mc_pos_control: pass on parameter metadata

[MaEtUgR]

Solved Problem

When checking changes in multicopter position control parameters I realized there are too many of them and they also affect many parts of the system that are not directly related to position control itself.

Solution

In an effort to change this but not have too much back and forth in the naming I too kan initial pass and

• separated in multiple files based on the rough topic since original file was almost 1k lines
• Adapted descriptions to be more clear
• Adjusted some limits and decimals

Changelog Entry

For release notes:

Improved multicopter position control parameter descriptions

Alternatives

Based on this we can remove unnecessary parameters, rename them, further separate them into their corresponding groups and make sure the same parameter is not mistaken for too many things.

Test coverage

No specific testing. I adjusted based on my past experience.

[MaEtUgR]

Upon request, I separated the two steps of file splitting and metadata revision into two commits. Now it should be easier to review.

[dagar]

Do we want to consider exposing any of this in separate parameter groups so that anyone without the source code open can possibly benefit?

[MaEtUgR]

Do we want to consider exposing any of this in separate parameter groups

Yes and rename some parameters and remove some and make the effect they have more clear e.g. not use the same acceleration for independent things. I planned to do this in further steps covering individual parts. To me there are too many parameters to clean them up all at once that's why I started with these updated descriptions and the code only separation is to help with the next steps.

[sfuhrer]

Very nice push! Just a couple of nitpicks:

• I wouldn't constrain the decimals too much, eg often I would put 1 instead of 0
• a couple of times you remove the .0 from the @min / @max, but you missed a couple as well

[sfuhrer]

so it's not used with 4? Then maybe "not used, use MPC_ACC_HOR instead"

[MaEtUgR]

Makes sense, I changed the working 👍

That's a parameter to untangle. It should just be autonomous acceleration and manual acceleration period. I reused that parameter at the time because during the transition it made sense in terms of what values were required compared to the FlightTaskManualPositionSmoothVel (pos mode 3) and even much before that this parameter was the slew rate of the velocity controller so it was already reused and not renamed for a smooth transition before.

I'd separate those to the configuration options that have a clear name and only change one thing that the user actually cares about.

[sfuhrer]

Can't we actually combine this param with the one that limits the min throttle in Auto modes? Or just keep it to max range in Stabilized mode?

[MaEtUgR]

My plan for these minimum throttle ones is to have a limited airmode up to this amount of throttle independent of the mode. We can theoretically merge them together before. I'm assuming they are different because 12% throttle is pretty high for minimum stick and 8% throttle is rather low for the position controller to go for if there's no airmode. It's all the same issue in my eyes. Minimum should be 0% should be spinning props at idle and they only spin up if torque is needed -> airmode but can't make the drone go nuts -> limited airmode.

[MaEtUgR]

Thanks @sfuhrer for the review. You exactly hit the important points that need to be improved. I rebased on the main branch and added commits to address the feedback, see comments. I plan to follow up with any user-facing restructuring like renaming, regrouping, using different parameters.

a couple of times you remove the .0 from the @min / @max, but you missed a couple as well

Solved in d25938a

[sfuhrer]

@MaEtUgR I think it is nice to also remove the trailing zeros in the param meta data, though how they are currently displayed in the param reference is then a bit ugly (as the "f" is missing there).

I guess it would be best if either the trailing "." in the meta data wouldn't be displayed on the website, or is changed to a ".0". Would you have an idea where to propose that?

[sfuhrer]

My review points have all been addressed, looks clean!

[MaEtUgR]

@sfuhrer Thanks for checking again.

is then a bit ugly

I don't find it too ugly but we can look into how to remove the trailing point. 👀