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

Inertia class #234

Open
4 of 5 tasks
jslee02 opened this issue Sep 6, 2014 · 3 comments
Open
4 of 5 tasks

Inertia class #234

jslee02 opened this issue Sep 6, 2014 · 3 comments
Labels
priority: low no timeline yet

Comments

@jslee02
Copy link
Member

jslee02 commented Sep 6, 2014

BodyNode has multiple functionalities and it makes the API complex. Inertia will take mass, moment of inertia, and center of mass properties from BodyNode.

  • Deprecate APIs related to inertia properties in BodyNode
  • Add API for the transformation from the body frame to the inertial frame in Inertia
  • Add API that returns moment of inertia as (3x3) matrix in Inertia
  • Add API that returns spatial inertia as (6x6) matrix in Inertia
  • Add API that set and get each component of moment of inertia as scalar in Inertia
@jslee02
Copy link
Member Author

jslee02 commented Jul 3, 2015

Inertia class is added in #369.

@jslee02 jslee02 closed this as completed Jul 3, 2015
@mxgrey
Copy link
Member

mxgrey commented Jul 3, 2015

I didn't close this yet, because we currently don't have an API that handles the transformation of the spatial inertia matrices. I don't think it would be hard to implement, I just haven't nailed down an API design that seems ideal to me yet.

I have two ideas so far. Let's say you want to transform from Frame current to Frame target. We could either do:

(1) Take in both frames as arguments:

inertia->transform(current, target);

(2) Or just take in a single transform and assume that the user is passing in the correct transform:

inertia->transform( target->getTransform(current) );

I'm not sure which would be preferable, but I'm leaning towards the latter. I'm also open to alternatives.

@jslee02 jslee02 reopened this Jul 3, 2015
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 13, 2018

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority: low no timeline yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants