Skip to content
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

under-actuated chains and setWeightTS #343

Open
BrettRD opened this issue Jun 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

under-actuated chains and setWeightTS #343

BrettRD opened this issue Jun 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@BrettRD
Copy link

BrettRD commented Jun 25, 2021

I have a 3dof positioning system that only needs to move the end-effector to a point, but doesn't need to care about orientation of the end effector.

From the docs and discussion, setWeightTS seems like the correct thing to use, but I can't get any sensible results out of it.
My IK chain converges when I feed it achievable frames including orientation, but fails when I erase the orientation from the target frame.

Are there any working examples of inverse-kinematics on under-actuated (3dof) systems, using setWeightTS, that don't resort to virtual joints?
So far, I've only been able to find complete re-implementations of the IK engine.

@guru-florida
Copy link

FYI I have 3DOF legs on my robots so I had a similar issue. I've added the necessary extra "virtual" joints at the endpoint so that only endpoint position really matters. Is there a reason why you didn't want to add virtual joints? I also manipulate the joint position in RViz2 using 6DOF manipulators and I have to say having those extra virtual joints makes using the manipulator easier since I can rotate the manipulator into a different rotational axis in order to get the translation plane I want. Or I can lock the virtual joint frame to be parallel to the world frame.

@BrettRD
Copy link
Author

BrettRD commented Feb 14, 2022

I ended up with a gimbal lock problem within the virtual joints, so I had to extend it to 7dof.
The additional joints add a whole lot of clutter, and they require needlessly complex optimiser to deal with the under-constrained chain.

The docs hint at it being possible to tell the optimiser to ignore specific axes, I'd like to know more about that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants