Subject:
|
Re: Extra RAM
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:07:37 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John Barnes <barnes@sensors.^saynotospam^com>
|
Viewed:
|
648 times
|
| |
|
|
> The full list of all spatial information will describe the 'world' in
> means of position. While the list of Objects describes the 'world' in
> means of Objects like tables, doors etc. If you want your robot to go to
> door 4, it only have to scan the list of objects to find the Object
> 'Door 4' check the link to the spatial data and than it can calculate
> the 'best' way to go there.
Ah! I think I see the difference. My concept of the "map" is something that
starts out blank and the prime objective is to fill it in. I suspect the
use of a term like "door" implies a map supplied from outside. In which case
I agree that an object based expression of the surroundings is far better than
a raster based one. Unless .. you have an algorithm which allows your robot
to determine that something is a door! In which case I want to know a lot
more about how you do that!
JB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Extra RAM
|
| I think now that either way could be implemented, with special software for the vector map. A bit map you can upload, and just view, but a vector map, you can save space, but when uploaded, you could easily have software to map out the area. The (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Extra RAM
|
| (...) If you start with a blank map, you don't need a full sized array for mapping. You can build up a linked list or a binary Tree where each node hold position information status and size. If your memory is nearly use up. You start a garbage (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
