The guidance for Flight Tasks in version 1.14 is inconsistent with the actual program in version 1.14.4.

[a233a2]

Hi！I want to use the newly added flight mission in version 1.14.4 of the PX4 program. Refer to the documentation of version 1.14. But I didn't find any consistency in the documentation with the code, which prevented me from adding the code correctly to the CMakeLists. I think this is causing me to not compile correctly.
I couldn't find the following guidance to add in the program。

Where should I add it?

Here is the error: I meet

I put my new task here: This is version 1.14

[hamishwillee]

@a233a2 The flight tasks guide is likely out of date since it was written in PX4 v1.11

Can you please post this in the discussion boards and then add a link back here. That will expose this problem to more people.

@MaEtUgR Is this something you can advise on? The FLightTaskIndex looks like it is auto-generated, so I would assume that adding to the CMakeLists is the right thing to do.

More generally, can I arrange a sanity check of this doc for at least PX4v1.15 accuracy?

[a233a2]

oh ok I have currently posted a similar situation to mine in the discussion section of PX4. But the bug cannot be solved, which makes me frustrated. Why does it not work when making fmu-v2_default, but it works when starting simulation?

MyDiscussion

[MaEtUgR]

@a233a2 I think I know what your problem is. The structure changed slightly and we should update the documentation. According to your screenshot you added your custom task in the right place if you want it only available on targets that are not very tight on flash memory usage (NOT px4_constrained_flash_build). that is here: https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/blob/e8f8bc9af7f7536543148622a8cb80cc73ab60c9/src/modules/flight_mode_manager/CMakeLists.txt#L56-L57

fmu-v2 is one of the constrained targets so it will show in simulation (unconstrained) but not the fmu-v2 build.

Try moving the declaration of your task in CMake to the list above that which gets build on every target:
https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/blob/e8f8bc9af7f7536543148622a8cb80cc73ab60c9/src/modules/flight_mode_manager/CMakeLists.txt#L42-L51

[DronecodeBot]

This issue has been mentioned on Discussion Forum for PX4, Pixhawk, QGroundControl, MAVSDK, MAVLink. There might be relevant details there:

https://discuss.px4.io/t/new-task-when-i-make-fmu-v2-default-broken/42204/3

[a233a2]

I still haven't resolved my previous mistake, but thank you all for your answers. But I changed the compilation command to FMU-V3, and now the compilation has passed. I want to know if FMU-V3 can be burned on Pixhawk 2.4.8. This temporarily solves the problem. @MaEtUgR

[MaEtUgR]

But I changed the compilation command to FMU-V3, and now the compilation has passed.

@a233a2 That is because fmu-v3 is not a flash constrained target but fmu-v2 is, see:
https://github.com/PX4/PX4-Autopilot/blob/c9f64aeea8aa549a1031785c8ec0134057c8ac05/boards/px4/fmu-v2/default.px4board#L3

I want to know if FMU-V3 can be burned on Pixhawk 2.4.8.

No, as far as I remember that board is an fmu-v2 target and you should use make px4_fmu-v2 upload to flash it. If you pick the wrong target it should complain that the bootloader doesn't accept your binary.

Please just put your custom task to also be built on flash constrained targets like I described in #3421 (comment)
Here's essentially what that change would look like:

[MaEtUgR]

Sidenote: While it’s not required for the goal you describe here, you might want to consider upgrading to an up-to-date flight control board, like e.g. the Pixhawk 6C, when building/investing in a new drone.

[hamishwillee]

I strongly agree with ^^^^. The Pixhawk 2.4.8 is more than 10 years old technology with very little flash space. The money you save in buying them is lost in the time it takes to find enough flash to use the features you need.

[hamishwillee]

OK. so I have added a note about constrained boards in #3434.

I'm closing this issue now because the specific case is address.
I have opened #3435 because we still need the rest of the doc checked @MaEtUgR !