[Dprglist] Sample Retrieval clarification

[Doug Paradis]

John,

    I think first it would be best to think about what type of obstacles
are likely in the search area of the contest. We will ask spectators to
move to the edge of the room to give the robots as much room as possible.
The search area will be most of the room. That means there will be arenas
(some on tables), chairs, an odd person (judge, or robot owner), and stuff
I don't currently know about in the room. Of course, there is also the home
base in the search area. The intent of obstacles is to make finding the
target objects more difficult than simple straight-line shots. The robot
will have to "search" to find the objects. I suspect there will be an easy
target in the mix.



    Since most of these objects weight substantially more than the robot, I
suspect that obstacle movement due to the robot will be minimal. My
thoughts are; if a chair was moved or shoved a bit that would be okay. If
the robot tried to move a table with an arena or an arena on the floor
(Can-Can Soccer arena), I would be more concerned. The obstacles shouldn't
be an issue for the robots to maneuver about the floor. There should be no
need or reason for shoving things except for poor obstacle detection and
avoidance. I would not recommend a strategy that required shoving obstacles.


  BTW, a Neato has excellent obstacle detection and avoidance. Also,
obstacles will generally (except for people) be static features that could
be to provide navigation orientation.


   Less annoying would be good..., but get'her done. We can hand out ear
plugs at the competition with proper planning.


Regards,

Doug P.




On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:38 PM John Swindle via DPRGlist <
dprglist at lists.dprg.org> wrote:

> Doug,
>
> For Sample Retrieval:
>
> Is it OK for the robot to shove obstacles, such as chairs, and leave them
> where they were pushed to (until the judge possibly puts them back)?
>
> Will obstacles (not samples) be at least as far apart as the max allowed
> dimensions of the robot?
>
> I think I'll do like Neato vacs: constantly keep track of the largest,
> farthest-away, static reflections, which are assumed to be the walls. That
> gives orientation, kinda like how competitors square-up with the walls of
> the arena for some of the contests, but with no assumptions about the
> arena, just creating signatures, like what Neato does. And use early
> reflections to identify obstacles. The localizer used to run at about 2kHz
> which was great for "seeing" around chairs and people and even around
> corners, but it was annoying. 2kHz is no good for seeing a
> half-inch-diameter cylinder such as a chair leg. So, I think the mapping
> part will still be low-frequency (but at much lower volume so it isn't
> annoying) and the targeting part will be ultrasonic. I think the same
> emitters and receivers can do both frequency ranges simultaneously.
>
> Still largely armchair stuff.
>
> Later,
> John Swindle
>
> _______________________________________________
> DPRGlist mailing list
> DPRGlist at lists.dprg.org
> http://lists.dprg.org/listinfo.cgi/dprglist-dprg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dprg.org/pipermail/dprglist-dprg.org/attachments/20190123/02c974c8/attachment.html>