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

Higher preference for backward movements in TEB+SBPL #8

Open
nitin5 opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 1 comment
Open

Higher preference for backward movements in TEB+SBPL #8

nitin5 opened this issue Sep 16, 2016 · 1 comment

Comments

@nitin5
Copy link

nitin5 commented Sep 16, 2016

Greetings,
I am trying to setup sbpl+teb in stage simulation setup. I am using cfg/diff_drive configuration files as supplied with the code.
I found that robot has higher preference for making backward movements to align robot along the planned global path. Even in place rotation is not prefered for differential drive robot.
Uploading Selection_001.png…

I have tried changing the parameter weight_kinematics_forward_drive to higher value. This influences trajectory selection but robot still makes in place back ward movements to correct its heading.

I have also observed that robot gets stuck in a loop at tight places to achieve its goal configuration.
Is this behaviour expected? If not, how can I improve it.

Thanks
Nitin

@nlimpert
Copy link
Contributor

nlimpert commented Nov 8, 2016

Hi, sorry for the late response.
Did you try to tweak the max_vel_{x,y, theta} values? The teb_local_planner seems to prefer directions that allow a faster velocity.
You might also want to try out setting up the global_plan_viapoint_sep parameter of teb_local_planner in order to "force" the teb_local_planner to follow the global plan.

Unfortunately we face the same problems in tight spaces with ackermann driven robots. Maybe tweaking the said parameters (max_vel_*) might help you or the teb_local_planner, respectively to select proper trajectories even in tight environments.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants