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

Change cartographer simulation to use IMU #62

Closed
divyabudihal opened this issue Jan 23, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #130
Closed

Change cartographer simulation to use IMU #62

divyabudihal opened this issue Jan 23, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #130

Comments

@divyabudihal
Copy link
Collaborator

divyabudihal commented Jan 23, 2020

No description provided.

@divyabudihal divyabudihal added this to the SLAM Mapping milestone Jan 23, 2020
@divyabudihal divyabudihal changed the title Change simulation to use IMU Change cartographer simulation to use IMU Feb 26, 2020
@nancyhong123 nancyhong123 self-assigned this Feb 26, 2020
@nancyhong123 nancyhong123 removed their assignment Mar 13, 2020
@nancyhong123
Copy link
Collaborator

In this research paper, the performance of 2D cartographer with Lidar only and Lidar + IMU fusion is compared:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/8/12/2534/htm#sec3dot2-applsci-08-02534

It is found that Lidar+IMU fusion out performs Lidar only mapping in environments with moving objects.

@nancyhong123 nancyhong123 self-assigned this Mar 20, 2020
@nancyhong123
Copy link
Collaborator

nancyhong123 commented Mar 21, 2020

Due to lack of tuning of the cartographer scan matching parameters, the addition of IMU does improves performance of mapping when robot makes large rotations.

However, the changes made in this issue will not accurately simulate an IMU in the real world as the current simulated IMU measurements are generated by a ModelPlugin (the correct implementation is to use a SensorPlugin). This problem will be addressed in issue #132

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants