Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Untested PriorPose3Ref #619

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Untested PriorPose3Ref #619

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Affie
Copy link
Member

@Affie Affie commented Aug 30, 2022

Idea for discussion.

@Affie Affie added this to the v0.0.x milestone Aug 30, 2022
@Affie Affie self-assigned this Aug 30, 2022
n_r = cf.factor.ref
nRp = p.x[2]
n_m = nRp * p_m
return n_r - n_m
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Partials must be indicated, and for gravity should only be pitch and roll.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not that simple. Pitch and Roll are not on the same manifold as the parameters or measurement.
I don't know yet how to make it work for the non-parametric solver, that's why no partials.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, what if the sensor is mounted with a pitch of 90 deg?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is where the gradients come in - or info per coord

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that is why we are starting with gyro only, and we can get to accels once we are ready to work on them. This can become a rabbit hole of calib, 0vel detect etc. So I say just hold on accels entirely until we are ready for it. I need your help on the application examples please.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think results will be bad without absolute information. I've added partials as I see it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yep, agree adding gravity alignment will be good, let's just solve the bigger problem of alignments, rotations, and calibrations first. Will start using this factor soon after

@Affie Affie force-pushed the 22Q3/exp/Pose3Ref branch from 3739d29 to 3b99f9a Compare September 2, 2022 08:27
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 2, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #619 (3b99f9a) into master (115a342) will decrease coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #619      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   35.31%   35.20%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          48       48              
  Lines        1920     1926       +6     
==========================================
  Hits          678      678              
- Misses       1242     1248       +6     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/factors/PartialPose3.jl 86.36% <0.00%> (-8.64%) ⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants