Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Debug #63

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 28, 2015
Merged

Debug #63

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 28, 2015

Conversation

bfalacerda
Copy link
Contributor

Also kept the old params so we can do more structured comparison.

  • acceleration limits changed to the same as used in mira
  • min_trans_vel reduced, otherwise with the new acceleration limit the robot wont be able to sample any valid velocities
  • decreased rot_stopped_vel and trans_stopped_vel so that the controller is more accurate when checking if the robot has stopped
  • increased vx_samples from 3 to 10. since its a differential drive we need more on x to properly control the translational velocity
  • decreased vy_samples to 1, as this robot doesnt move in y. In fact this doesn't make a difference in execution, because of the min_vel_y and max_vel_y being 0, it's just for coherence
  • put sim_time back to default. with the increased vx_samples the control loop sometimes takes longer that it should so we reduce a bit of the computational burden here.
  • changed forward_point_distance from 0.325 to 0.0, according to Making movebase work #62 (comment)

@nilsbore
Copy link
Member

I did a few experiments with passing our doors today with forward_point_distance: 0.0. In the past we have had this problem that it's turning toward one side of the door when passing and this persists with this change. I'm gonna see if there might be any other benefits, if there are any negative impacts they should be been seen quite easily.

@bfalacerda
Copy link
Contributor Author

i think we won't get rid of that without changing code

@marc-hanheide
Copy link
Member

retest this please

@marc-hanheide
Copy link
Member

there was a jenkins problem. It's tested now. I suggest to merge it, as this is helping to work towards #62 I guess?

@bfalacerda
Copy link
Contributor Author

i think all the changes have a justification, that's why I did this PR to make them our starting point for testing. However, this is (again) just a bit of fiddling with params, with some unstructured testing. I kept the old values so we can run unit tests on both later on

marc-hanheide added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2015
@marc-hanheide marc-hanheide merged commit 4a49915 into strands-project:indigo-devel Oct 28, 2015
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