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

Parse fixed joints from URDF #27

Closed
aelkhour opened this issue Jun 15, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Parse fixed joints from URDF #27

aelkhour opened this issue Jun 15, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@aelkhour
Copy link
Contributor

Some robot URDF files contain semantic information (wrist, ankle, sole, etc.) which is stored as a pair (fixed joint, empty link). For now, it seems such joints are not parsed in the robot structure, and thus cannot be used in control and/or planning.
Is there any computational limitation that would prevent storing the fixed joints, and computing their positions and jacobians whenever needed?

@fvalenza
Copy link
Contributor

Currently fixed joints are handled in the way that the following link parameters (inertia, mass..) are aggregated to its parent and/or repercuted to its children ( for relative position for exemple). But there is no entity called "fixed joint" for which we could perform these computations and adding this kind of joint as it in the kinematic chain may need some tricks i think

A solution would be to add a list a spot in the model (storing the parent joint, relative position to its parent, and its name) and then compute positions and jacobians when needed.

If it is ok for you, we may add it to future releases

@aelkhour
Copy link
Contributor Author

This sounds like a good solution, thanks.

@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Member

Hi,
Just a quick feedback on this point. I recently parsed a URDF model (tiago) with the devel branch of pinocchio. The URDF model contains tons of fixed frame and its works beautifully for my application.
So thanks a lot ! P.S. : I did not try the Jacobian computation.

@jcarpent
Copy link
Contributor

#96 solves the issue. Closing.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants