Link performance metrics

2024-10-28 | Rik | Leave a comment

We are excited to announce that we are working on several new link performance metrics for the Crazyflie that will simplify the troubleshooting of communication issues. Until now, users have had access to very limited information about communication links, relying primarily on a “link quality” statistic based on packet retries (when we have to re-send data) and an RSSI channel scan. Our nightly tests have been limited to basic bandwidth and latency testing. With this update, we aim to expose richer data that not only enables users to make more informed decisions regarding communication links but also enhances the effectiveness of our nightly testing process. In this blog post, we will explore the new metrics, the rationale behind their introduction, and how they will improve your interaction with the Crazyflie. Additionally, we will be holding a developer meeting on Wednesday November 13th to discuss these updates in more detail, and we encourage you to join us!

“Link Quality”—All or Nothing

Until now, users of the Crazyflie have had access to a single link quality metric. Implemented in the Python library, this metric is based on packet retries—instances when data packets need to be re-sent due to communication issues. This metric indicates that for every retry, the link quality drops by 10%, with a maximum of 3 retries allowed. As a result, the link quality score usually ranges from 70% to 100%, with a drop to 0% when communication is completely lost. However, as packet loss occurs, users often experience a steep decline, commonly seeing 100% when packets are successfully acknowledged or dropping to 0% when communication is completely lost.

Client representation of link quality; no link, yes link

The current link quality metric has served as a basic indicator but provides limited insight, often making it difficult to gauge communication reliability accurately. Recognizing these limitations, we’re introducing several new link performance metrics to the Crazyflie Python library, designed to provide a far more detailed and actionable view of communication performance.

What’s Coming in the Upcoming Update

The first metric we are adding is latency. We measure the full link latency, capturing the round-trip time through the library, to the Crazyflie, and back. This latency measurement is link-independent, meaning it applies to both radio and USB connections. The latency metric exposed to users will reflect the 95th percentile—a commonly used measure for capturing typical latency under normal conditions.

Next are several metrics that (currently) only support the radio link. For these, we distinguish between uplink (from the radio to the Crazyflie) and downlink (from the Crazyflie to the radio).

The first is packet rate, which simply measures the number of packets sent and received per second.

More interestingly, we are introducing a link congestion metric. Whenever there is no data to send, both the radio and the Crazyflie send “null” packets. By calculating the ratio of null packets to the total packets sent or received, we can estimate congestion. This is particularly useful for users who rely heavily on logging parameters or, for example, stream mocap positioning data to the Crazyflie.

The Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) measures the quality of signal reception. Unlike our current “link quality” metric, we hope that a poor RSSI will serve as an early warning signal for potential communication loss. While RSSI tracking has been possible before with the channel scan example, this update will monitor RSSI in the library by default, and expose it to the user. The nRF firmware will also be updated to report RSSI by default. Currently, we only receive uplink RSSI, that is, RSSI measured on the Crazyflie side.

*Work in progress client representation of new link performance metrics*

We’ve already found these new metrics invaluable at Bitcraze. While we have, of course, measured various parameters throughout development, it was easy to lose track of the precise status of the communication stack. In the past, we relied more on general impressions of performance, but with these new metrics, we’ve gained a clearer picture. They’ve already shed light on areas like swarm latency, helping us fine-tune and understand performance far better than before.

You can follow progress on GitHub, and we invite you to try out these metrics for yourself. If there’s anything you feel is missing, or if you have feedback on what would make these tools even more helpful, we’d love to hear from you. Hit us up over on GitHub or join the developer meeting on Wednesday the 13th of November (see the join information on discussions).

Discover the Impact of Structural Defects on Nano-Quadcopter Performance: CrazyPAD dataset

2024-06-24 | Tagir Muslimov | Leave a comment

This week we have a guest blogpost by Kamil Masalimov (MSc) and Tagir Muslimov (PhD) of the Ufa University of Science and Technology. Enjoy!

As researchers passionate about UAV technology, we are excited to share our recent findings on how structural defects affect the performance of nano-quadcopters. Our study, titled “CrazyPAD: A Dataset for Assessing the Impact of Structural Defects on Nano-Quadcopter Performance,” offers comprehensive insights that could greatly benefit the Crazyflie community and the broader UAV industry.

The Motivation Behind Our Research

Understanding the nuances of how structural defects impact UAV performance is crucial for advancing the design, testing, and maintenance of these devices. Even minor imperfections can lead to significant changes in flight behavior, affecting stability, power consumption, and control responsiveness. Our goal was to create a robust dataset (CrazyPAD) that documents these effects and can be used for further research and development.

Key Findings from Our Study

We conducted a series of experiments by introducing various defects, such as added weights and propeller cuts (Figure 1), to nano-quadcopters. For the experiments, we used the Lighthouse Positioning System with two SteamVR 2.0 virtual reality stations (Figure 2).

**Figure 1. Propeller with two side defects**

**Figure 2. Schematic of the experimental setup with Lighthouse Positioning System**

Here are some of the pivotal findings from our research:

Stability Impact: We observed that both added weights and propeller cuts lead to noticeable changes in the stability of the quadcopter. Larger defects caused greater instability, emphasizing the importance of precise manufacturing and regular maintenance.
Increased Power Consumption: Our experiments showed that structural defects result in higher power consumption. This insight is vital for optimizing battery life and enhancing energy efficiency during flights.
Variable Control Responsiveness: We used the standard deviation of thrust commands as a measure of control responsiveness. The results indicated that defects increased the variability of control inputs, which could affect maneuverability and flight precision.
Changes in Roll and Pitch Rates: The study also highlighted variations in roll and pitch rates due to structural defects, providing a deeper understanding of how these imperfections impact flight dynamics.

We show Figure 3 as an example of a graph obtained from our dataset. In this figure, you can see the altitude and thrust command over time for different flight conditions. The blue line represents the normal flight, while the orange line represents the flight with additional weight near the M3 propeller. In Figure 4, you can see the 3D flight trajectory of the Crazyflie 2.1 quadcopter under the cut_propeller_M3_2mm condition with the corrected ideal path. The blue line represents the actual flight trajectory, while the red dashed line with markers represents the ideal trajectory. Figure 5 shows the Motor PWM values over time for the add_weight_W1_near_M3 condition. The plot shows the PWM values of each motor (M1, M2, M3, and M4) as they respond to the added weight near the M3 propeller.

More examples of graphs obtained from the CrazyPAD dataset can be found in our research paper specifically describing this dataset: https://doi.org/10.3390/data9060079

**Figure 3. Altitude and thrust command over time for different flight conditions**

**Figure 4. 3D flight trajectory of the Crazyflie 2.1**

**Figure 5. Motor PWM values over time**

Leveraging Research for Diagnostic and Predictive Models

One of the most exciting aspects of our research is its potential application in developing diagnostic and predictive models. The CrazyPAD dataset can be utilized to train machine learning algorithms that detect and predict structural defects in real-time. By analyzing flight data, these models can identify early signs of wear and tear, allowing for proactive maintenance and reducing the risk of in-flight failures.

Diagnostic models can continuously monitor the performance of a UAV, identifying anomalies and pinpointing potential defects. This real-time monitoring can significantly enhance the reliability and safety of UAV operations.

Predictive models can forecast future defects based on historical flight data. By anticipating when and where defects are likely to occur, these models can inform maintenance schedules, ensuring UAVs are serviced before issues become critical.

Why This Matters for the Crazyflie Community

The CrazyPAD dataset and our findings offer valuable resources for the Crazyflie community. By understanding how different defects affect flight performance, developers and enthusiasts can improve design protocols, enhance testing procedures, and ensure higher safety and performance standards for their UAVs.

We believe that sharing our research with the Crazyflie community can lead to significant advancements in UAV technology. The dataset we created is open under the MIT License for further exploration and can serve as a foundation for new innovations and improvements.

Get Involved and Explore Further

We invite community members to explore our full research article and the CrazyPAD dataset. Together, we can drive forward the standards of UAV technology, ensuring that Crazyflie remains at the forefront of innovation and excellence.

Our research paper with a detailed description of this dataset:

Masalimov, K.; Muslimov, T.; Kozlov, E.; Munasypov, R. CrazyPAD: A Dataset for Assessing the Impact of Structural Defects on Nano-Quadcopter Performance. Data 2024, 9, 79. ht tps://doi.org/10.3390/data9060079

Dataset: https://github.com/AerialRoboticsUUST/CrazyPAD

We are eager to collaborate with the Crazyflie community and welcome any feedback or questions regarding our research. Let’s work together to push the boundaries of what’s possible in UAV technology.

CrazySim: A Software-in-the-Loop Simulator for the Crazyflie

2024-04-15 | Christian Llanes | Leave a comment

This week we have a guest blogpost by Christian Llanes, a Robotics PhD of from Formal Methods & Autonomous Control of Transportation Systems Lab of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Enjoy!

Why do we need simulators?

Simulators are one of the most important tools used in robotics research. They usually are designed for different purposes with different levels of complexity. For example, simulators with low computational overhead that are parallelizable are mainly used for either training reinforcement learning algorithms or Monte Carlo sampling for verification of task completion in a nondeterministic environment. Some simulators also use rendering engines for the graphical display of models and the environment or when cameras are intended to be used in the robotics platform. Simulation is also useful for the development and deployment of new robotics firmware features where the firmware is compiled on a test machine and run in the loop with a simulated sensor suite. This simulator configuration is known as software-in-the-loop (SITL) because the vehicle firmware is intended to be run in the loop with the simulated vehicle physics and/or rendering engine. This feature is supported by autopilot suites such as PX4, ArduPilot, CogniPilot, and BetaFlight. This feature is not officially supported yet for Crazyflies because it requires a large overhaul of the firmware to be able to compile on a desktop machine and interact with different simulators such as Gazebo, Webots, PyBullet, CoppeliaSim, Isaac Sim, or Unreal Engine.

CrazySim

Last summer I began working with Crazyflies and noticed this Crazyflie simulator gap. I stumbled on a community-developed project for Crazyflie SITL called sim_cf. This project is exactly what I was looking for. However, the firmware used by the project is from July 2019 and the official firmware has had over 2000 commits made since then. The project also uses ROS 1, Gazebo Classic, and doesn’t support the Crazyflie Python library (CFLib). Using this project as a starting point I set out to develop CrazySim–a Crazyflie SITL project that doesn’t require ROS, uses Gazebo Sim, and supports connectivity through CFLib. Using CFLib we can connect the simulator to external software such as Crazyswarm2 or the Crazyflie ground station client. Users test their control algorithms in the external software using the simulator interface before deploying to real flight hardware.

Using the Crazyflie Client for PID Tuning

We have also provided a modified Crazyflie client for CrazySim support. The Crazyflie client is a cool tool for testing a single drone in hardware. We can perform command based flight control, look at real time plots, save log data, and tune PID values in real time. The PID values are typically tuned for an out of the box Crazyflie. However, when we modify the Crazyflie and add extra weight through batteries, decks, and upgraded thrust motors then the behavior of the Crazyflie will change. If a user wants to tune a custom Crazyflie setup, then they can add additional models in this folder with their own motor and mass properties. Then they just need to add it to the list of supported models in either of the launch scripts. There is already an example model for the thrust upgrade bundle. Documentation for installing the custom client can be found here.

PID tuning a simulated Crazyflie using CrazySim on the Crazyflie PC client.

Crazyswarm2

We can now connect to the simulated Crazyflie firmware using CFLib. Therefore, we can set up a ROS 2 interface through Crazyswarm2 for swarm command and control through ROS 2 topics and services. To do this we first startup the drones using any of the launch scripts.

bash tools/crazyflie-simulation/simulator_files/gazebo/launch/sitl_multiagent_square.sh -n 16 -m crazyflie

Then, we bring up Crazyswarm2 after setting up the configuration file for the number of drones chosen.

ros2 launch crazyflie launch.py backend:=cflib

We demonstrate an example of how we can control a swarm of drones using Crazyswarm2 GoTo service commands.

Crazyswarm2 GoTo service commands using CrazySim.

ICRA 2024

CrazySim is also being presented as a paper at the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation in Yokohama, Japan. If you are attending this conference and are interested in this work, then I invite you to my presentation and let me know that you are coming from this blog post after. For the paper, I created a multi agent decentralized model predictive controller (MPC) case study on ROS 2 to demonstrate the CrazySim simulation to hardware deployment workflow. Simulating larger swarms with MPC may require a high performance computer. The simulations in this work were performed on an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X desktop processor.

Links

Other Crazyflie SITL projects:

Python bindings for the Crazyflie Firmware

2024-04-01 | Kimberly McGuire | Leave a comment

Today, we’d like to take the opportunity to spotlight a feature that’s been in our code base for some time, yet hasn’t been the subject of a blog post: the Python bindings for our Crazyflie firmware. You may have noticed it mentioned in previous blog posts, and now we’ll delve into more detail about what it is, how we and others are utilizing it, and what its future holds.

Schematized visualization of code within the Crazyflie

What are the Python bindings?

Language bindings, in essence, are libraries that encapsulate chunks of code, enabling one programming language to interface with another. For instance, consider the project Zenoh. Its core library is crafted in Rust, but it offers bindings/wrappings for numerous other languages like Python, C/C++, and so on. This allows Zenoh’s API to be utilized in scripts or executables written in those languages. This approach significantly broadens the functionality without necessitating the rewriting of code across multiple programs. A case in point from the realm of robotics is ROS(1), which initially created all of their APIs for different languages from scratch—a maintenance nightmare. To address this, for ROS 2, they developed the primary functionality entirely in C and provided wrappers for all other programming languages. This strategy eliminates the need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ with each iteration.

Rather than redeveloping the firmware in Python, our esteemed collaborators Wolfgang Hönig and James Preiss took a pragmatic approach. They selected parts of the Crazyflie firmware and wrapped them for Python use. You can see the process in this ticket. This was a crucial step for the simulation of the original Crazyswarm (ROS1) project and was continued for its use in the Crazyswarm2 project, which is based on ROS 2. They opted for SWIG, a tool specifically designed to wrap C or C++ programs for use with higher-level target languages. This includes not only Python, but also C#, GO, Javascript, and more, making it the clear choice for implementing those bindings at the time. We also strongly recommend checking out a previous blogpost by Simon D. Levy, who used Haskell to wrap the C-based Crazyflie Firmware for C++.

Where are the Python bindings being used?

As previously mentioned, the Crazyswarm1 & 2 projects heavily utilize Python bindings for testing key components of the firmware (such as the high-level commander, planner, and controller) and for a (hybrid) software-in-the-loop simulation. During the project’s installation, these Python bindings must be compiled so they can be used during simulation. This approach allows users to first test their trajectories in a simulated environment before deploying them on actual Crazyflies. The advantage is that minimal or no modifications are required to achieve the same results. While simulations do not perfectly mirror real-world conditions, they are beneficial because they operate with the same controller as the one used on the Crazyflie itself. In our own Crazyflie simulation in Webots, it’s also possible to use these same bindings in the simulator by following these instructions.

Three controllers (PID, Mellinger, and Brescianini), intra-drone collision avoidance, and the high-level commander planner have all been converted into Python bindings. Recently, we’ve added a new component: the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). This addition is ideal as it allows us to test the filter with recorded data from a real Crazyflie and experiment with different measurement models. As we discussed in a previous blogpost, estimators are complex due to their dependence on chance and environmental factors. It’s beneficial for developers to have more control over the inputs and expected outputs. However, the EKF is deeply integrated into the interconnected processes within the Crazyflie Firmware. After a significant refactoring effort, these were added to the bindings by creating an EKF emulator (see this PR). This enabled Kristoffer to further enhance the TDOA outlier filter for the Crazyflie by emulating the full process of the EKF, including IMU data.

In addition to SITL simulation and EKF development, Python bindings are also invaluable for continuous integration. They enable comprehensive testing that encompasses not just isolated code snippets, but entire processes. For instance, if there’s a recording of a Crazyflie flight complete with sensor data (such as flow, height, and IMU data), and it’s supplemented with a recorded ground truth (from lighthouse/mocap), this sensor data can be fed into the EKF Python binding. We can then compare the outputted pose with the ground truth to verify accuracy. The same principle applies to the controllers. Consequently, if any changes are made to the firmware that affect these crucial aspects of Crazyflie flight, these tests can readily detect them.

If you like to try the python bindings tests for yourself, clone the Crazyflie-firmware repo and build/install the python bindings via these instructions. Make sure you are in the root of the repository and run: python3 -m pytest test_python/. Mind that you might need to put the bindings in the same path with export PYTHONPATH=<PATH_TO_>/crazyflie-firmware/build:$PYTHONPATH (please see this open ticket)

The next steps of the python bindings

We’ve seen how Python bindings have proven to be extremely useful, and we’re keen to further expand their application. At present, only the Loco positioning system has been incorporated into the EKF part of the Python bindings. Work is now underway to enable this for the Lighthouse system (see this draft PR). Incorporating the Lighthouse system will be somewhat more complex, but fortunately, much of the groundwork has already been laid, so we hope it won’t be too challenging. However, we have encountered issues when using the controller bindings with simulation (see this open ticket). It appears that some hardware-specific timing has been hardcoded throughout the PID controller in particular. Therefore, work needs to be done to separate the hardware abstraction from the code, necessitating additional refactoring work for the controller.

Recent projects like Sim_CF2 (see this blogpost) and Crazysim (see this discussion thread) have successfully compiled the Crazyflie firmware to run as a standalone node on a computer. This allows users to connect it to the Crazyflie Python library as if it were an actual Crazyflie. This full Software-In-The-Loop (SITL) functionality, already possible with autopilot suites like PX4 and Ardupilot, is something we at Bitcraze are eager to implement as well. However, considering the extensive work required by the aforementioned SITL projects to truly separate the hardware abstraction layer from the codebase, we anticipate that refactoring the entire firmware will be a substantial task. We’re excited to see what we can achieve in this area.

Indeed, even with a more comprehensive Software-In-The-Loop (SITL) solution, there’s no reason to completely abandon Python bindings. For developments requiring more input/output control—such as the creation of a new controller or an addition to the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF)—it’s beneficial to start with just that portion of the firmware code. Python bindings and a SITL build can coexist, each offering its own advantages and disadvantages for different stages of the development process. By leveraging the tools at our disposal, we can minimize the risk of damaging Crazyflies during development. Let’s continue to make the most of these valuable resources!

Merry Christmas!

2023-12-25 | Barbara | Leave a comment

It’s not often a blog post happens on the 25th of December, so this time, you’re having a treat with some new Bitcraze prototypes as a present from us! If you have time to get away from the Christmas table, there’s something we’d love you to watch:

Now let’s try to see if you noticed all the new stuff you see in this video!

Our new flight lab

We teased it, but in the beginning of December, we got our extended flight lab! We added 110 m2 to our flight space. It was a rush to have everything ready for the video – we cleaned everything, painted the walls and the green logo, set up the positioning system without our truss… But now we’re happy to show you how big the space is! Even if it’s hard to convey the real size on camera.

The Crazyflie 2.1 brushless

We already talked about it in this blog post, but the brushless has made significant progress and we feel confident that you will get your hands on it in 2024. Here, we use the extra power for a fast and agile flight. It also was very stable and didn’t crash once during the shooting!

The Lighthouse V2

Yes, you counted right! The Brushless flew with 16 base stations! We’ve worked really hard this past three months to create a new Lighthouse deck – the Lighthouse deck 2.0. It could get its position from 16 base stations. That’s 4 times more than what was previously possible! It behaved consistently well during the different tries, and we are really happy with the result. Right now, it’s just a prototype, but we’re hoping to get it to the next step in the coming months.

The contact charging station

Marcus created a power charger for the Brushless that doesn’t need any extra deck to allow for charging. It connects with the brushless feet. It has also the cool feature of changing LEDs indicating the status (idle, charging or charged). It is also a prototype, and we don’t know if this will end up being a product

The high-power LED

This is trickier to see, but it’s not our usual LED ring that the brushless carries. It’s a new, powerful LED underneath. It is so powerful that it nearly blinded us when we tried it for the first time. We put a diffuser on it, and it allowed the Crazyflie to be visible at such a high pace! This is a prototype too of course and we’re not sure if we will release it, but it’s fun to use for this kind of project.

Other announcements

During this week, our office is closed- we take this week to celebrate and rest a little before 2024. This means that shipping and support will be greatly reduced.

But we’re back the week after- at a somewhat reduced pace though. The developer meeting on the 3rd of January is maintained but without any presentation. We’ll take this time to answer any questions you have and talk a little! The details are here.

Bitcraze got their presents this year: a handful of working prototypes! We hope we got your wishes too, merry Christmas to you!

Tired of crashing? Use Open Gimbal!

2023-10-09 | Suryansh Sharma | Leave a comment

Today, Suryansh Sharma from TU Delft presents the open-source Gimbal they devised. Enjoy!

Crazyflies (and other drones in this weight class) are extremely fun to fly and prototype with! But if you are also a scientist or tinkerer and not a well-skilled drone pilot then you might struggle with flying these platforms especially when testing new control loops or experimental code. While crashing also teaches a lot about the behavior of the system, sometimes we are interested in seeing the system dynamics without breaking the drone.

Currently, doing this for such small drones is not easy. We need something lightweight and still accessible. To solve this, we made Open Gimbal: a specially designed 3 degrees of freedom (DoF) platform that caters to the unique requirements of these tiny drones. We make two versions, (a) Tripod version which can be mounted on a camera / light tripod with a screw thread of sizes 1/4-20 UNC or 3/8-16 UNC (b) Desktop version which can be placed on a table top.

Our approach focuses on simplicity and accessibility. We developed an open-source, 3-D printable electro-mechanical design that has minimal size and low complexity. This design facilitates easy replication and customization, making it widely accessible to researchers and developers. The platform allows for unrestricted and free rotational motion, enabling comprehensive experimentation and evaluation. You can see the movement from the CAD version below:

*Degrees of Rotational freedom that Open Gimbal provides*

You can also check out the interactive CAD model and see how the gimbal moves here. All of the 3D model files as well as the BOM and instructions for assembly can be found in our repository here.

In our publication, we also address the challenges of sensing flight dynamics at a small scale. To do so, we have devised an integrated wireless batteryless sensor subsystem. Our innovative solution eliminates the need for complex wiring and instead uses wireless power transfer for sensor data reception. You can read all about how we do this in our paper here.

If you do end up using the platform for research then you can cite us using the details below:

@ARTICLE{10225720, author={Sharma, Suryansh and Dijkstra, Tristan and Prasad, Ranga Venkatesha}, journal={IEEE Sensors Letters}, title={Open Gimbal: A 3 Degrees of Freedom Open Source Sensing and Testing Platform for Nano- and Micro-UAVs}, year={2023}, volume={7}, number={9}, pages={1-4}, doi={10.1109/LSENS.2023.3307121}}

OpenGimbal at European Robotics Forum 2023 — Open Gimbal at European Robotics Forum 2023 in Denmark

Open Gimbal at European Robotics Forum 2023 in Denmark

I hope that you find the Open Gimbal useful! Feel free to reach out to me at Suryansh.Sharma@tudelft.nl if you have any ideas/questions or if you end up making an Open Gimbal yourself!

The Big Loco Test Show

2022-12-26 | Barbara | 4 Comments

This year, the traditional Christmas video was overtaken by a big project that we had at the end of November: creating a test show with the help of CollMot.

First, a little context: CollMot is a show company based in Hungary that we’ve partnered with on a regular basis, having brainstorms about show drones and discussing possibilities for indoor drones shows in general. They developed Skybrush, an open- source software for controlling swarms. We have wanted to work with them for a long time.

So, when the opportunity came to rent an old train hall that we visit often (because it’s right next to our office and hosts good street food), we jumped on it. The place itself is huge, with massive pillars, pits for train maintenance, high ceiling with metal beams and a really funky industrial look. The idea was to do a technology test and try out if we could scale up the Loco positioning system to a larger space. This was also the perfect time to invite the guys at CollMot for some exploring and hacking.

The Loco system

We added the TDoA3 Long Range mode recently and we had done experiments in our test-lab that indicate that the Loco Positioning systems should work in a bigger space with up to 20 anchors, but we had not actually tested it in a larger space.

The maximum radio range between anchors is probably up to around 40 meters in the Long Range mode, but we decided to set up a system that was only around 25×25 meters, with 9 anchors in the ceiling and 9 anchors on the floor placed in 3 by 3 matrices. The reason we did not go bigger is that the height of the space is around 7-8 meters and we did not want to end up with a system that is too wide in relation to the height, this would reduce Z accuracy. This setup gave us 4 cells of 12x12x7 meters which should be OK.

Finding a solution to get the anchors up to the 8 meters ceiling – and getting them down easily was also a headscratcher, but with some ingenuity (and meat hooks!) we managed to create a system. We only had the hall for 2 days before filming at night, and setting up the anchors on the ceiling took a big chunk out of the first day.

Drone hardware

We used 20 Crazyflie 2.1 equipped with the Loco deck, LED-rings, thrust upgrade kit and tattu 350 mAh batteries. We soldered the pin-headers to the Loco decks for better rigidity but also because it adds a bit more “height-adjust-ability” for the 350 mAh battery which is a bit thicker then the stock battery. To make the LED-ring more visible from the sides we created a diffuser that we 3D-printed in white PLA. The full assembly weighed in at 41 grams. With the LED-ring lit up almost all of the time we concluded that the show-flight should not be longer than 3-4 minutes (with some flight time margin).

The show

CollMot, on their end, designed the whole show using Skyscript and Skybrush Studio. The aim was to have relatively simple and easily changeable formations to be able to test a lot of different things, like the large area, speed, or synchronicity. They joined us on the second day to implement the choreography, and share their knowledge about drone shows.

We got some time afterwards to discuss a lot of things, and enjoy some nice beers and dinner after a job well done. We even had time on the third day, before dismantling everything, to experiment a lot more in this huge space and got some interesting data.

What did we learn?

Initially we had problems with positioning, we got outliers and lost tracking sometimes. Finally we managed to trace the problems to the outlier filter. The filter was written a long time ago and the current implementation was optimized for 8 anchors in a smaller space, which did not really work in this setup. After some tweaking the problem was solved, but we need to improve the filter for generic support of different system setups in the future.

Another problem that was observed is that the Z-estimate tends to get an offset that “sticks” and it is not corrected over time. We do not really understand this and will require more investigations.

The outlier filer was the only major problem that we had to solve, otherwise the Loco system mainly performed as expected and we are very happy with the result! The changes in the firmware is available in this, slightly hackish branch.

We also spent some time testing maximum velocities. For the horizontal velocities the Crazyflies started loosing positioning over 3 m/s. They could probably go much faster but the outlier filter started having problems at higher speeds. Also the overshoot became larger the faster we flew which most likely could be solved with better controller tuning. For the vertical velocity 3 m/s was also the maximum, limited by the deceleration when coming downwards. Some improvements can be made here.

Conclusion is that many things works really well but there are still some optimizations and improvements that could be made to make it even more robust and accurate.

The video

But, enough talking, here is the never-seen-before New Year’s Eve video

And if you’re curious to see behind the scenes

Thanks to CollMot for their presence and valuable expertise, and InDiscourse for arranging the video!

And with the final blogpost of 2022 and this amazing video, it’s time to wish you a nice New Year’s Eve and a happy beginning of 2023!

Using Wireshark with the Crazyflie

2022-02-07 | Jonas Danielsson | Leave a comment

You might, or might not have heard about a tool called Wireshark, it is quite popular in the software development world.

Wireshark is a free and open-source packet analyzer. It is used for network troubleshooting, analysis, communications protocol development and education. It makes analyzing what is going on with packet based protocols easier.

Most often Wireshark is used for network based protocols like TCP and UDP, to try to figure out what is happening with your networking code. But! Wireshark also allows you to write your own packet dissector plugin, this means that you can register some code to make Wireshark handle your custom packet based protocol.

For the latest release of the Crazyflie Python Library we added support for generating a log of the Crazy Real Time Protocol (CRTP) packets the library sends and receives. This is the (packet based) protocol that we use to communicate with the Crazyflie via radio and USB.

We generate this log in the special PCAP format that Wireshark expects. And we also created an initial version of a dissector plugin, written in the programming language LUA.

When we put this two things together it turns into a pretty cool way of debugging what goes on between your computer and the Crazyflie!

What does it look like?

Wireshark gives you a graphical interface where you can view all the packets in a PCAP file. You will see the timestamps of when they arrived. Selecting a packet will give you the information that the dissector has managed to deduce as well as how the packet looked on the wire.

On top of that you get powerful filtering tools. In the below image we have set a filter to view only packets that are received or sent on the CRTP port 8, which is the port for the High level commander. This means that from a log file that contain 44393 packets we now only display 9. Which makes following what goes on with high level commands a bit easier.

*Wireshark view of filtering out packets on CRTP port 8*

The dissector knows about the different types of CRTP ports and channels and knows how to dissect an high level set-point, as seen by the image above.

What can this be used for?

This functionality is, we think, most useful for when developing new functionality in the Crazyflie firmware, or in the library. You can easily inspect what the library receives or sends and make sure it matches what your code indented.

But it can also be useful when doing client type work! We recently located the source of a bug in the Crazyflie client with the use of this Wireshark plugin.

It was when updating the Parameter tab of the client to handle persistent parameters, and to use a sidebar for extra documentation and value control. As I was testing the code I noticed that every time I changed the value of ring.effect to a valid integer and then disconnected and reconnected, the value was set to 0. Regardless of the value I had set.

I recorded a session using the PCAP log functionality:

$ CRTP_PCAP_LOG=ring.pcap cfclient

And the I fired up wireshark:

$ wireshark ring.pcap

It was now possible for me to track what the library and firmware thought was going on with the ring.effect parameter, by tracking the crtp.parameter_varid field using Wireshark. Filtering down from from 3282 packets to 12 packets.

I had earlier figured out that the varid of the ring.effect variable was 183. This is a quasi-internal representation of a parameter that we do not expose in a good way. In the future we will try to make this Wireshark tracking work with the parameter name as well.

Looking at the write parameter packet from USB #3 to the Crazyflie I could see where I set the value of the parameter to 5, so far so good.

*Wireshark view of checking my setting of the ring.effect parameter to 5*

The surprising part however was seeing a write further down setting the parameter to 0! This mean that something in the client was actually setting this to zero!

*Wireshark view of something setting the ring.effect parameter to* 0

After seeing this, locating the actual issue was trivial. I noticed that the Flight Control tab was setting the ring.effect parameter to the current index of the combo box in the UI. And when no LED-ring deck was attached, this amounted to always setting the value to zero.

But having confirmation that this was something happening on the client side, and not some kind of bug with the new persistent parameters was very helpful!

How do you use this?

We have added documentation to the repository documentation for the library on how to generate the PCAP log and how install the Wireshark plugin.

But the quick-start guide is this:

Copy the tools/crtp-dissector.lua script to the default Wireshark plugin folder
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Wireshark\plugin or WIRESHARK\plugins
- Linux: ~/.local/lib/wireshark/plugins
Restart Wireshark or hit CTRL+SHIFT+L
Set the environmental variable CRTP_PCAP_LOG to the filename of the PCAP log you want to generate
Run Wireshark with the filename as an argument

And please report any issues you find!

Happy hacking!

The beginnings of a test lab

2021-08-02 | Jonas Danielsson | Leave a comment

We like to describe the Crazyflie as a versatile open source flying development platform. It is something that enables you to do cool stuff. It is not a finished, polished end product in its own.

The platform offers hardware extensions in form of decks, that you make your self or buy from Bitcraze. And the platform offers software extension, either by altering the firmware on the device or by writing programs that communicate with the platform.

This approach makes determining the expectations and requirements for the platform and the surrounding ecosystem a bit tricky. It is dependent on what you as a user plan to create using our products. And since the ecosystem is growing we need a, scalable, way to handle these fuzzy expectations during development and maintenance.

We think testing is big part of solving this, testing in a systematic, scalable and reproducible way. This is the reason for setting up our first physical test lab, aimed at providing stability while moving forward with new products and features.

Testing today

Continuous integration

On each change proposal to our software we run tests. For the firmware in the device we build multiple different configuration and run unit-tests. For the Crazyflie client and the Python library we make sure we can build for Linux and Windows and that the code passes our style guidelines. If any test fail we go back and update the proposed changed and re-run the tests. This is our first level of defense against defects.

Release testing

For each release we follow a checklist of procedures and tests to make sure that quality does not degrade. We make sure all the examples in the Python library are working and that the Crazyflie can fly around as expected in our flight arena, using various positioning systems.

Limitations

The way we test today makes it very difficult to determine if we regress in, for example, flight capability or in radio communication quality. We either test different software packages in isolation, without hardware in the loop, or we test by having a human trying to estimate if any degradation has happened since the last release.

We run into scalability issues as our ecosystem grows, it is near impossible to test all the different combinations of products. And it is very hard for us to detect stability or quality regressions without having a more systematic approach to testing the software on relevant hardware.

Introducing the test lab

What we have done so far are two things:

Created an infrastructure for setting up a site for testing our software on real devices
Prepared a test lab in our printer room at our office in Malmö

Infrastructure: crazyflie-testing

This new Git repository contains the building blocks we need to setup our new test lab. You can check out the repository README.md file for information on how to run it.

It contains a beginning of an automated QA test suite and along with that a start of a set of requirements for those tests. The requirements are specified in TOML files which are parsed and accessed from the tests. They are also rendered to markdown, to be easier for human consumption.

The repository contains a way to specify a test site, which is a collection of devices to run the test suite against. You specify your site in a TOML file which contain information about each device, such as which decks are connected and the radio:// URI. This site specification is then used by the test framework when running the tests, making sure each test is run against all devices compatible with that test.

The infrastructure also has management scripts to perform tasks like flashing all devices in a site, or recovering them if they go into boot loader mode by accident. All aimed at being able to handle testing with the least amount of human intervention possible.

The most recent addition to the infrastructure is the ability to test swarms using the Crazyswarm project!

Crazylab Malmö

We define the site crazylab-malmö.toml which is the test lab we have setup in our printer room in Malmö, Sweden, it is currently defined as:

version = 1

[device.cf2_flow2_lighthouse]
radio = "radio://0/50/2M/E7E7E71706"
decks = ["bcFlow2", "bcLighthouse4"]
bootloader_radio = "radio://0/0/2M/B19CF77F05?safelink=0"

[device.cf2_flow2]
radio = "radio://0/50/2M/E7E7E71705"
decks = ["bcFlow2"]
bootloader_radio = "radio://0/0/2M/B16298A8A3?safelink=0"

[device.cf2_flow2_multiranger]
radio = "radio://0/50/2M/E7E7E71704"
decks = ["bcFlow2", "bcMultiranger"]
bootloader_radio = "radio://0/0/2M/B1CEE678C5?safelink=0"

[device.cf2_usddeck]
radio = "radio://0/50/2M/E7E7E71703"
decks = ["bcUSD"]
bootloader_radio = "radio://0/0/2M/B164C8AC96?safelink=0"

[device.cf2_lighthouse]
radio = "radio://0/50/2M/E7E7E71702"
bootloader_radio = "radio://0/0/2M/B1F519F77B?safelink=0"
decks = ["bcLighthouse4"]

[device.cf2_stock]
radio = "radio://0/50/2M/E7E7E71701"
bootloader_radio = "radio://0/0/2M/B177790F3A?safelink=0"Code language: JavaScript (javascript)

There are, for now, six devices with different combination of decks attached. Each night, after midnight, different GitHub actions starts working for us. One job builds the latest versions of the firmwares for the devices another job will upgrade all the devices in the lab and run the test suite, and a selection of the Python library examples. We will be notified if any of these jobs fail.

This acts as a safety net for us. We will quickly know if the communication performance degrades, or if we have messed up with our parameter or logging frameworks. And we can catch silly firmware bugs as early as possible.

Future

We want to keep adding test cases and other infrastructure to our testing framework. Going forward it would be really nice to be able to test positioning systems in some way. And of course, some type of test of flight, be it free flying tests or using some kind of harness.

It might be interesting to look into adding simulations (hardware in loop or not) to our testing setup. It is all a question of bandwidth, there are a lot of cool things to work on, and a limit on time and bodies.

You can help! You might even be able to help yourself while helping us! If you contribute tests that correspond to your use-case, then you can relax knowing that those tests will run each night, and that Bitcraze engineers will be notified the minute they fail.

Or you can define your own site and run the test-suite against all your devices to make sure nothing strange is going on.

Hopefully this infrastructure and lab will help all of us to do more cool stuff using the Bitcraze ecosystem!