Timeline for Is configuration space same as joint space?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2014 at 12:42 | comment | added | Ugo Pattacini | Ok, sorry, I was rather pointing to the common meaning in the robotics community instead. | |
| Aug 25, 2014 at 15:43 | comment | added | Slaven Glumac | I was going with the original definition of the configuration space lis.csail.mit.edu/pubs/tlp/spatial-planning.pdf According to this definition, joint space (space of joint angles or translation) is not nearly the same as configuration space, although it may be used as its parametrization... | |
| Aug 25, 2014 at 10:36 | comment | added | Ugo Pattacini | In robotics the term "configuration" refers to current configuration of the joints. The redundancy has to do with the mapping between the configuration of the joints and the task-space (i.e. the pose of the end-effector). Said that, we can still use the term "configuration space" as a synonym of joint space. The configuration is of the joints, not of the end-effector. This is the common usage. | |
| Aug 25, 2014 at 8:04 | comment | added | Slaven Glumac | This is true for a non-redundant manipulator. Back than, I was searching for a difference between two terms. A redundant manipulator can achieve the same configuration with different joint parameters. In that case, configuration space is not equal to joint space. | |
| Aug 24, 2014 at 19:31 | review | Late answers | |||
| Aug 26, 2014 at 16:12 | |||||
| Aug 24, 2014 at 19:14 | history | answered | Ugo Pattacini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |