-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
Current State Monitor and Multiple DOF Joints #620
Comments
Very good points about the current limitations of the CurrentStateMonitor! My main questions are:
Thanks for volunteering to add this feature! |
Hey Dave, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I would like to be able to do a precise calibration of a tool or camera at runtime, update its transformation, and have the collision models update accordingly. It is also possible that part of the world geometry changes position or orientation and the collision models need to be precisely updated based on some metrology test. In these scenarios, the existence of geometry is known ahead of time and can be succinctly expressed in a URDF with a floating joint. The exact pose of said geometry can change during runtime. A recent PR to Would you please provide more details by what you mean by your second bullet point? I proposed a separate callback to go with the existing Thanks. |
Great point
I didn't look at the current implementation, but if its already using a callback then nevermind, it makes sense to add another one. Thanks! |
…in-fix create_ikfast_moveit_plugin: fixed directory variable for templates that were moved to ikfast_kinematics_plugin
The current moveit state monitor appears to ignore multi-dof joints that are not at the root of the RobotModel. Please see here.
We in the ROS-Industrial world would like to use floating joints to enable the dynamic calibration of robots and targets to their environments. While this system can be faked by creating 6 single-dof joints that approximate a floating joint and publishing values for all of them, this is far from ideal.
If my understanding of the situation is correct, I propose to create an extension to the existing
current_state_monitor
that:/tf
, or through a tf listener.getMultiDOFJointModels()
function to obtain a list of joints to update, then it would perform TF lookups for each of them, and finally update MoveIt's state in the same manner as is done currently here.I'm very interested in your opinions. I would be willing to do the work, but I'd like to agree on a course of action. I do NOT imagine that these joints would be actively planned for as part of this change, merely that they would be updated between planning requests and otherwise treated as fixed joints.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: