-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
[MPPI] Rotational Constraint #4656
Comments
This is a pretty niche problem that is going to likely necessitate that you create a few of your own custom plugin critics to score the MPPI samples w.r.t. only the XY to create the kinds of trajectories you seek. I can't say with any certainty for this situation what you precisely need to do or settings to configure. This is something I myself would need to think through, experiment with, see how it goes, and iterate from there looking into the various modules to make sure I covered my bases. I don't think in abstract I can give you a roadmap for this specialized situation without myself simply doing it and having a robot to experiment with. Sorry 😦 |
Bug report
Required Info:
Steps to reproduce issue
My robot's kinematic is basically omni but with the constraint that it cannot, at any time, do any rotations. Therefore, I want to configure MPPI that way that it follows the global plan, without publishing any rotational speed on /cmd_vel. This means, that the poses cannot be reached (rotational wise), if they don't align with the vehicle's base_link frame.
For testing I've used the global planner example straight line, which has poses that align with the base_link.
On planned path execution, the robot moves away from the global path and later aborts. On /cmd_vel I can see it tries to rotate around z.
Based on the following parameters, I would think it does not try to do this:
Expected behavior
It can follow the global path.
Actual behavior
Moves away from global path and at some point aborts since it cannot control back.
Additional information
Currently in /odom I'm publishing the actual position based on lidar sensors, therefore this frame is correct.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: