Sander Smeets

I might be completely off in the idea behind the SDK, but why would you not expose all mavlink topics and allow getting updates? You can still create wrappers around...

I have several: 1. Missions can now be flown in simulation before sending them to the drone. 2. Ekf replay sometimes needs the mission on the dataman file to replay....

And a user might have read only access to the drone

@aler9 i dove a little deeper and it seems it does route the messages but it seems to truncate the payload. Using an older mavp2p the message comes through with...

024/05/03 12:34:45 mavp2p v0.0.0 2024/05/03 12:34:45 router started with 2 endpoints 2024/05/03 12:34:45 channel opened: tcp:172.20.110.10:5799 2024/05/03 12:34:45 node appeared: chan=tcp:172.20.110.10:5799 sid=2 cid=101 2024/05/03 12:34:45 node appeared: chan=tcp:172.20.110.10:5799 sid=2 cid=154...

See here: https://github.com/mavlink/qgroundcontrol/blob/master/src/Vehicle/Vehicle.cc#L564

User actions are standardized in mavlink no? What would be wrong with extending the actions call with a 'custom action' handler where you can listen to all commands and choose...

Here: mavsdk/action_server.py

Yes it does, we are already using this with pymavlink