Subject:
|
Re: Positioning
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:58:45 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Pete Hardie <PETE.HARDIE@DVSG.spamlessSCIATL.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1085 times
|
| |
|
|
David Leeper wrote:
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> Those are good points. But I believe they apply to other types of mapping as
> well. For example, when testing SoftBricks I built a robot that travels a map
> and if it gets to the desired destination, sends the map to another robot with
> the intent of that robot following the map to join the first robot. It worked
> great, except no two robots drive exactly alike and sometimes the second robot
> got "lost". And this was with a simple timing map. Although I didn't test it,
> my feeling is that a landmark map would work better in that case because they
> don't depend on the precision of rotation sensors, or get thrown off by
> slipage or different drive trains. Landmark maps are a bit more resistant to
> the differences in how robots move. Just a bit.
Some questions I have - what are you using for 'landmark'? How far away can
the legobot detect a landmark? When giving directions including a landmark,
what are the steps leading up to "...when you get to the X..."? And how does
a bot determine that it has not found a landmark and needs to ask more
directions.
>
> The real problem seems to me to lie in the "GO" part of following the
> map. "GO" isn't a precise thing. Perhaps different types of algorithms could
> solve this problem? And there's always the trick of drawing a black line on
> the floor, but that always seemed like "cheating" to me.
Again, it's only cheating if you are trying to solve a problem more like an
orienteering challenge than a roadmap challenge. If you have an existing
'network' of edges between nodes, and travel along the edges to nodes, then
the problem is different (simpler?) than if all you have is nodes, and no
'directional' reference.
--
Pete Hardie | Goalie, DVSG Dart Team
Scientific Atlanta |
Digital Video Services Group |
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Positioning
|
| Hi Pete, The direct answer to what I've used for landmarks is colored marks, like those found on the RCX test pad. If the robot is a few inches to the left or right of the exact path, it'll still find the mark, assuming it's a few inches wide. But (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Positioning
|
| Hi Pete, I was looking back over you post and realized I didn't answer a couple of your questions. (...) In the program I wrote there are only a few commands. Go forward. Turn left at landmark X. Turn right at landmark X. (...) To be honest, I (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Positioning
|
| (...) come (...) That's one of the reasons why a programmer goes to all the trouble (and fun?) of building a physical model of a bot instead of dealing with over-acurate 3D CG simulations. Ok, now for the Positioning system debate. Just one word: (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Positioning
|
| (...) realtime, (...) Nothing I hadn't thought of myself, after sending that msg :D er... is there any human-eye-invisible IR-Ink ? :> ...so I sould have my flood painted with an invisible grid, all over the place, without the knowledge of my wife (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Positioning
|
| Hi Pete, Those are good points. But I believe they apply to other types of mapping as well. For example, when testing SoftBricks I built a robot that travels a map and if it gets to the desired destination, sends the map to another robot with the (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
