Rosanswers logo


My pc can run movebase (navfn + dwa) ,(voronoi + dwa)

But when comes to the (navfn + teb_local_planner) on the offline rviz simulation

the behavior of my virtual turtle bot is quite odd,

But I guess the root cause is lack of computational power:

The longest control cycle can reach about 300s with teb O_o

But with dwa_local_planner, my control frequency can reach 100Hz on the same static map.

And I am following the [teb tutorial]...(http://wiki.ros.org/teb_local_planner/Tutorials/Configure%20and%20run%20Robot%20Navigation)

Anyone can help?


Update #1 in 8th April 2016


obstacle_range: 2.5
raytrace_range: 3.0
footprint: [[0.215, 0.215], [-0.215, 0.215], [-0.215, -0.215], [0.215, -0.215]]
footprint_inflation: 0.6
# robot_radius: 0.24
inflation_radius: 0.90
max_obstacle_height: 0.6
min_obstacle_height: 0.0
observation_sources: scan
scan: {data_type: LaserScan, topic: /scan, marking: true, clearing: true, expected_update_rate: 0} 


   global_frame: /odom
   robot_base_frame: /base_link
   update_frequency: 5.0
   publish_frequency: 0.2
   static_map: true
   rolling_window: false
   width: 6.0
   height: 6.0
   resolution: 0.08
   transform_tolerance: 1.0


   global_frame: /map
   robot_base_frame: /base_footprint
   update_frequency: 1.0
   publish_frequency: 1.0
   static_map: true
   rolling_window: false
   resolution: 0.08
   transform_tolerance: 1.0
   map_type: costmap



 odom_topic: odom
 map_frame: /map # This parameter will be overridden by local_costmap/global_frame 
 # Trajectory
 teb_autosize: True
 dt_ref: 0.3
 dt_hysteresis: 0.1
 global_plan_overwrite_orientation: True
 # Robot
 max_vel_x: 0.4
 max_vel_x_backwards: 0.2
 max_vel_theta: 0.3
 acc_lim_x: 0.5
 acc_lim_theta: 0.5
 # GoalTolerance
 xy_goal_tolerance: 0.2
 yaw_goal_tolerance: 0.1
 free_goal_vel: False
 # Obstacles
 min_obstacle_dist: 0.5
 costmap_emergency_stop_dist: 0.3
 include_costmap_obstacles: True
 costmap_obstacles_front_only: True
 obstacle_poses_affected: 10
 line_obstacle_poses_affected: 25
 polygon_obstacle_poses_affected: 25

 # Optimization
 no_inner_iterations: 5
 no_outer_iterations: 4
 optimization_activate: True
 optimization_verbose: False
 penalty_scale: 0.1
 penalty_epsilon: 0.1
 weight_max_vel_x: 2
 weight_max_vel_theta: 1
 weight_acc_lim_x: 1
 weight_acc_lim_theta: 1
 weight_kinematics_nh: 1000
 weight_kinematics_forward_drive: 1
 weight_optimaltime: 1
 weight_point_obstacle: 50
 weight_line_obstacle: 50
 weight_poly_obstacle: 50

 # Parallel Planning in distinctive Topologies

 enable_homotopy_class_planning: True
 enable_multithreading: True
 simple_exploration: False
 max_number_classes: 5
 roadmap_graph_no_samples: 15
 roadmap_graph_area_width: 6
 h_signature_prescaler: 0.5
 h_signature_threshold: 0.01
 obstacle_keypoint_offset: 0.1
 obstacle_heading_threshold: 0.45
 visualize_hc_graph: False


image: map_corner_v3.pgm
resolution: 0.025000
#or resolution: 0.01000
origin: [-11.000000, -10.000000, 0.000000]
#or origin: [-5.000000, -5.000000, 0.000000]
negate: 0
occupied_thresh: 0.65
free_thresh: 0.196

Originally posted by SHI.ZP on ROS Answers with karma: 30 on 2016-03-30

Post score: 0

Original comments

Comment by croesmann on 2016-04-01:
Hi, a control cycle with 300s is way too much ;-) Obviously, there must be some issue. Even on our 7-10 years old computers, the planner works within a 10Hz control cycle (for a limited, but reasonable local costmap size).

Comment by croesmann on 2016-04-01:
Can you please provide me with more information about your setup and configuration? Did you try the first tutorial: Setup and test Optimization How is your performance here?

Comment by SHI.ZP on 2016-04-05:
Hi Croesmann, I tried the 1st tutorial, and my performance looks ok with all default settings. and this vedio shows the problem I asked. also recorded with all default settings.

Comment by croesmann on 2016-04-07:
thank you for posting the video. The behavior looks indeed quite ugly. Could you please provide me with your navigation configuration files (you told that you are using the default teb paramaters, but what's about costmap parameters, move_base parameters, ...)?

Comment by SHI.ZP on 2016-04-07:
Hi Croesmann, this video shows the comparison among 3 sets of different navigation settings on my PC .And I updated the post with my nav cfgs used in the previous video.Thanks for your help.


1 Answer 1


Rosanswers logo

Thank you for updating your question with content of your parameter files and for posting the video.

After investigating your parameters, I think that your local costmap configuration causes the high computation time. Your local costmap consist of a static map (static map: true) which is not recommended. In that case the width and height parameters are ignored, leading to a local costmap representing your whole environment. The teb_local_planner treats each occupied costmap cell as single point obstacle (if no costmap conversion plugin is activated, which is the default). With that in mind, it is not surprising that the performance is poor, since each obstacle causes a huge amount of distance calculations during optimization.

My current local costmap configuration contains the following parameters:

static_map: false
rolling_window: true
width: 5.5
height: 5.5
resolution: 0.1

I hope this resolves your issue with huge computation times. If you still have problems with your performance afterwards, there are other parameters that influence the computational resources (number of optimization iterations, area/distance behind the robot that should be checked for obstacles, temporal trajectory resolution, ...). Please let me know in that case. Some hints are also given in the tutorials.

PS: A local costmap resolution of 0.025 is not feasible for the planner on most computers, but it is also not necessary. I am running the planner with a resolution of 0.1 (similar to your 3rd example in the video).

PPS: You might try out the new version 0.3 of the planner. Until it is available in the official repos, you can checkout the master branch of the github repository. Parameters and Tutorials are already updated to be compliant with version 0.3 (some minor parameter changes and a new tutorial).

Originally posted by croesmann with karma: 2531 on 2016-04-08

This answer was ACCEPTED on the original site

Post score: 3

Original comments

Comment by SHI.ZP on 2016-04-10:
With the modification of local costmap yaml file, now my virtual turtle bot is much swifter, Thank you! Crosemann.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.