Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 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" JointTrajectorys, 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.

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" JointTrajectorys, 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.

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" JointTrajectorys, 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.

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" JointTrajectorys (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.