Revision history [back]

I've solved this issue with @theblackpearl over email; here's a summary of the solution:

• The mystery scanner in question is actually the new TiM 510 (which is not sold yet), even though it was labeled as a TiM 310.
• It provides 91 measurements per scan over a 270° scan angle, instead of 271 (like the TiM 310 does). Also, it doesn't provide intensities. This is why each datagram is only 124 instead of 580 bytes.
• The specs for the datagram format are yet to be released; I've written a quick hack to make the scanner work until proper support can be added to the sick_tim3xx package.

I've solved this issue with @theblackpearl over email; here's a summary of the solution:

• The mystery scanner in question is actually the new TiM 510 (which is not sold yet), even though it was labeled as a TiM 310.
• It provides 91 measurements per scan over a 270° scan angle, instead of 271 (like the TiM 310 does). Also, it doesn't provide intensities. This is why each datagram is only 124 instead of 580 bytes.
• The specs for the datagram format are yet to be released; I've written a quick hack to make the scanner work until proper support can be added to the sick_tim3xx package.

I've solved this issue with @theblackpearl over email; here's a summary of the solution:

• The mystery scanner in question is actually the new TiM 510 (which is not sold yet), even though it was labeled as a TiM 310.
• It provides 91 measurements per scan over a 270° scan angle, instead of 271 (like the TiM 310 does). Also, it doesn't provide intensities. This is why each datagram is only 124 instead of 580 bytes.
• The specs for the datagram format are yet to be released; I've written a quick hack to make the scanner work until proper support can be added to the sick_tim3xx package.