2013/12/26 Charles Steinkuehler <[email protected]> > Yes, the problem can get arbitrarily hard, depending on exactly what you > want to check and if you're doing things like mapping the move into > joint space in order to run the check. That's a big reason I think the > limit check(s) should be plug-able. > For now, I'd be happy with something that simply limited the combined > XYZ velocity and acceleration limits to a particular value. But if the > CPU cycles are available, there's no reason code couldn't be written > that worked with the real joint limits and worked backwards through the > kinematics. But before anything fancy can happen, there needs to be a > way to implement a more sophisticated check for the various limits. >
The limits should definitely be pluggable to account at least for angular limits of ball joints etc. BTW some standard cone workspace for AB axes would be OK for many parallel robots. But usual kinematics module seems enough for velocities and accelerations check if the planner could perform it. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
