Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

FlyHaptics: Flying Multi-contact Haptic Interface

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A drone carrying six five-bar linkages can present five distinguishable multi-contact tactile patterns to a user's hands, recognized with 86.5 percent accuracy in a grounded pilot.

desk verdict New hardware, thin in-flight evidence: six-linkage drone haptics pilot is promising but overclaims what the flight test shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02582 v1 pith:P6GYHWNQ submitted 2025-05-05 cs.HC

Luis Moreno , Miguel Altamirano Cabrera , Muhammad Haris Khan , Issatay Tokmurziyev , Yara Mahmoud , Valerii Serpiva , Dzmitry Tsetserukou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords aerialhapticsmulti-contacthapticinterfacefive-barlinkagedrone-basedtactilefeedbackpatternrecognitionencountered-typedisplayvirtualrealityquadcopter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FlyHaptics is a quadcopter-based haptic interface that carries six five-bar linkage mechanisms inside a protective cage, turning the drone into a multi-contact encountered-type display. The paper tries to establish that a flying platform can deliver rich, multi-point tactile feedback rather than the single-point cues of earlier drone haptics. A grounded user study with eight participants achieved 86.5 percent recognition of five static patterns, with no significant differences among patterns. A flight test showed stable hover and consistent force output. The paper argues these pilot results validate the feasibility of drone-mounted, multi-contact haptic feedback.

What carries the argument

The five-bar linkage assemblies are the core actuation mechanism: six of them, driven by servomotors through I2C and PWM drivers, convert rotary motion into multi-directional end-effector displacement that presses against the user's hands. The five static patterns are defined by distinct combinations of which linkages make contact and at what vibration intensity, applied to both hands simultaneously. Localization through a Vicon motion-capture system and ArduPilot-based flight control keeps the drone stable while the linkages render the cues.

What would settle it

Repeat the five-pattern recognition task with the drone hovering at operating altitude and motor speeds; if recognition accuracy falls to chance levels or users report that propeller vibration masks the linkage cues, the central feasibility claim would be refuted. The paper's own Section IV-C indicates no such airborne recognition measurements were collected.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single quadcopter can host multiple five-bar linkage actuators and render five distinct static tactile patterns, each defined by a unique combination of linkage contact points and vibration intensities, with users recognizing them at 86.5 percent accuracy. The repeated-measures ANOVA found no significant difference in recognizability across patterns (F(4,35)=1.47, p=0.23), which the authors interpret as balanced rendering quality. The flight demonstration confirmed stable hover and consistent force output under realistic conditions, grounding the claim that multi-contact haptic feedback can be delivered from an untethered aerial platform.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the 86.5 percent recognition accuracy measured with the drone stationary on the ground transfers to flight, since the flight test verified stable hover and consistent force output but did not measure users' ability to recognize patterns while the drone was airborne.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the feasibility claim holds, drone-based haptic interfaces can move from single-point to multi-point feedback, enabling tactile rendering of object shape, edges, and distributed pressure in mid-air.
  • The five-bar linkage design can be extended from static patterns to dynamic, time-varying stimuli that simulate texture and motion.
  • Stable hover with an actuated payload suggests the platform can support practical VR and teleoperation tasks without anchoring the user.
  • The grounded recognition results establish a baseline protocol for evaluating aerial haptics that future drone-mounted systems can be compared against.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The flight test did not measure pattern recognition while airborne, so a direct test of whether propeller vibration and noise degrade perception is the next logical step.
  • If airborne recognition holds, the same linkage architecture could be reconfigured to render directional forces and surface textures, not just static contact patterns.
  • The recognition paradigm could be extended to compare FlyHaptics against single-point drone haptics and ground-based multi-contact displays to quantify the benefit of untethered multi-contact feedback.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. FlyHaptics proposes a quadcopter-based haptic interface using six five-bar linkage assemblies enclosed in a protective cage. The paper describes the hardware (SpeedyBee F405 flight controller, Orange Pi 5B, Vicon tracking), defines five static tactile patterns, and reports a grounded user study with eight participants in which each pattern was presented five times; participants achieved 86.5% recognition, and the authors report a repeated-measures ANOVA with F(4,35) = 1.4665, p = 0.2332 showing no significant differences between patterns. A separate flight demonstration is described as confirming stable hover and consistent force output. The paper concludes that these pilot results validate the feasibility of drone-mounted, multi-contact haptic feedback.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, FlyHaptics would be a useful extension of aerial haptics from single-contact to multi-contact feedback, with potential applications in VR, teleoperation, and remote interaction. The paper's strengths are its concrete system design, the transparent reporting of recognition data through a confusion matrix, and the explicit pilot framing of the user study. The hardware integration details (e.g., I2C-controlled PWM drivers and five-bar linkages) are presented in enough detail to guide replication. However, the significance stated in the title and abstract depends on airborne usability, which is not measured in the current data: the grounded recognition study plus a hover-only flight test establish only a static multi-contact display with a stable aerial carrier, not a flying haptic interface whose patterns remain perceptible under rotor-induced vibration and flight dynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-C (and Abstract)] The flight test does not measure whether users can recognize the five patterns while the drone is airborne. Section IV-C states as its primary goal the assessment of whether airborne operation influences the reliability and clarity of haptic sensations, but the results report only stable hover and 'consistent force output' with no recognition trials, no comparison to the grounded 86.5% figure, and no quantitative vibration or force-variance data. The Abstract's conclusion that 'These pilot results validate the feasibility of drone-mounted, multi-contact haptic feedback' therefore overstates the evidence: the data support a grounded multi-contact display attached to a drone that hovers stably, not a flying haptic interface whose patterns are demonstrated to remain perceptible under flight conditions.
  2. [Section V (Table I)] The reported repeated-measures ANOVA cannot be correct as stated. With N=8 participants, five patterns, and five repetitions per participant, a repeated-measures ANOVA on per-participant mean accuracy would use F(4,28), while F(4,35) corresponds to 40 independent observations in a between-subjects design. Because the text explicitly says the analysis accounted for repeated responses from the same participants, the reported degrees of freedom indicate a mismatch between the stated method and the actual computation. This matters because the non-significant p=0.2332 is the basis for the claim that all patterns are perceived with 'comparable clarity'; please re-run with a correct repeated-measures model (or a mixed-effects model) and report the appropriate statistic, or present the result purely as a descriptive pilot outcome.
  3. [Section III-C / Fig. 5] The manuscript does not specify the actual contact configuration of each pattern. Since 'multi-contact' is the central claim, the paper should give a table or explicit list showing, for each of the five patterns, which of the six five-bar linkage assemblies are active, how many end-effectors contact the user at once, and what vibration intensities are used. Without this, the results in Table I cannot be interpreted or reproduced, and the multi-contact nature of the stimulus is asserted rather than documented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains spacing artifacts in 'ANOV A' (Sections IV and V) and 'MA VROS' (Section III-A and Reference [31]); please correct these to 'ANOVA' and 'MAVROS'.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] '86.5 recognition accuracy' and '86.5' should read '86.5% recognition accuracy' and '86.5%,' respectively; the body also omits the percentage sign after 86.5 in the results paragraph.
  3. [Table I] The row and column labels of the confusion matrix are ambiguous: the first column header 'Answers (Predicted Class)%' is followed by five unlabeled columns, and the row labels are the actual patterns. Please add explicit 'Actual' and 'Predicted' headers and state that the cell values are proportions.
  4. [Section IV-C] The sentence 'Results confirmed that the haptic feedback remained consistent, accurate, and safe during stable hover' is not supported by any reported measurement; either include quantitative metrics (e.g., contact-force variance, position error) or explicitly label this as an informal observation rather than a confirmed result.
  5. [Reference [26]] Reference [26] is cited as 'Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (UIST)', but the venue abbreviation appears to be incorrect; the conference is Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM), not UIST.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: hardware pilot and flight demonstration are direct measurements, not derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation or predictive model. The central evidence is a grounded user study (eight participants, five predefined patterns, confusion matrix, 86.5% recognition accuracy) and a separate flight demonstration reporting stable hover and consistent force output. Neither quantity is obtained by fitting a parameter to data that it is then claimed to predict; the recognition accuracy is a direct measurement, and the flight-test outcome is an observational report. References to prior work by the same authors (e.g., [4], [11], [12], [22], [27]) appear only as related-work context and do not carry the burden of the feasibility claim. The main caveat, namely that recognition was not re-measured during actual flight and that Section IV-C reports hover stability rather than perceptual accuracy, is a validity and generalization limitation rather than a circular dependency; it does not make the grounded result equivalent to its own assumptions. The reported ANOVA degrees of freedom also raise a statistical-reporting concern, but statistical correctness is distinct from circularity. Under the rule that circularity must be exhibited as a specific reduction to inputs, no such reduction is present in the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about tracking accuracy, pattern distinctiveness, and transfer from grounded to flight, none of which is quantitatively verified. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vicon motion capture provides millimeter-level pose accuracy sufficient for precise haptic positioning and control.
    Invoked in Section III-A; the paper does not report a separate accuracy or repeatability test for the Vicon setup in the haptic task.
  • domain assumption The five predefined patterns, formed by linkage contact points and vibration intensities, are perceptually distinct as intended.
    The recognition score depends on this distinctness; the paper does not report force or vibration measurements for each pattern.
  • ad hoc to paper A statistically non-significant ANOVA result means the patterns are perceived with comparable clarity.
    Section V interprets the null result as evidence of uniformity and robustness, which is an unjustified inference from absence of evidence.
  • domain assumption Grounded recognition performance can be generalized to flight.
    The paper's central claim of a flying interface relies on this, but the flight test does not include user perception.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FlyHaptics: Flying Multi-contact Haptic Interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P6GYHWNQ

@misc{pith2026250502582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FlyHaptics: Flying Multi-contact Haptic Interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P6GYHWNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02582}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents FlyHaptics, an aerial haptic interface tracked via a Vicon optical motion capture system and built around six five-bar linkage assemblies enclosed in a lightweight protective cage. We predefined five static tactile patterns - each characterized by distinct combinations of linkage contact points and vibration intensities - and evaluated them in a grounded pilot study, where participants achieved 86.5 recognition accuracy (F(4, 35) = 1.47, p = 0.23) with no significant differences between patterns. Complementary flight demonstrations confirmed stable hover performance and consistent force output under realistic operating conditions. These pilot results validate the feasibility of drone-mounted, multi-contact haptic feedback and lay the groundwork for future integration into fully immersive VR, teleoperation, and remote interaction scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FlyHaptics delivers tactile feedback to VR user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FlyHaptics Haptic Device C. Haptic Patterns The five-bar linkage mechanisms in FlyHaptics are capable of producing both static and dynamic haptic patterns. For the purposes of this study, the focus is on static patterns, which are applied simultaneously to both hands to ensure consistency during evaluation. Five distinct tactile patterns were designed, each intended to convey a unique spatial force profile without c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System Architecture Mounted on the top deck of the drone are servomotors and PWM drivers, responsible for actuating the five-bar linkage mechanisms. These mechanical assemblies generate force feedback by precisely adjusting their angles in response to control commands from the onboard processor. This modular integration allows FlyHaptics to deliver continuous tactile signals while maintaining flight balance. The sys… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Haptic Patterns Diagram IV. USER STUDY A. Experimental Setup This study was conducted to evaluate participants’ ability to perceive, distinguish, and accurately identify the prede￾fined tactile patterns generated by the FlyHaptics system. The primary objective was to d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tactile Pattern Experimental Setup A total of eight individuals participated in the study (seven men and one woman), with ages ranging from 22 to 35 years (mean age: 27.2 ± 3.7 years). All participants were right￾handed to ensure consistency in interaction and feedback…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Face/on: Multi- modal haptic feedback for head-mounted displays in virtual reality,

    D. Wolf, M. Rietzler, L. Hnatek, and E. Rukzio, “Face/on: Multi- modal haptic feedback for head-mounted displays in virtual reality,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 3169–3177, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Fingeret: A wearable fingerpad-free haptic device for mixed reality,

    T. Maeda, S. Yoshida, T. Murakami, K. Matsuda, T. Tanikawa, and H. Sakai, “Fingeret: A wearable fingerpad-free haptic device for mixed reality,” in Proc. of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, ser. SUI ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Design of a wearable haptic device for hand palm cutaneous feedback,

    M. Dragusanu, A. Villani, D. Prattichizzo, and M. Malvezzi, “Design of a wearable haptic device for hand palm cutaneous feedback,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 8, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Tes- lamirror: Multistimulus encounter-type haptic display for shape and texture rendering in vr,

    A. Fedoseev, A. Tleugazy, L. Labazanova, and D. Tsetserukou, “Tes- lamirror: Multistimulus encounter-type haptic display for shape and texture rendering in vr,” in Proc. ACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Emerging Technologies, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Pocopo: Handheld pin-based shape display for haptic rendering in virtual reality,

    S. Yoshida, Y . Sun, and H. Kuzuoka, “Pocopo: Handheld pin-based shape display for haptic rendering in virtual reality,” in Proc. of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 1–13

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Hapticbots: Distributed encountered-type haptics for vr with multiple shape-changing mobile robots,

    R. Suzuki, E. Ofek, M. Sinclair, D. Leithinger, and M. Gonzalez- Franco, “Hapticbots: Distributed encountered-type haptics for vr with multiple shape-changing mobile robots,” in Proc. 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology UIST , 2021, p. 1269–1281

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A non-grounded and encountered-type haptic display using a drone,

    K. Yamaguchi, G. Kato, Y . Kuroda, K. Kiyokawa, and H. Takemura, “A non-grounded and encountered-type haptic display using a drone,” in Proc. of the 2016 Symposium on Spatial User Interaction , ser. SUI ’16. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016, p. 43–46

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Haptics in vr using origami-augmented drones,

    D. Yu, W. Jiang, A. Irlitti, T. Dingler, E. Velloso, J. Goncalves, and V . Kostakos, “Haptics in vr using origami-augmented drones,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), 2022, pp. 905–906

    work page 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Dronehaptics: Encountered-type haptic interface using dome-shaped drone for 3-dof force feedback,

    M. I. Awan, A. Raza, and S. Jeon, “Dronehaptics: Encountered-type haptic interface using dome-shaped drone for 3-dof force feedback,” in Proc. Int. Conf. on Ubiquitous Robots (UR) , 2023, pp. 195–200

    2023

  2. [10]

    Guidecopter - a precise drone- based haptic guidance interface for blind or visually impaired people,

    F. Huppert, G. Hoelzl, and M. Kranz, “Guidecopter - a precise drone- based haptic guidance interface for blind or visually impaired people,” in Proc. of the 2021 CHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’21, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Tactile perception of objects by the user’s palm for the development of multi- contact wearable tactile displays,

    M. Altamirano Cabrera, J. Heredia, and D. Tsetserukou, “Tactile perception of objects by the user’s palm for the development of multi- contact wearable tactile displays,” in Haptics: Science, Technology, Applications, I. Nisky, J. Hartcher-O’Brien, M. Wiertlewski, and J. Smeet...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Musinger: Communication of music over a distance with wearable haptic display and touch sensitive surface,

    M. A. Cabrera, M. H. Khan, A. Alabbas, L. Moreno, I. Tokmurziyev, and D. Tsetserukou, “Musinger: Communication of music over a distance with wearable haptic display and touch sensitive surface,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2024, p...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Force attraction pen: A haptic pen with variable attraction force,

    J. Burnside, B. Elgar, S. Healer, A. Hill, Z. Ioannidis, L. Mitchell, P. Worgan, and A. Roudaut, “Force attraction pen: A haptic pen with variable attraction force,” in Proc. of the 2016 CHI Conf. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2016, p. 2655–2660

    2016

  6. [14]

    Frame- work for haptic teleoperation of a remote robotic arm device,

    P. Rezeck, B. Frade, J. Soares, L. Pinto, F. Cadar, H. Azpurua, D. G. Macharet, L. Chaimowicz, G. Freitas, and M. F. M. Campos, “Frame- work for haptic teleoperation of a remote robotic arm device,” in Proc. 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, Brazilian Symposium on Robotic...

    2018

  7. [15]

    The benefits of haptic feedback in robot assisted surgery and their moderators: a meta- analysis,

    M. Bergholz, M. Ferle, and B. M. Weber, “The benefits of haptic feedback in robot assisted surgery and their moderators: a meta- analysis,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, p. 19215, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    A high performance tactile feedback display and its integration in teleoperation,

    I. Sarakoglou, N. Garcia-Hernandez, N. G. Tsagarakis, and D. G. Cald- well, “A high performance tactile feedback display and its integration in teleoperation,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 252–263, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Industrial design of wearable intelligent devices based on wireless networks,

    S. Jian, “Industrial design of wearable intelligent devices based on wireless networks,” Measurement: Sensors, vol. 30, p. 100934, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Encounter-type haptic feedback system using an acoustically manip- ulated floating object,

    T. Furumoto, Y . Toide, M. Fujiwara, Y . Makino, and H. Shinoda, “Encounter-type haptic feedback system using an acoustically manip- ulated floating object,” in Haptic Interaction . Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 183–186

    2019

  11. [19]

    Co- bodeck: A large-scale haptic vr system using a collaborative mobile robot,

    S. Mortezapoor, K. Vasylevska, E. V onach, and H. Kaufmann, “Co- bodeck: A large-scale haptic vr system using a collaborative mobile robot,” in Proc. 2023 IEEE Conf. Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 2023, pp. 297–307

    2023

  12. [20]

    Haptics on-demand: A survey on encountered-type haptic displays,

    V . R. Mercado, M. Marchal, and A. L ´ecuyer, “Haptics on-demand: A survey on encountered-type haptic displays,” IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 449–464, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Encountered-type haptic display for large vr environment using per-plane reachability maps,

    Y . Kim, H. J. Kim, and Y . J. Kim, “Encountered-type haptic display for large vr environment using per-plane reachability maps,” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds , vol. 29, no. 3-4, p. e1814, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Wiredswarm: High resolution haptic feedback provided by a swarm of drones to the user’s fingers for vr interaction,

    E. Tsykunov and D. Tsetserukou, “Wiredswarm: High resolution haptic feedback provided by a swarm of drones to the user’s fingers for vr interaction,” in Proc. of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST) , 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) for improved business management,

    S. Sharma, P. Kulkarni, and P. Pathak, “Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) for improved business management,” in Proc. 2022 Int. Interdisciplinary Humanitarian Conf. for Sustainability (IIHC), 2022, pp. 53–57

    2022

  16. [24]

    Haptic- drone: An encountered-type kinesthetic haptic interface with control- lable force feedback: Initial example for 1d haptic feedback,

    M. Abdullah, M. Kim, W. Hassan, Y . Kuroda, and S. Jeon, “Haptic- drone: An encountered-type kinesthetic haptic interface with control- lable force feedback: Initial example for 1d haptic feedback,” in Proc. of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Techn...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Hapticpuppet: A kinesthetic mid- air multidirectional force-feedback drone-based interface,

    M. Feick, A. Tang, and A. Kr ¨uger, “Hapticpuppet: A kinesthetic mid- air multidirectional force-feedback drone-based interface,” in Proc. of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Vrhapticdrones: Providing haptics in virtual reality through quadcopters,

    M. Hoppe, P. Knierim, T. Kosch, M. Funk, L. Futami, S. Schneegass, N. Henze, A. Schmidt, and T. Machulla, “Vrhapticdrones: Providing haptics in virtual reality through quadcopters,” Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (UIST) , 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Dandeliontouch: High fidelity haptic rendering of soft objects in vr by a swarm of drones,

    A. Fedoseev, A. Baza, A. Gupta, E. Dorzhieva, R. N. Gujarathi, and D. Tsetserukou, “Dandeliontouch: High fidelity haptic rendering of soft objects in vr by a swarm of drones,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 2022, pp. 1078–1083

    2022

  20. [28]

    Ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, and A. Y . Ng, “Ros: an open-source robot operating system,” in Proc. IEEE ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software , 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Orange pi 5b official documentation,

    Shenzhen Xunlong Software Co., Ltd., “Orange pi 5b official documentation,” 2023, accessed: 2025-01-30. [Online]. Available: http://www.orangepi.org

    2023

  22. [30]

    Ardupilot: Open source autopilot,

    ArduPilot Development Team, “Ardupilot: Open source autopilot,” 2024, accessed: 2025-01-30. [Online]. Available: https://ardupilot.org

    2024

  23. [31]

    Mavros: Mavlink extendable communication node for ros,

    M. Developers, “Mavros: Mavlink extendable communication node for ros,” 2024, accessed: 2025-01-30. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/mavlink/mavros

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.