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

Added publishZeroVelocity() when state_ is changed to PLANNING. #1180

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: melodic-devel
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ryan-sandzimier
Copy link

If a robot is on it's way to the goal and a new MoveBaseActionGoal is published, the robot continues moving at the last commanded velocity for the duration of planning a path to the new goal. When the global planner is slow (such as for sbpl_lattice_planner), this is problematic. #750 and #751 fix this for the initial goal. However, if a new goal is published before the robot reaches the preceding goal, the same problem exists.

Solved this by adding publishZeroVelocity() when state_ is changed to PLANNING so that a zero velocity is commanded prior to making the plan.

Copy link
Contributor

@mikeferguson mikeferguson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, I know of at least a few people who leverage this "feature" - in that the robot won't stop real hard if they can actually get a new plan in time (basically, it's a lot smoother to let the robot coast for a second). I don't think we can merge this as-is into an LTS release that is 4 years into the cycle - but if you put it behind a parameter, that defaults to the old behavior, we could merge it.

@ryan-sandzimier
Copy link
Author

So, I know of at least a few people who leverage this "feature" - in that the robot won't stop real hard if they can actually get a new plan in time (basically, it's a lot smoother to let the robot coast for a second). I don't think we can merge this as-is into an LTS release that is 4 years into the cycle - but if you put it behind a parameter, that defaults to the old behavior, we could merge it.

@mikeferguson Added a parameter that defaults to old behavior.

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.

2 participants