-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Zed depth image to laser scan #73
Conversation
Wasn't sure if there was a launch file code styler or whatever, so haven't done anything like that. Also unsure where to put documentation, should we make READMEs for each subteam? |
PS, new to ROS, pls be gentle : ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good - I'm being nitpicky just because, as you said, this is the first launch file commit, so I want to try to set a bit of a precedent for ones to come.
f122b86
to
2a508f7
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in general i think we could strip out a lot of the topic naming params and have those be set in stone
Bump @wraftus Don't want this to go stale. |
31fb827
to
30accfd
Compare
I think that really all of these parameters for the zed_wrapper nodes should live in a yaml config file, but let's push that back to a follow-up PR - I want to get this landed. Edit: Tracked by #78 |
e010b55
to
c6ea1ae
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good to merge, but def need the zed resolution, framerate etc, to be configurable at launchtime
I personally think the launch file should pull defaults from the yaml and override the defaults with cl args |
My only concern is that as we add cameras, if we want independent control of parameters on each camera, the cl args will be very confusing and bloated. I suppose my bigger question is "Is this really a feature we want/need?" What do we gain by adding command-line arguments compared to just the yaml? If there is an advantage, then I definitely like defaults from yaml, override with command line, but I'm just not sure we really need that functionality and the complications it adds. |
i think that the args would be the same for every type of camera(ex. all zeds run at same resolution and framerate). benefit would be the ability to quickly test different params to see its effects without needed to open a file and edit each time 😛 I would think this wouldnt be its own feature and is just a small tack-on to #78 |
I don't really think that's a valid benefit IMO, but if all the cameras will have the same parameters then there is very little cost to adding the functionality. Let's add this as a comment on #78? (Shame the frame rate and resolution aren't dynamically reconfigurable... :( The zed wrapper seems to be somewhat lacking) |
Pull Request
The AMCL node we want to use needs a laser scan as it's input, so we use depth_image_to_laserscan to turn the zed node's depth image to a laser scan. Also, since this is the first real perception pr, we created the perception launch file as well.
Closes #68
Contribution Checklist
Change Checklist