8000 Suggest we use laser_filters instead of scan filtering in obstacle_points.cpp · Issue #91 · UbiquityRobotics/move_basic · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Suggest we use laser_filters instead of scan filtering in obstacle_points.cpp #91

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and co 8000 ntact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
dorkamotorka opened this issue Apr 9, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Suggest we use laser_filters instead of scan filtering in obstacle_points.cpp #91

dorkamotorka opened this issue Apr 9, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees
@dorkamotorka

Comments

@dorkamotorka
Copy link
Contributor

There is a lot going on in obstacle_points.cpp to filter LiDAR scan to get the actual obstacle points.

I would suggest to use laser_filters ROS package which has a support for Kinetic, Melodic, Noetic. More here: http://wiki.ros.org/laser_filters

The only thing that bothers me is that this then mean that move_basic is not a standalone package anymore but rather uses another ROS package.

What do you think @mjstn, @JanezCim, @MoffKalast, @rohbotics ?
@dorkamotorka dorkamotorka self-assigned this Apr 9, 2021
@MoffKalast
Copy link
Contributor

Well all of our actual software suites already use the laser filters, so that would make sense.

Unfortunately move_basic also needs to work in a separate fashion so I'd suggest making a launch file that demoes a laserscan setup by launching move_basic, remapping scan to scan_filtered and launching the filters too.

@JanezCim
Copy link
Contributor
JanezCim commented Apr 14, 2021 •
edited
Loading

I agree with having laser filters instead because they include some super useful features like shadow filtering and such if we need them down the road. It can get pretty CPU intensive for PI tho, so i would always be concious of that. You can find examples of what @MoffKalast suggest in other project repos :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@dorkamotorka dorkamotorka

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@JanezCim @MoffKalast @dorkamotorka
0