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

Store/publish objects in frame of supporting object #58

Open
MatthijsBurgh opened this issue Dec 4, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

Store/publish objects in frame of supporting object #58

MatthijsBurgh opened this issue Dec 4, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@MatthijsBurgh
Copy link
Member

This would reduce the displacement of objects when a supporting object is moved. Thus reduce errors in association of objects.
@reinzor
@jlunenburg
@rokusottervanger
What do you think?

@reinzor
Copy link
Contributor

reinzor commented Dec 4, 2017

Everything is stored w.r.t. the map frame so I don't know what you mean with "publish". How to publish if this information is not present? I do think it is more logical to store entities w.r.t. their supporting objects but the current implementation of ED does not allow this. Properly implementing relative positions is going to be a lot of work and requires a lot of re-implementation of functionalities. We have done this in the past so if you are interested in doing this work, I can point you in the right direction. There are already pose crawlers etc. implemented.

@MatthijsBurgh MatthijsBurgh changed the title Publish objects in frame of supporting object Store/publish objects in frame of supporting object Dec 4, 2017
@MatthijsBurgh
Copy link
Member Author

I do mean store. Let's have a short talk about this tomorrow. Then we can decide if this could be a side project.

@rokusottervanger
Copy link
Member

I agree with the idea. It feels more 'correct' to do something like that. The thought crossed my mind a few times as well. Let's talk about it tomorrow.

@jlunenburg
Copy link
Contributor

In principle, this seems to make (much more) sense. Two comments:

  • didn't we want to get rid of the huge amount of published tfs? In that case, we would have to cook up a better solution instead of simply attaching a different frame id
  • practically: this will probably break a lot of stuff. If we want to do this, it might not be the right time.

Anyway, didn't hear this discussion yesterday but might be good to do this in the near future

@rokusottervanger
Copy link
Member

Question remains: is there an issue here? It's a lot of work just to check if it improves anything. So we should know that it is worth the effort. Also, there are other bugs in the association. I'm pretty sure of that. Maybe we should fix those first?

@MatthijsBurgh
Copy link
Member Author

I already labeled the issue as an enhancement. I do have seen some problems with the association during testing last week. But I don't have the knowledge to know what is the low hanging fruit.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants