As the wikipedia page of Occupancy grid mapping explains, the result of the mapping process is a binary 1 or 0, occupied or not, the decision itself may be based on noisy data, which involves the probabilistic assessment of prior information to infer the posterior probability of the occupancy.
Cause of the intrinsic noise in sensory data, we have to consider a probabilistic model (mostly Gaussian) for the sensor measurements. As a matter of fact, the description and definition of the mapping problem will be probabilistic. The goal is to compute the most likely map given the sensor data and commands given to the robot:
In occupancy grid mapping as ...
First thing first- you can consider any direction as positive or negative, but need to keep it constant while solving the problem and even while programming robot.
In almost all cases of 6-DOF manipulator, the co-ordinate system of joint 1 is aligned with the universal coordinate system.
Theta- its joint parameter, it signifies angle between 2 x-axis about ...
Assuming this is a platform attached to a robot of some kind, you can:
Measure the platform pose directly, as with an inclinometer, IMU, laser, camera, etc.,
Measure the platform pose indirectly, by putting rotary encoders on the joints and using kinematics to determine the platform pose for a given set of joint positions, or
Estimate the platform pose with ...
I suppose that what you're seeing when you add your robot model to the world is something like this:
That is, only the top part of the robot is visible. The problem is not that the bottom part isn't there, it's just that the robot's origin is the joint between the two parts, therefore the lower part is below the floor. If you rotate the world (hold <...
I have never used it ,because I have always dealt with custom simulators but I know others have had success with the RotorS simulator.
Answers to your questions:
1) Can I modify these models so that it can simulate my drone? Is it enough to change the geometry, mass and inertias to make it work?
Kind of. You could just take one of their existing models,...
Those two papers have a different equation for the same robot because they have taken different assumption. The first paper has considered the centre of mass to be at the end of the link, and the other paper has considered the centre of mass at the middle of the link.
Now the dynamics of any two-link manipulator irrespective of the link shape is