Hallo Roman, Hallo everyone,
The JAUS protocol itself it's not a military standard
anymore then I don't think that someone
should be afraid of any moral issues.
Anyway I have enough experience working on UV to say that, today, being
compliant with a
military standard can also have some positive
As I was stating in the previous email the
complexity and/or the overhead of this
(or similar) is the real
THING to be taken into account. For my point of view
something that will fit easily into any microUAV since its computational overhead may have
some unwanted drawbacks into
P.S. (reply to Chris) being Open (with a capital O) it's
not just a matter of architecture... it's a
matter of will and facts .
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Thoughts about the
Hi everyone, hi Michele,
I am very glad that finally there is a some sort of standard to follow if
one wants to implement a communication protocol for a new project.
However, I have several questions as to viability of JAUS for the
1. Paparazzi is a mature project with its own reliable and robust
2. Range of projects that use Paparazzi is pretty significant with
airplanes as small as 30cm span where weight savings is a primary concern.
Adding this standard compliance at system level will require an additional
on-board translator taxing performance and adding weight to
the system. By the way, we already have some unnecessary in my opition, steps in
communication protocol, such as adding CRC to paparazzi protocol messages when
they are wrapped into XBee protocol which also has error control.
3. If we consider a system as an airplane+ground station when it would be
relatively easy to add some JAUS translator thanks to the openness of the
Paparazzi messaging and Ivy bus. So than JAUS entry point and exit point from/to
Paparazzi will be the ground station.
As far as I understood from the JAUS specs, there is no such a hierarchy
level as airplane+ground station..
Also, do we really want a compliance to a military standard at all?
What do you guys think?
2010/6/24 Michele Santucci <address@hidden>
Hi Roman, Hi everyone,
I don't know either Gator team or Peter Ifju so I
don't know if they're involved in OpenJaus.
For my knowledge of JAUS the standard is an US DoD
spin-off tought for military Unmanned
Veichles (it started
for Unmanned Ground assets and then it's been generalized to generic
In my company we're going to use it to open-up the
communication protocol of our UV.
I think this's a good starting point to open further
Paparazzi structure of course keeping under
control the complexity and
the overhead of a multipurpose protocol.
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Thoughts about the
very good find! Do you know if this is done by Gator team and Peter
Ifju? I was not aware that they are involved with this kind of through
software spec development. Or may be it's not them..
I think, the spec is so high-level and general that at the current
stage, any autopilot will fit or can be made to fit. Well, unless they will
try to specify format of the node-level-and-below messages.
2010/6/23 Michele Santucci <address@hidden>
even if this thread is apparently closed I would
encourage anyone interested in GCS development
I personally think that Paparazzi already
have a good GCS and reliable protocol but IMHO keeping
in touch with the efforts of creating a standard
it's never a bad idea.
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:43 PM
Subject: [Paparazzi-devel] Thoughts about the
I have been observing the communication on the development board with
regards to the future Paparazzi GCS development and the OCaml programming
I have my deepest respect for the work Pascal has done on the GCS and
Paparazzi in general. Now that we have lost him I gradually start to
comprehend the enormous hole he has left behind and the implications of
using a programming language for the GCS that is not widely adopted.
As I understand the basic problem for future Paparazzi GCS development
is the lack of OCaml programming skills that are present in the community.
At the same time in the worldwide open source UAV communities there is a
stronger and stronger desire for defining open standards for UAV <->
GCS communication and provide an open GCS development platform. Is
there a common solution to both problems?
I do not know! However, while surfing the internet I came across
from the PixHawk
tries to provide open standards and a general UAV GCS (everything written in
GPL-ed C++ Qt
framework). I understand there would be quite
a lot of work to transition the Paparazzi system to another GCS (reintegrate
communication protocol, rewrite the generation of control parameters from
the airframe file, etc.). But maybe in the long run the Paparazzi community
and open source UAV communities in general could benefit from using a common
GCS development platform.
I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions about the future
Paparazzi GCS development options.
Thank you and kind regards,