[WIP] Allow multi-robot simulation #92
Conversation
| <arg name="robot_id" value="$(arg robot_id_2)" /> | ||
| </include> | ||
|
|
||
| </launch> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should remove this file
|
Beside the removal of the two_robot.launch file, this PR looks good. However, this PR should only be merged with all the other multi-robot-related PRs...and after more testing! |
| <!-- push robot_description to factory and spawn robot in gazebo --> | ||
| <node name="spawn_gazebo_model" pkg="gazebo_ros" type="spawn_model" args="-urdf -param robot_description -model robot -z 0.1 $(arg initial_config)" respawn="false" output="screen" /> | ||
| <!-- push robot_description to factory and spawn robot in gazebo --> | ||
| <node name="spawn_gazebo_model" pkg="gazebo_ros" type="spawn_model" args="-urdf -param robot_description -model model_$(arg robot_id) -z 0.1 $(arg initial_config)" respawn="false" output="screen" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this -model model_$(arg robot_id) gives you a strange model name for single robot simulation => model_/
maybe we could at least use -model model_$(arg robot_id)_$(arg robot)
although my prefered model name would be model_raw32 for single robot and model_robot1_raw32 for dual robot....any idea how we could get rid of the / slashes?
Update:
What hinders us to use <arg name="robot_id" default="robot"/> instead of <arg name="robot_id" default="/"/> once we figured out how the multi-robot support works, i.e. how to handle robot_id namespacing correctly? Whith this we would not have the hardcoded /...
Also this would allow to later decide to spawn a second robot with robot_id:=robot2, although you started the first robot without giving a robot_id....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This commit is proposed in ipa-srd-fg#1
|
Do not merge! |
|
@ipa-srd-fg |
robot_id