Giters

mavlink-router / mavlink-router

Route mavlink packets between endpoints

Geek Repo:Geek Repo

Github PK Tool:Github PK Tool

Issue with several dynamic components in one system

jbeyerstedt opened this issue · comments

commented

Hello, I'm kinda late to the party but I am feeling the pain of not having support for the following scenario, related to what is being discussed here..:

I have a system that manages several cameras as MAVLink components, which are dynamically created/deleted in runtime:

                                   .--------.
                                   | sys_1  |
                                   | --/\-- |
[QGC] <---> [mavlink-router] <---> | comp_1 |
                                   | comp_2 |
                                   | comp_3 |
                                   '--------'

In this case, QGC receives the heartbeats from every component of sys_1, but when it tries to talk with comp_1, it eventually succeeds but usually fails because mavlink-router is routing all messages to the last component it has received a heartbeat from, so sometimes comp_3 is receiving messages sent from QGC for comp_1 and comp_2, sometimes comp_1 is receiving it all, and the same happens with comp_2.

Originally posted by @joaoantoniocardoso in #350 (comment)

commented

@joaoantoniocardoso: To understand your issue: Do you have one software talking to mavlink-router or one application per camera? If it's one per camera, what kind of endpoint are you using in mavlink-router?

Because this should just work when using the TCP server port of mavlink-router. That way each camera would have it's own endpoint in mavlink-routers routing logic and each component should only get data that's intended for it's component ID.

Having multiple systems "connect" to one UDP "server" mode endpoint will not work though as all cameras will share one endpoint. And an UDP endpoint will always send outgoing data to the IP and port from which the last incoming message on that endpoint was received.

commented

Perfect, thanks for your insight @jbeyerstedt, I was in fact using UDP, by changing it to use TCP (at least in the current master) works!

We can close it.