PID_ROLL_RATE_KD  2
#define PID_ROLL_RATE_INTEGRATION_LIMIT    33.3

#define PID_PITCH_RATE_KP  70.0
#define PID_PITCH_RATE_KI  200.0
#define PID_PITCH_RATE_KD  2
#define PID_PITCH_RATE_INTEGRATION_LIMIT   33.3

#define PID_ROLL_KP  7.0
#define PID_ROLL_KI  3.0
#define PID_ROLL_KD  0.0
#define PID_ROLL_INTEGRATION_LIMIT    20.0

#define PID_PITCH_KP  7.0
#define PID_PITCH_KI  3.0
#define PID_PITCH_KD  0.0
#define PID_PITCH_INTEGRATION_LIMIT   20.0

This would be good enough for what we really wanted to try, the endurance with a Li-Ion battery. A quick measurement of the current consumption at hover, 5.8A, we estimated up to ~30 min flight time on a 3000mAh Li-Ion battery, wow, but first a real test…

Hover test

For the hover test we used lighthouse 2 which is starting to work quite well. We had to change the weight and thrust constants in estimator_kalman.c for the autonomous flight to work:

#define CRAZYFLIE_WEIGHT_grams (100.0f)

//thrust is thrust mapped for 65536 &amp;lt;==> 250 GRAMS!
#define CONTROL_TO_ACC (GRAVITY_MAGNITUDE*250.0f/CRAZYFLIE_WEIGHT_grams/65536.0f)

After doing that and creating a hover script that hovers at 0.5m height and was set to land when the voltage reached 3.0V. We leaned back with excitement, behind a safety net, and started the script… after 19 min it landed… good but not what we hoped for and quite far from the calculated 30 min. Maybe Li-Ion isn’t that good when it needs to provide more current…? A quick internet search and we could find that Li-Ion can run all the way down to 2.5V, but we have to stop at 3.0V because of electronics and loosing thrust, so we are missing quite a bit of energy… Further investigations are needed.

Lighthouse 2 flight test

As a final test we launched some flight scripts to fly in a square and in a spiral so we would get a feel for Lighthouse 2 + Bolt with PID controller combination. We think it turned out quite nicely, and this with almost no optimization effort:

Summary

Li-Ion felt like it could be a game changer when it comes to flight time but was not as promising as we hoped for. It doesn’t mean we can’t get there though. More research and development is required.