Revision history [back]

thanks for the detailed answer. In particular regarding the fact that distance between wheels should be measured from the center of its width (i wasn't sure).

and yes my wheels do slip, but only when i suddently stop the robot without carrying load. (i need to better handle sudden decelaration it seems)

In fact, it turns out that the base_width parameter was declared outside the <node> in the launch file and the node code was using '~base_width':

self.base_width = float(rospy.get_param('~base_width', 0.0)) # The wheel base width in meters

However, that tiny '~' made that the value given in the launch file (0.328) was not used, therefore the base_width was using the default 0.3. That 300 vs 328 mm discrepency in turned explained why the linear odometry was somehow ok-ish but the angular odometry was clearly broken.

now i'm getting this:

there is drift, but it's clearly much better.

Does it look ok? I really have no clue if it's acceptable or not.

thanks for the detailed answer. In particular regarding the fact that distance between wheels should be measured from the center of its width (i wasn't sure).

and yes my wheels do slip, but only when i suddently stop the robot without carrying load. (i need to better handle sudden decelaration it seems)

In fact, it turns out that the base_width parameter was declared outside the <node> in the launch file and the node code was using '~base_width':

self.base_width = float(rospy.get_param('~base_width', 0.0)) 0.3)) # The wheel base width in meters

However, that tiny '~' made that the value given in the launch file (0.328) was not used, therefore the base_width was using the default 0.3. That 300 vs 328 mm discrepency in turned explained why the linear odometry was somehow ok-ish but the angular odometry was clearly broken.

now i'm getting this:

there is drift, but it's clearly much better.

Does it look ok? I really have no clue if it's acceptable or not.