-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
STRAIN2 bno055 orientation #91
Comments
Important document for getting the orientation of the bno055 in the STRAIN2: |
cc @hu-yue |
cc @fiorisi |
cc @nunoguedelha here is the transformation between the IMU and the FT. |
cc @nunoguedelha and @fiorisi as discussed F2F, we should regenerate the URDF with the sensor frames. |
I had a look at the problem. As mentioned F2F the frames are not in the FT sensors used in the CAD model of iCub. More in details, in the CAD model are used the old FT sensor (1st generation) that don't have the new strain2 board.
|
If the placement of the sensor frame is correct, the transform is different from the one obtained by @traversaro. |
Hi @fiorisi I've crosschecked and find the same orientation as you did, as long as the board has the default configuration P1, among the possible values below ( |
Thanks @fiorisi and @nunoguedelha for the check. I am not sure were I did the error, probably it was when placing the frame in the CAD as the document linked in #91 (comment) contains the dot of the U10 board in the right position. @hu-yue this was probably affecting the results of the analysis of the IMU euler angles output. |
Here the names of the frames in the CAD model: |
As a side note, it's a pitty the number of the EMS is not in the FT board electronic name, as it is the case for the other sensors. For instance :
|
@nunoguedelha, I actually wanted to add it but the name of the features in Creo is limited to 31 characters. |
In the iCub Mechanism CAD model the FT sensor frames of the arms are defined in the link the contains the FT sensor itself. As specified in the documentation of the simmechanics-to-urdf:
Currently there is a |
The actual limitation is in the SDF, in particular it is tracked by this issue: https://bitbucket.org/osrf/sdformat/issues/130/position-part-of-force_torque-sensor-pose . |
The mass of the following links is different. I am trying to understand what happened. Maybe I will release a first version with the different masses. Please remember to double check that the simulations behavior is not different and to check that visually the inertia box is similar to the old ones (inside gazebo).
The difference in mass is not relevant, the real problem is the inertia tensor. |
PR opened: #111 |
This was fixed by #122, thanks to everyone that contributed. |
In the model generated using simmechanics, we do not have the frames corresponding to the bno055 sensors mounted on the new STRAIN2 electronics. As adding them to the CREO cad will take time (if it is worth at all) it would be already helpful if we could extract the transform between the sensor frame of the bno055 documented in Page 24 of
https://ae-bst.resource.bosch.com/media/_tech/media/datasheets/BST_BNO055_DS000_14.pdfupdated URL https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/media/boschsensortec/downloads/datasheets/bst-bno055-ds000.pdf and the FT sensor frame defined in http://wiki.icub.org/wiki/FT_sensor .If the STRAIN2 electronics is already model in the iCub's CAD, I think this should be trivial.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: