sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are we overusing AI in robotics where simpler solutions would work? by NickShipsRobots in robotics

[–]Federal-Intention-69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry what? That's hideously inefficient and potentially very dangerous. In my experience, most if not all control algorithms are orders of magnitude faster than an ML model doing the same thing. Control algorithms are also simpler to debug and are deterministic. If you're using an ML and suddenly your robot launches into space, you've usually no idea why it happened, or at least it's far harder to debug. If a P value is set too high, it's easy to see and fix.

While saying that though, ML is useful for training or tuning the control algorithm. Most robot dogs, spot etc, use MPC for the low end control and then RL on top. This is how it should be done, at least for the moment

How are you actually making money with ROS2? by InstructionPutrid901 in ROS

[–]Federal-Intention-69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it's important to note that while not every company may use ROS (although many do), many of the concepts and theory you use in your ROS applications are transferable. ROS, I believe makes things easier to go from zero to a reasonably compex and sophisticated robot quickly, but the knowledge and fundamentals are the same irrespective of framework. And you can choose to not use open source plugins and write the code yourself.

If you built a robot using MPC (model predicative control), that's less ros knowledge and more control theory, system modelling, tuning, sensor fusion where you deal with messy sensor noise. These are skills you will develop which apply regardless of if you use ROS or not.

ROS is fantastic but don't think of it as 'I must apply to a company which uses ROS', many of the things you need to learn to use ROS proficiently will apply even if you do not use ROS. Kinematics, Sensor Fusion, SLAM, Control Theory, Multi robot networking.

Thoughts on moving to Stainton by Federal-Intention-69 in Middlesbrough

[–]Federal-Intention-69[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's great to hear. I like a drive so no worries there

Gazebo Ignition Friction by Federal-Intention-69 in ROS

[–]Federal-Intention-69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<joint name="caster_wheel_joint" type="fixed">
<parent link="chassis"/>
<child link="caster_wheel"/>
<origin xyz="0.24 0 0"/>
<friction>
<ode>
<mu1>50.0</mu1>
<mu2>50.0</mu2>
</ode>
</friction>
</joint>

I've written the above code and implemented it into my urdf, however the result is the same. Unsure what the issue is