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

Fix joint force/torque feedback #4583

Merged

Conversation

iche033
Copy link
Contributor

@iche033 iche033 commented Feb 23, 2024

We ran into an issue downstream in gz-physics (Gazebo) with large force / torque sensor feedback when using bullet featherstone (btMultibody) implementation. The problem is similar to what's described in #2966 where user reported larger than expected joint reaction force/torque values when using TORQUE_CONTROL. This bullet issue is closed as it seems like the original user switched to using POSITION_CONTROL. The patch in this PR is the code posted in #2966 (comment) by @Steven89Liu, which fixes the issue for us.

We have a simple test setup that checks the FT sensor output:

bullet_fixed_force_control_feedback

In the above setup, the payload (orange) is connected to the end link with a force/torque sensor attached. There is a joint controller at the revolute joint connecting the base link and the end link.

  • Expected value of force: weight of the attached payload link in the sensor frame ([0 0 -9.8]).
  • Actual value of force: different from above, and magnitude is larger than the weight of the payload link ([0 -0.34 -13.85]).

The force output value is correct when run with the physics engine (dartsim) in gz-physics. With this patch, the F/T sensor now also reports the expected value with bullet.

Signed-off-by: Ian Chen <ichen@openrobotics.org>
@azeey
Copy link

azeey commented Feb 29, 2024

Hi @erwincoumans, we were hoping to resolve an issue in Gazebo with this PR. Would you be able to review it?

@erwincoumans
Copy link
Member

Thanks for bringing this to attention. I've suspended the PyBullet project but let's merge this change.

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