Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

Feature-Request: Path-Planner should take into account the minimum turning radius and the ability to drive backward. #38

Closed
AndyPermaRobotics opened this issue Oct 11, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@AndyPermaRobotics
Copy link
Contributor

I noticed, that the Path-Planner does not take into account the minimum turning radius of the robot and the ability of the robot to drive backward.
Both can be defined for the Driver, but not for the PathPlanner.
So the PathPlanner will calculate a path that avoids obstacles, but the driver may drive a different path.

Currently I have another use case, that underlines the limitations of the PathPlanner:
I want my robot to drive swaths and at the end of one swath it should drive to the beginning of another swath. This means, that the bot has to rotate by 180° and perform a small transition in y direction.
image

In this case the planned path has a very small radius:
image
and this is the path that the bot drives:
image

My interim solution is to add a stopover point:
image
this mitigates the problem, but still the PathPlanner does not take into account the minimum turning radius and I couldn't figure out how to create a stopover point that leads to a path with a nearly constant curvature.

I tried to create my dream path with Miro and it looks like this:
image
as you can see, I added 3 control points. I don't know, if this is possible with single spline.

It would be very nice, if you could add this functionality to the PathPlanner!

Best regards
Andreas

@zauberzeug zauberzeug locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 11, 2023
@falkoschindler falkoschindler converted this issue into discussion #40 Oct 11, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant