ompl-users — Users mailing list

Re: [ompl-users] control based planners

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Hadar,

There is no control-based PRM implementation in OMPL. This requires a steering function that can exactly connect two states while obeying the system’s dynamics/kinematics. This is very hard for the general case. For a kinematic car you can pretend it’s a Dubins or Reeds-Sheep car and use the corresponding state spaces. With these state spaces you can use “regular” PRM (ompl::geometric::PRM). See this demo <http://ompl.kavrakilab.org/GeometricCarPlanning_8cpp_source.html> for usage.

Best,

Mark



> On Jan 2, 2020, at 7:19 AM, hadar sinvani <had...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> How can I use the kinematic car model robot for solving path planning queries with a control based PRM? is there a away to add kinodynamic adaptations to the geometric based PRM?
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] control based planners

[hadar s. <had...@gm...>]

Hi,
How can I use the kinematic car model robot for solving path planning
queries with a control based PRM? is there a away to add kinodynamic
adaptations to the geometric based PRM?
Thanks!

Re: [ompl-users] saving all path in benchmarking code

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Hadar,

You can use a post-run event to save a path after each run of planner:

ofstream myfile;
b.addPlanner(std::make_shared<control::RRT>(setup.getSpaceInformation()));
b.addPlanner(std::make_shared<control::KPIECE1>(setup.getSpaceInformation())); 
b.setPostRunEvent(
   [](const ompl::base::PlannerPtr &planner, ompl::tools::Benchmark::RunProperties &properties)
   {
	auto solution = planner->getProblemDefinition()->getSolutionPath();
         // insert code here to save path to file
	...
    });
b.benchmark(request);
...


Best,

Mark



> On Dec 25, 2019, at 2:01 AM, hadar sinvani <had...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I'm interested in saving all the solution paths.
> I managed to do this very easily when running ompl benchmark with my config file but I couldnt find how to do so when writing a benchmark code.
> 
> writing this:
>     ofstream myfile;
>     b.addPlanner(std::make_shared<control::RRT>(setup.getSpaceInformation()));
>     b.addPlanner(std::make_shared<control::KPIECE1>(setup.getSpaceInformation())); 
>     b.benchmark(request);
>     myfile.open ("mypathB.txt", ios::out | ios::app | ios::binary);
>     setup.getSolutionPath().asGeometric().printAsMatrix(myfile);
>     myfile.close();
>     b.saveResultsToFile();
> 
> saved only the only one path instead of the two that was found. In addition, when analyzing the log file, I didnt find any saved path.
> 
> I would appreciate your help.
> Best, Hadar. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] saving all path in benchmarking code

[hadar s. <had...@gm...>]

Hi,
I'm interested in saving all the solution paths.
I managed to do this very easily when running ompl benchmark with my config
file but I couldnt find how to do so when writing a benchmark code.

writing this:
    ofstream myfile;

b.addPlanner(std::make_shared<control::RRT>(setup.getSpaceInformation()));

b.addPlanner(std::make_shared<control::KPIECE1>(setup.getSpaceInformation()));

    b.benchmark(request);
    myfile.open ("mypathB.txt", ios::out | ios::app | ios::binary);
    setup.getSolutionPath().asGeometric().printAsMatrix(myfile);
    myfile.close();
    b.saveResultsToFile();

saved only the only one path instead of the two that was found. In
addition, when analyzing the log file, I didnt find any saved path.

I would appreciate your help.
Best, Hadar.

Re: [ompl-users] environment

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Hadar,

You can design your own 3D environment in Blender or download others from, e.g., https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/ <https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/>. We use the robotics convention that a 2D robot moves in the XY plane, so potentially you have to rotate your mesh. You may also want to scale your environment to be comparable in size to the other sample environments in OMPL app. Note that even for 2D planning, we perform collision in 3D. We just restrict the motion of the car mesh to be in the XY plane.

Best,

Mark



> On Dec 18, 2019, at 5:35 AM, hadar sinvani <had...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I've recently started working with OMPL app. 
> 
> I've read some of the beginner tutorials and run a few demos but I couldnt find any tutorials on how to define new dae 2D environment files.
>  
> In addition, I would like to define new environment which I can use with the Dynamic car planning class. where can I find the environment criteria that matches this class?
> 
> I would appreciate any help!
> Thanks, Hadar.
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] environment

[hadar s. <had...@gm...>]

Hi,
I've recently started working with OMPL app.

I've read some of the beginner tutorials and run a few demos but I couldnt
find any tutorials on how to define new dae 2D environment files.

In addition, I would like to define new environment which I can use with
the Dynamic car planning class. where can I find the environment criteria
that matches this class?

I would appreciate any help!
Thanks, Hadar.

Re: [ompl-users] Edge checking in control based planners

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Peter,

There is no notion of a motion validator for kinodynamic planning on OMPL. Instead, the state validator is called after each call to the state propagator. The propagation step size should thus be sufficiently small so that the max. possible change in position is roughly equal to the collision checking resolution. Don’t confuse propagation step size with integration step size, though. Integration step size is often on the order of magnitude of .01 or smaller. The propagation step size can often be safely set to be an order of magnitude larger. The SpaceInformation::propagateWhileValid methods take as one of their arguments the max. number of steps (i.e., calls to the state propagator) that will be taken. It seems like calling that method should give you what you want, no?

Best,

Mark



> On Nov 22, 2019, at 7:47 AM, Peter Mitrano <mit...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark & others, I'm wondering if there is a hook for implementing continuous edge checking in the control based planners. Specifically, I want to validate a (x, u, x') tuple. A motion validator only validates (x, x') and state validity is of course just (x). At the moment, I am implementing this by setting the state to be infinity inside my propagate function, and using a state validity checker to check that result. I feel a much cleaner method would be to make propagate return bool instead of void, and then propagateWhileValid would check that in addition to a stateValidity checker. Is there a better way to do it?
> 
> Thank you,
> -Peter Mitrano
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] Edge checking in control based planners

[Peter M. <mit...@gm...>]

Hi Mark & others, I'm wondering if there is a hook for implementing
continuous edge checking in the control based planners. Specifically, I
want to validate a (x, u, x') tuple. A motion validator only validates (x,
x') and state validity is of course just (x). At the moment, I am
implementing this by setting the state to be infinity inside my
propagate function, and using a state validity checker to check that
result. I feel a much cleaner method would be to make propagate return bool
instead of void, and then propagateWhileValid would check that in addition
to a stateValidity checker. Is there a better way to do it?

Thank you,
-Peter Mitrano

[ompl-users] Question about ompl::geometric::PathSimplifier::smoothBSpline

[<279...@qq...>]

Dear OMPL:
I recently read the OMPL source and have some doubts about the function ompl::geometric::PathSimplifier::smoothBSpline. The comment on the function says: Based on COMP450 2010 project of Yun Yu and Linda Hill (Rice University). So I went to check the relevant information, but I didn't find it online. So, I would like to ask if the COMP450 2010 project of Yun Yu and Linda Hill is open, or is there a similar paper and other literature that can help me understand the specific implementation principle of the function smoothBSpline?
Looking forward to your answer！

Re: [ompl-users] Exploration of an unknown environment

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Alon,

There is no built-in support for planning in unknown environments. However, that doesn’t mean it cannot be done. One approach is described here: http://ompl.kavrakilab.org/2014/10/21/bringing-belief-space-planning-to-ompl.html <http://ompl.kavrakilab.org/2014/10/21/bringing-belief-space-planning-to-ompl.html>. The code for this is available here: https://github.com/sauravag/edpl-ompl <https://github.com/sauravag/edpl-ompl>

Best,

Mark



> On Oct 23, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Alon Faraj <alo...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I'm working on a robot that mapping an area based on a RGB-D camera.
> I'm trying to understand if I can use OMPL for exploring an unknown environment.
> Everything I found in the library based on the end goal which I don't have in my case.
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.

[ompl-users] Exploration of an unknown environment

[Alon F. <alo...@gm...>]

Hi,

I'm working on a robot that mapping an area based on a RGB-D camera.
I'm trying to understand if I can use OMPL for exploring an unknown
environment.
Everything I found in the library based on the end goal which I don't have
in my case.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Re: [ompl-users] select correct ompl lib when compiling

[Max B. <m.j...@gm...>]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your quick response. With the following lines I changed the
include path:

include_directories(
  /usr/local/include
  ${catkin_INCLUDE_DIRS}
)

message("---------------------")
get_property(dirs DIRECTORY ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR} PROPERTY
INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES)
foreach(dir ${dirs})
  message(STATUS "dir='${dir}'")
endforeach()
message("---------------------")

However although this prints the desired order of include paths:

---------------------
-- dir='/usr/local/include/ompl'
-- dir='/opt/ros/kinetic/include'
-- dir='/opt/ros/kinetic/share/xmlrpcpp/cmake/../../../include/xmlrpcpp'
-- dir='/usr/include'
-- dir='/usr/include/eigen3'
---------------------

When I run my code it still prints OMPL_VERSION = 1.2.1?

Regards Max


Op wo 16 okt. 2019 om 23:07 schreef Mark Moll <mm...@ri...>:

> Hi Max,
>
> You need to make sure to set up your include path right. If
> /opt/ros/kinetic/include comes before /usr/local/include, then the header
> files of the old version of OMPL will be found during the compilation of
> your code.
>
> Best,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Max Baeten <m.j...@gm...> wrote:
>
> Hi OMPL wizards,
>
> Im having trouble linking against the correct ompl version on my ubuntu
> system where I have ROS kinetic installed. I have two versions installed
> one installed via ROS and one compiled from source:
>
> /opt/ros/kinetic/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libompl.so.1.2.1
> /usr/local/lib/libompl.so.1.4.2
>
> In CMakeList.txt in my own ros package, I can use the following lines to
> select either version of OMPL such that I can link my code against the new
> from source installed 1.4.2 version.
>
> find_package(ompl 1.4.2 REQUIRED)
> message("OMPL_VERSIOOMPL version: 1.2.1
> N: ${OMPL_VERSION}")
>
> This works, Cmake prints the correct 1.4.2 version. Also when I leave the
> version number out then it prints 1.2.1 (ROS version) and when i put 1.4.3
> it gives an error that it cant't find that version.
>
> So the linking to the correct library seems to work. However when I run my
> code that includes the following:
>
>     std::cout << "OMPL version: " << OMPL_VERSION << std::endl;
>
> Then it prints out:
> OMPL version: 1.2.1
>
> Either i am still linking to the wrong ompl lib or the printing of the
> ompl version is incorrect? Any ideas?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Max
>
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users
>
>
>

Re: [ompl-users] select correct ompl lib when compiling

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Max,

You need to make sure to set up your include path right. If /opt/ros/kinetic/include comes before /usr/local/include, then the header files of the old version of OMPL will be found during the compilation of your code.

Best,

Mark



> On Oct 16, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Max Baeten <m.j...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi OMPL wizards,
> 
> Im having trouble linking against the correct ompl version on my ubuntu system where I have ROS kinetic installed. I have two versions installed one installed via ROS and one compiled from source: 
> 
> /opt/ros/kinetic/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libompl.so.1.2.1
> /usr/local/lib/libompl.so.1.4.2
> 
> In CMakeList.txt in my own ros package, I can use the following lines to select either version of OMPL such that I can link my code against the new from source installed 1.4.2 version. 
> 
> find_package(ompl 1.4.2 REQUIRED)
> message("OMPL_VERSIOOMPL version: 1.2.1
> N: ${OMPL_VERSION}")
> 
> This works, Cmake prints the correct 1.4.2 version. Also when I leave the version number out then it prints 1.2.1 (ROS version) and when i put 1.4.3 it gives an error that it cant't find that version.
> 
> So the linking to the correct library seems to work. However when I run my code that includes the following:
> 
>     std::cout << "OMPL version: " << OMPL_VERSION << std::endl;
> 
> Then it prints out:
> OMPL version: 1.2.1
> 
> Either i am still linking to the wrong ompl lib or the printing of the ompl version is incorrect? Any ideas?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Max
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] select correct ompl lib when compiling

[Max B. <m.j...@gm...>]

Hi OMPL wizards,

Im having trouble linking against the correct ompl version on my ubuntu
system where I have ROS kinetic installed. I have two versions installed
one installed via ROS and one compiled from source:

/opt/ros/kinetic/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libompl.so.1.2.1
/usr/local/lib/libompl.so.1.4.2

In CMakeList.txt in my own ros package, I can use the following lines to
select either version of OMPL such that I can link my code against the new
from source installed 1.4.2 version.

find_package(ompl 1.4.2 REQUIRED)
message("OMPL_VERSIOOMPL version: 1.2.1
N: ${OMPL_VERSION}")

This works, Cmake prints the correct 1.4.2 version. Also when I leave the
version number out then it prints 1.2.1 (ROS version) and when i put 1.4.3
it gives an error that it cant't find that version.

So the linking to the correct library seems to work. However when I run my
code that includes the following:

    std::cout << "OMPL version: " << OMPL_VERSION << std::endl;

Then it prints out:
OMPL version: 1.2.1

Either i am still linking to the wrong ompl lib or the printing of the ompl
version is incorrect? Any ideas?

Kind regards,

Max

Re: [ompl-users] Planning for a 6DOF industrial robot

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Tobias,

Going with MoveIt from the start might have been easier, but what you have done should definitely be possible. It sounds like you have a way to:
- map a RealVectorStateSpace::StateType to a robot configuration and
- check whether the configuration is in collision (with itself or the environment)

If you used the SimpleSetup class (recommended), then by default the path is simplified afterwards, which, among other things, performs short-cutting. If the straight-line path (in configuration space) between start and goal is valid, then a path with just the start and goal is exactly the expected result. You can call PathGeometric::interpolate() to create a path with more waypoints.

If the straight-line path is not valid, then something is still going wrong. You could call the state validator for all the states along an interpolated path to see if states that are in collision are correctly detected as such.

Best,

Mark



> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:32 PM, Tobias B. <tob...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi there
> 
> I'm trying to plan for a 6DOF industrial robot and I'm using bare-metal
> ompl for planning, bullet for collision detection and OpenSceneGraph for
> drawing.
> So far I've loaded the collision meshes, chained them together using OSG
> and drawn them. After applying the joint angles to OSG I'm calling into
> OSG to get the matrices for the meshes and set them in bullet and draw
> the debug collision volumes. I have also implemented a keyboard handler
> in OSG so I can rotate every joint by ±1° and check (with the current
> states) if there's a collision against another object (or with itself)
> in the scene by pressing a button. All of that works pretty good.
> 
> Now I want to plan a motion from one state to another. I've used the
> example from the "Optimal Planning" tutorial but with a
> RealVectorStateSpace(6), I've implemented isValid() to check each state
> if there's a collision and return true if there is none. Most of the
> time the results I'm getting are two states, the start and goal state as
> a result and no states in between.
> 
> Am I on the wrong path completely? Sadly there are, to my knowlege, no
> tutorials or demos on how to handle a 6DOF industrial robot. There's
> only suggestions to use MoveIt.
> 
> What do I need to do?
> Do I need forward/inverse kinematics? Currently OSG is handling the
> forward kinematics and I don't think I need inverse kinematics because I
> want to plan in joint space
> Is geometric planning the wrong way? Better use control?
> 
> I'm pretty stuck here and hope someone can shed some light
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tobias
> 
> P.S.: I've tried a number of (geometric) planners, with the same result,
> more or less
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] Planning for a 6DOF industrial robot

[Tobias B. <tob...@gm...>]

Hi there

I'm trying to plan for a 6DOF industrial robot and I'm using bare-metal
ompl for planning, bullet for collision detection and OpenSceneGraph for
drawing.
So far I've loaded the collision meshes, chained them together using OSG
and drawn them. After applying the joint angles to OSG I'm calling into
OSG to get the matrices for the meshes and set them in bullet and draw
the debug collision volumes. I have also implemented a keyboard handler
in OSG so I can rotate every joint by ±1° and check (with the current
states) if there's a collision against another object (or with itself)
in the scene by pressing a button. All of that works pretty good.

Now I want to plan a motion from one state to another. I've used the
example from the "Optimal Planning" tutorial but with a
RealVectorStateSpace(6), I've implemented isValid() to check each state
if there's a collision and return true if there is none. Most of the
time the results I'm getting are two states, the start and goal state as
a result and no states in between.

Am I on the wrong path completely? Sadly there are, to my knowlege, no
tutorials or demos on how to handle a 6DOF industrial robot. There's
only suggestions to use MoveIt.

What do I need to do?
Do I need forward/inverse kinematics? Currently OSG is handling the
forward kinematics and I don't think I need inverse kinematics because I
want to plan in joint space
Is geometric planning the wrong way? Better use control?

I'm pretty stuck here and hope someone can shed some light

Cheers,

Tobias

P.S.: I've tried a number of (geometric) planners, with the same result,
more or less

Re: [ompl-users] MATLAB interfacing

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Ros,

What you’re asking is possible but challenging. It is difficult to set up a fair comparison. A naive Matlab-OMPL interface would likely involve copying/converting data from one representation to another. If this is done via callback functions that are called often (e.g., for state validation or collision checking), then a performance comparison between Matlab code and OMPL would not be very meaningful. If your Matlab reads the environment from a file in a standard mesh format, then the ompl_app library could be used to do the same on the OMPL side.

It is typically difficult to generalize results for a 2D point robot to more realistic scenarios. You may want to look at Matlab interfaces for, e.g., ROS and V-REP. These interfaces provide only high-level access (I think), so it still wouldn’t be easy to compare your planning methods against OMPL if your methods are implemented in Matlab.

Best,

Mark



> On Aug 1, 2019, at 11:31 AM, R Shinkle <ros...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Greetings OMPL geniuses, 
> 
> I’m hoping to use OMPL’s RRT (and variants) as a baseline against which I can test my planning methods. All of my testing is done in MATLAB right now, so I’d like to use mex files to link to the C++ files. This is all in 2D. 
> 
> The plan right now is to set up the planner with simple setup in a C++ file, and interface with that C++ file through MATLAB’s mex files. 
> 
> The tricky part is that I would like to be able to send the information about the environment (size and position of obstacles) from MATLAB to the planner. 
> 
> This will be my first time interfacing between C++ and MATLAB (although I’ve written both individually) and also my first time using OMPL. Has anyone done any information passing for obstacles like this in the past? Will it be possible? Any suggestions on where to begin? 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Ros
> 

[ompl-users] MATLAB interfacing

[R S. <ros...@gm...>]

Greetings OMPL geniuses, 

I’m hoping to use OMPL’s RRT (and variants) as a baseline against which I can test my planning methods. All of my testing is done in MATLAB right now, so I’d like to use mex files to link to the C++ files. This is all in 2D. 

The plan right now is to set up the planner with simple setup in a C++ file, and interface with that C++ file through MATLAB’s mex files. 

The tricky part is that I would like to be able to send the information about the environment (size and position of obstacles) from MATLAB to the planner. 

This will be my first time interfacing between C++ and MATLAB (although I’ve written both individually) and also my first time using OMPL. Has anyone done any information passing for obstacles like this in the past? Will it be possible? Any suggestions on where to begin? 

Thank you!

Ros

Re: [ompl-users] Installation on a Linux Ubuntu 18.04 LTS VM

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Most likely it didn’t freeze up. It can take several hours to generate the python bindings. Make sure your VM has at least 6GB of memory.

Best,

Mark



> On Jul 24, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Nazmus Saadat <naz...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I've been trying to install and use OMPL on an Ubuntu VM (after failing to install it on Windows). I'm trying to install the OMPL.app with python bindings, but after scanning for dependencies for a while it freezes up (I've attached a screenshot of when this happens). It does say it detected all the required dependencies but it still doesn't work. Any advice on how to proceed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nazmus.
> <VirtualBox_Ubuntu_25_07_2019_06_49_42.png>_______________________________________________
> ompl-users mailing list
> omp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ompl-users

[ompl-users] Installation on a Linux Ubuntu 18.04 LTS VM

[Nazmus S. <naz...@gm...>]

Hi,

I've been trying to install and use OMPL on an Ubuntu VM (after failing to
install it on Windows). I'm trying to install the OMPL.app with python
bindings, but after scanning for dependencies for a while it freezes up
(I've attached a screenshot of when this happens). It does say it detected
all the required dependencies but it still doesn't work. Any advice on how
to proceed?

Thanks,
Nazmus.

[ompl-users] A possible bug in ompl.pc

[Leopold Palomo-A. <le...@al...>]

Hi list (Marc!!),


someone has filled this bug:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=930507

in the Debian package. However it's something that affect to all ompl. I
can patch it but I would like to read some opinion. The question is,
should ompl pkgconfig file add the Eigen dependency?

Best regards,

Leopold


-- 
--
Linux User 152692     GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA
Catalonia
-------------------------------------
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Re: [ompl-users] About the nearest neighbor data structure

[Mark M. <mm...@ri...>]

Hi Shupeng,

All of them are exact except for ompl::NearestNeighborsSqrtApprox, which is approximate (but doesn’t give approximation guarantees). You can use the ompl::NearestNeighborsFLANN wrapper interface to experiment with various other nn data structures from the FLANN library.

Best,

Mark



> On May 29, 2019, at 7:14 AM, Shupeng Lai <shu...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> May I ask among all the nearest neighbor data structures provided by ompl, which one of them calculates approximated nearest neighbor, and which gives exact nearest neighbor?
> 
> Sincerely,
> shupeng

[ompl-users] About the nearest neighbor data structure

[Shupeng L. <shu...@gm...>]

Hi,

May I ask among all the nearest neighbor data structures provided by ompl,
which one of them calculates approximated nearest neighbor, and which gives
exact nearest neighbor?

Sincerely,
shupeng

[ompl-users] Differential drive robot

[Simone G. <sim...@gm...>]

Hello,
  I'm working on a university project and we have to implement a
differential drive robot on a plane.

I read the primer documentation.
I was able to make this run this example:
https://ompl.kavrakilab.org/RigidBodyPlanningWithODESolverAndControls_8py_source.html

Thanks to ompl.app I was able to see the path planned from the example.

Now I don't know how to go to the next step.
I found this very related to my situation:
https://answers.ros.org/question/197076/using-ompl-for-turtlebot-2/

Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards

-- 
Simone Giacomelli

[ompl-users] Kino-dynamic RRT*

[Mustafa S. K. <mus...@ma...>]

Hello there,

I would like to implement a kino dynamic rrtstar with the OMPL. Would it better to use steering function tailored for a dynamic system in control::rrt or should I go with the geometric::rrtstar?

Thank You!
Semih Kılıç