Skip to content

make mavlink rc channels override working as 2nd serial reciver - #8722

Closed
krzysztofkuczek wants to merge 2 commits into
iNavFlight:maintenance-10.xfrom
krzysztofkuczek:parallelMavlinkRX
Closed

krzysztofkuczek wants to merge 2 commits into
iNavFlight:maintenance-10.xfrom
krzysztofkuczek:parallelMavlinkRX

Conversation

@krzysztofkuczek

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi,
It makes possible to control rc channels via mavlink even if standard serial rx (sbus or other) is in use. The rc channels values recived from mavlink are valid for a time defined by new mavlink_chn_override_timeout_ms parameters. So if you want to keep mavlink override rc channels you need to send a RC_CHANNELS_OVERRIDE more freqently that the mavlink_chn_override_timeout_ms. The timeout is calculated for every single channel.

@krzysztofkuczek

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@DzikuVx, I updated the Settings.md .
Miłego dnia :)
Krzysiek

@sensei-hacker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This could be good if someone wants to resolve the conflicts.

@sensei-hacker
sensei-hacker changed the base branch from master to maintenance-10.x March 7, 2026 19:09
@sensei-hacker

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There's a fresh, actively-developed PR for dual/switchable receivers: #11748 (New Feature: Dual switchable receivers) — may be a better path forward for this use case than resolving the conflicts here.

@stale stale Bot removed the Inactive label Sep 5, 2026
@b14ckyy

b14ckyy commented Sep 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Closing as superseded. The MAVLink stack has been restructured since this was written, and the use case is covered in two safer ways now: a GCS on the MAVLink port can use the MSP-over-MAVLink tunnel (#11718) with the existing MSP RC Override, which adds the switch gate, channel mask and failsafe handling this change did not have; and a second physical receiver with failover is being worked on in #11748. An ungated per-channel override of flight channels from any MAVLink sender is not something we would merge on its own.

@b14ckyy b14ckyy closed this Sep 23, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants