ROS Resources: Documentation | Support | Discussion Forum | Index | Service Status | ros @ Robotics Stack Exchange |
1 | initial version |
These controllers have as input position and as output position. Does that mean there is a one on one relation with the desired reference to the controller and the output?
In your previous question this also came up.
All classes in the position_controllers
group are pure passthrough controllers, they do not have any internal PID. See also #q245802.
Because in my use case I am currently not interested in simulating physics and low level control I just want to plan motion
If you don't actually need a physics simulation, then why not just use the fake_controller_manager and not bother with an entire Gazebo setup? That is a huge amount of overhead for just visualising your motions.
If you do want to include an external entity in your application that "plays out" JointTrajectory
s, then you could take a look at wiki/industrial_robot_simulator. It's not really a simulator -- or at least not a dynamics simulator. It is mostly a trajectory play out / kinematics visualisation.
Note that in a recent PR (ros-industrial/industrial_core#212) treatment of velocities and accelerations was essentially changed to do exactly what the package that you are using (kleinma/ma1400_sim) does.
2 | No.2 Revision |
These controllers have as input position and as output position. Does that mean there is a one on one relation with the desired reference to the controller and the output?
In your previous question this also came up.
All classes in the position_controllers
group are pure passthrough controllers, controllers (or forward_command_controller
), they do not have any internal PID. From the class' header (here):
This class passes the commanded position down to the joint
See also #q245802.
Because in my use case I am currently not interested in simulating physics and low level control I just want to plan motion
If you don't actually need a physics simulation, then why not just use the fake_controller_manager and not bother with an entire Gazebo setup? That is a huge amount of overhead for just visualising your motions.
If you do want to include an external entity in your application that "plays out" JointTrajectory
s, then you could take a look at wiki/industrial_robot_simulator. It's not really a simulator -- or at least not a dynamics simulator. It is mostly a trajectory play out / kinematics visualisation.
Note that in a recent PR (ros-industrial/industrial_core#212) treatment of velocities and accelerations was essentially changed to do exactly what the package that you are using (kleinma/ma1400_sim) does.
3 | No.3 Revision |
These controllers have as input position and as output position. Does that mean there is a one on one relation with the desired reference to the controller and the output?
In your previous question this also came up.
All classes in the position_controllers
group are pure passthrough controllers (or forward_command_controller
), they do not have any internal PID. From the class' header (here):
This class passes the commanded position down to the joint
See also #q245802.
Because in my use case I am currently not interested in simulating physics and low level control I just want to plan motion
If you don't actually need a physics simulation, then why not just use the fake_controller_manager and not bother with an entire Gazebo setup? That is a huge amount of overhead for just visualising your motions.
If you do want to include an external entity in your application that "plays out" JointTrajectory
s, s (fi because it would approximate how things would be setup with a real driver), then you could take a look at wiki/industrial_robot_simulator. It's not really a simulator -- or at least not a dynamics simulator. It is mostly a trajectory play out / kinematics visualisation.
Note that in a recent PR (ros-industrial/industrial_core#212) treatment of velocities and accelerations was essentially changed to do exactly what the package that you are using (kleinma/ma1400_sim) does.
4 | No.4 Revision |
These controllers have as input position and as output position. Does that mean there is a one on one relation with the desired reference to the controller and the output?
In your previous question this also came up.
All classes in the position_controllers
group are pure passthrough controllers (or forward_command_controller
), they do not have any internal PID. From the class' header (here):
This class passes the commanded position down to the joint
See also #q245802.
Because in my use case I am currently not interested in simulating physics and low level control I just want to plan motion
If you don't actually need a physics simulation, then why not just use the fake_controller_manager and not bother with an entire Gazebo setup? That is a huge amount of overhead for just visualising your motions.
If you do want to include an external entity in your application that "plays out" JointTrajectory
s (fi because it would approximate how things would be setup with a real driver), then you could take a look at wiki/industrial_robot_simulator. It's not really a simulator -- or at least not a dynamics simulator. It is mostly a trajectory play out / kinematics visualisation.visualisation tool (note: you don't use gazebo_ros_control
with this, or ros_control
at all actually; it's just that node).
Note that in a recent PR (ros-industrial/industrial_core#212) treatment of velocities and accelerations was essentially changed to do exactly what the package that you are using (kleinma/ma1400_sim) does.