Subject:
|
Bump switches and "aggression"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:29:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
990 times
|
| |
|
|
To my thinking there are two approaches to this, really two levels of
difficulty,
- Make it deterministic, in that if a switch is bumped invert your
current trajectory axis, if going forward then reverse, if going R
then go L.
- Make it more stochastic. The first choice when a bump switch goes off
is whether to stop, reverse your current trajectory, or select a random
trajectory.
I understand your idea to have all bumpers on one channel. To distiguish between
them, you have to evaluate your current moving direction (motor setting) to
detemine, which one has made the contact.
Regardless of the way you assign your bumpers to channels, the question is, how
to control the robot.
Using a subsumption architecture is not an deterministic approach. If you guess
the right solution then it will work. So it is, a little bit, a mystery.
Remember that digital random generators are not really stochastic. Under the
same circumstances they will allways produce the same row of numbers. Its a
basic of software testing.
To control the robot, you could simply write a control program, describing its
behavior (a deterministic approach). If you can imagine deterministic states [,
combined with task syncronisation of required tasks,] you could do the thing
with a state machine. As you know, a state machine is a complete deterministic
program. You can use random information to make the next state stochastic.
That is my point of view of the problem.
Greetings
Ralph
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
