On the DroneKit.io page, it mentions using DroneKit Python when creating Ground Control Stations for Windows. However, there appears to be no documentation for this.
Is it meant to simply simulate a com port and act as a proxy for other Ground Control Stations, which just makes it easier hijack the MAVLink?
Also, it mentions Python being used for low-latency processes. This seems to be oxymoronic. Is there a reason that it would be better than just using C/C++ for the purpose of hijacking the MAVLink?
Thanks!
DroneKit-Python can be used either to create a python-based ground station or it can be run on a companion computer. There is no practical difference between the two except how you set up the connection to the vehicle from the computer running the script. The different ways of starting MAVProxy for the different connections are covered in the Getting Started documentation.
The reason that there is no "specific" documentation on using DK-Python for GCS is primarily "marketing". The far bigger market for ground station GCS software is in tablets/phones that will use DK-Android or a future iOS port. DK-Python has been positioned solely as for use in the air interface. Even though there is no "specific" documentation, in fact all the existing documentation is relevant.
Is it meant to simply simulate a com port and act as a proxy for other Ground Control Stations, which just makes it easier hijack the MAVLink?
No. See above.
Also, it mentions Python being used for low-latency processes. This seems to be oxymoronic. Is there a reason that it would be better than just using C/C++ for the purpose of hijacking the MAVLink?
It doesn't mention low-latency processes, so the answer is "invalid question".
You're probably misreading the text "that require a low-latency link". The point here is that if you have dronekit-python running on a companion computer and connected by a fast link you can do real time handling of incoming sensor data. This allows computer vision control of the UAV. However if you run DK-Python on a ground control station you will have a much slower link. You can still control movement of the UAV but the latency will be much higher.
Hope that helps!
Related
In previous versions of Arduino, the limiting 8-bit microcontroller board, it seems that implementing HTTPS (not merely HTTP) was almost impossible. But the newer version of Arduino Due provides 32-bit ARM core - see spec here.
I tried to check several network libraries (libcurl, openssl, yaSSL), but I didn't find anyone that was already ported to work with Arduino Due.
OpenSSL is probably too heavy to be able to run on this processor, but I believe that yaSSL as an embedded library should be possible to do.
Do you have any information of a library that I can use to trigger HTTPS requests on Arduino Due?
Unfortunately this is too long for a comment.
► No out of the box solution
From what I have gathered, there is no straightforward solution for a webserver running on the Atmel SAM3X8E ARM Cortex-M3 CPU that outputs HTTPS out of the box.
Texas Intstruments provides better options at the moment using their boards equipped with a Stellaris Microcontroller ARM Cortex-M3 CPU.
► Alternative
There are several options available that render cryptographic functions, based upon which one could lay out and implement a simple secure communication protocol that communicates with an intermediary device, which in turn facilitates Rapid Application Development and SSL.
This intermediary device, for instance an off-the-shelf 70$ Android smartphone that keeps your project mobile and connected, runs a service on a specified port which in turn communicates with Amazon SQS. Already available. This may sound ugly or tough, but is much easier than doing the programmatic groundwork for a webserver with full TLS 3 support on the Arduino. Given the proper motivation the latter may be easy, but not if one just wants a fast pragmatic solution to one's own project.
► Cryptographic libraries
crypto-arduino-library http://code.google.com/p/crypto-arduino-library/ (not maintained since 2010)
matrixssl
mbed TLS (formerly PolarSSL)
wolfSSL (formerly CyaSSL)
► Discussions
Following is a list of discussions to get you started:
HTTPS alternative on Arduino
SSL from a Microcontroller
Lightweight Packet Encryption
Many of these libraries would still need to be adapted, but community experts can help you with that fairly quickly.
Good luck! If you are at liberty to upload your final project to github then you just gained a thanks and a follower.
IMHO Arduino (including the DUE) is the wrong tool for heavy and/or encrypted web based communication. I would strongly suggest to look for more appropriate hardware in the same size and price range. As soon you get into https you are close enough to also want a lot of the other stuff that real operating systems provide. With other words I suggest to go for something like the Raspi. Similar size and prize but way more powerful, especially it can run Linux. --> HTTPS becomes simple.
The big problem with https support on an arduino is the danger of overloading your processor which could make the project unviable.
Even embedded platform targetted solutions like PolarSSL can eat up too much memory and use too much processing power. Remember that even on the most streamlined implementations, SSL support is going to have to be generalized for wide adoption and will include components that you won't find necessary. There's also the question of which Certificate Authorities you will trust and how you will communicate with them for things like certificate revocation.
I would look instead towards a solution that isn't as broken on the surface for your needs. Something like CurveProtect, which is an implementation of CurveCP.
Of course, your decision will largely be based on what you want to do and how much time you want to spend figuring the problem out. PolarSSL has a footprint that can be as small as 30K (more typically close to 100K).
I am planning to build a micro controller (a switch will be attached to the embedded system which contains this micro controller) and this embedded system will be connected through a wire to mobile phone. My objective is to dial a particular number through the connected mobile phone network when the user presses the switch on the embedded system. ( planning to use AT commands for dialing). After extensive search, I have found that it is possible to do this above task. Some of the questions I have on this :
a) Do we have to install any drivers on the micro controller to communicate with mobile phone (for sending AT commands) i.e., is it sufficient if we simply code the related AT commands in the micro-controller (in C++) ?
b) Many people were using F-bus protocol for this above objective. Is there any other general protocol similar to this which can help for communicating with all mobiles (samsung,nokia,sony..)
I have read extensively in SO also. But, I have not found any question regarding the drivers. I would appreciate any kind of help
Thanks
A driver is nothing more than a software that allows your system to interact other devices, and is usually associated with Operating Systems (the driver might provide an abstraction layer for your communication). Do you plan to use an Operating System at all?
In any case, it is quite obvious that if you want to communicate to another device you need the software to do so. The question is if you write it your self or if you get an "off the shelf" solution.
In many cases, particularly when a device uses a proprietary communication protocol, you have no option but to get a driver to communicate with it, and that most likely will require you to have an Operating System.
If cellular communication is all you need, there are MUCH easier solutions available (particularly if you intend of turning your project into a product). Search for "embedded modems" or M2M solutions. There are lots of available modems to which you connect using RS232, and can send the AT commands directly. Telit and Multitech are two providers I've worked with and are really easy to interface with.
But I can't seem to find much about how the NX protocol actually works. I have heard it does something with sending X11 commands. But does this mean that the listening clients need to have an x server to run the actual commands and display them?
Basically, I am trying to figure out if it is possible to write an NX client for a web browser, because it sounds interesting to me. Thoughts?
Yes. NX is essentially compressed X-Window protocol.
It's not a spec, but here is a general introduction to how it works: http://www.nomachine.com/documents/NX-XProtocolCompression.php
The client doesn't need to be an X-server, but it will probably need to be able to handle at least some subset of the X protocol.
If you are going to create an web based NX client, make sure you look at noVNC which is a web based VNC/RFB client. Better yet, fork noVNC and add NX support. That way you don't have to waste time on input, events positioning, networking, etc.
Disclaimer: I am the creator of noVNC. Implementing other remote desktop protocols (NX, RDP, Spice) is on my long term todo list (part of the reason for the name). If you're serious, contact me via github and I can give you some direction/thoughts and put you in touch with somebody else who has also expressed interest.
In short: Is there any known protocol for remote process management?
I have a system that contains several applications, each has it's own computer in a local network. When the applications are up and running, they communicate without any problems.
What I'm interested in is a protocol to manage the remote applications startup, shutdown and monitoring. By monitoring I mean getting error codes (predefined) when something goes wrong. Ideally I would control the whole system from one managing application and get status about what's going on.
I once worked in a place that wrote an in-house protocol that did this. However, I wish to avoid writing it again if someone already figured this out.
Edit: some more details:
Platforms in use are Windows and Linux, both on x86.
On Windows, C/C++ and .NET are used. On Linux, C/C++.
Why bother with homegrown solutions instead of using tried and tested technology? Unless you only employ programmers who are MENSA members with 30+ years of experience, your solution will be less robust and costlier to maintain.
You failed to mention any details about the platform you're using, so I'll assume a Unix-ish system. I would go with (and have been going with for years)
SNMP for monitoring
either daemontools or cron + scripting (as a distant second choice) for supervision and restart
ssh/scp with RSA authentication for interactive intervention, remote command execution, and occasional transfers
I want to get some ideas on how I might control a video camera through an IP address. I have an API to control pan and tilt from a local machine. The code is going to be in C/C++ on Windows. I am still designing if I want multiple cameras controlled from one application or have a one camera to one application. Would SOA be a useful architecture to structure my messaging?
I think you could be well served by something like REST for a task like this. Executing a command towards a REST server is really intuitive and simple, which sounds just like what you need. I'd probably make some kind of application that would be running inside a web-server, since this would handle most of the infrastructure, including authentication if needed. I'm sure both apache and IIS could do this for you quite easily. Even though your API is coded in C you could also consider using some higher-level scripting language as a client to the API (inside the web server).
SOA sounds a little overkill for a task like this.
I did something similar for aproject in my university. What we had was the cameras connected to a LAN and with message passing was very easy to communicate with them, is the same that communicate with any PC. We had the same application to communicate them. You can use SOA or any architecture you consider convinient, that depens on your application.
For our case was just an ad hoc architecture, it was not a complex thing.
Hessian is nice. It is basically REST, but has a binary protocol which is more efficient than XML and it also lets you make calls from other languages quite easily. So, you could develop the client GUI applciation in C# and the server in C. There are free libraries for a few different languages available.
http://hessian.caucho.com/