You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Today the outlier detection simply discards all measurements that seems unreasonable based on the difference in distance to anchors is grater than a threshold (300 m). We could improve this by:
Anchor-anchor packest that are missing will lead to a value of 0 for the rx time in the packet received by the CF. By checking for 0 in any data we use we can find and discard those.
Anchor-tag packets that are missing could be detected by examining the frame time. We know that the anchors are broadcasting every 2 ms and a frame time greater than 8 * 2 = 16 ms should indicate a lost packet. It is a bit crude but will probably do for now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Was a bad idea. It adds to much knowledge in the CF about the anchors and their transmit times. We think that it will be better to add a sequence number to the packets to allow the receiver to understand if there are packets missing or not.
Today the outlier detection simply discards all measurements that seems unreasonable based on the difference in distance to anchors is grater than a threshold (300 m). We could improve this by:
Anchor-anchor packest that are missing will lead to a value of 0 for the rx time in the packet received by the CF. By checking for 0 in any data we use we can find and discard those.
Anchor-tag packets that are missing could be detected by examining the frame time. We know that the anchors are broadcasting every 2 ms and a frame time greater than 8 * 2 = 16 ms should indicate a lost packet. It is a bit crude but will probably do for now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: