[Rock-dev] Joystick and twice a std vector in RawCommand

[Alexander Duda]

On 04/08/2014 03:55 PM, Javier Hidalgo Carrió wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 03:10 PM, Alexander Duda wrote:
>> On 04/08/2014 03:04 PM, Javier Hidalgo Carrió wrote:
>>>> The reason is that each axis could control several sub-axes.
>>> How many axis go to each sub-axes (sub-joystick)? How do you map then?
>>> ... The first two one, the first three ones...
>> I would say, the naming is really bad. In general, an axis is defined 
>> as a 1D line.
>>>> The idea behin is that one one-dimensional arrays does not scale very
>>>> whell with different kind of input-devices.
>>>> In the past it was one 1D array. We decided to change this.
>>> Actually I think that 1D array scale better with different kind of 
>>> input
>>> devices just because it is a plain 1D.
>> Yes, the mapping could also be done with a single std::vector which 
>> would at least to me more natural. But the question is is, it worth 
>> to change everything?
> I also asked myself this question. In that case it is not worthy but 
> in reality it doesn't seem to be that much.
> n/scale
> Only two things so far:
> 1) Change the RawCommand struct which is NOT a base type
> 2) The method in JoystickTask.cpp to map from RawCommand to 
> MotionCommand2D (rotational and translation velocity).
>
> Also... there is a property in the current version of the controldev 
> component:
>     property("axisScale","/std/vector<double>")
> which is a std::vector (not a std:vector<std::vector> ). Therefore it 
> will play nicer with 1D array.
> I don't want to pollute the mailing-list with this topic. My 
> suggestion: I could make the changes in a different branch and in case 
> it is not the way of going we could always go back or find a merge 
> point. Do you agree?
>
> Javier.
I would always try to avoid branching away.  Therefore, the best think 
would be to convince Matthias as he is the guy maintaining condrolDev. 
Personally, I would like to see the proposed change because like you 
said it would have the same syntax like axisScale.

In any case, you have to do some kind of mapping insight the component 
to get a proper motion command.

Greets Alex

>>
>> enum Axes
>> {
>>     axis1_x
>>     axis1_y
>>     axis2_x
>>     ..
>> };
>> a[axis1_x] = 123
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>> If you have multiple input deviced, the mapping should be done by a
>>>> conversion component. There could be no generic rule how to apply
>>>> RawCommands to something else.
>>>>
>>>> You joystick-driver should output the values from the Joysticks as 
>>>> they
>>>> are. The mapping for your rover's should be done in a specialized 
>>>> component.
>>> Therefore the especialized component should compute e.g.: 2D commands
>>> from a common RawCommand.
>>>   From my point of view the RawCommand should be generic and therefore
>>> raw (plain). Unless there is a way of asking to the Linux api: 
>>> number of
>>> sub-joysticks to create this 2D array. I still don't see it.
>>>
>>> Javier.
>>>> So no i'm against a change here.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>> On 08.04.2014 14:32, Javier Hidalgo Carrió wrote:
>>>>> Hi rocks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any particular reason why the axisValue is a 2D array?
>>>>>
>>>>>      /* Index 1: num-of input axis, //index 2: dimensions of this 
>>>>> axis
>>>>>              * If you have an gamepand which has 2 2Dknops you 
>>>>> have an [2][2]
>>>>>              * size'd array for an 3D Mouse you could have [1][6]
>>>>>              */
>>>>>             std::vector<std::vector<double> > axisValue;
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not to create a plain  std::vector<double> instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am controlling with a joystick the ESA rover and there are several
>>>>> types of joysticks. They do not all have 4 axis in the main/principal
>>>>> joystick.
>>>>> Therefore, I do not see the benefit of having a std::vector inside
>>>>> another std::vector.
>>>>> My suggestion is to change it to a plain (1D array) std::vector 
>>>>> and use
>>>>> the first 4 axis as it is now but without a 2D structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Javier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rock-dev mailing list
>>>>> Rock-dev at dfki.de
>>>>> http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rock-dev mailing list
>>> Rock-dev at dfki.de
>>> http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-dev
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Duda
Unterwasserrobotik
Robotics Innovation Center

Hauptgeschäftsstelle Standort Bremen:
  DFKI GmbH
  Robotics Innovation Center
  Robert-Hooke-Straße 1
  28359 Bremen, Germany

  Tel.:     +49 421 178 45-6620
  Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-0
  Fax:      +49 421 178 45-4150 (Faxe bitte namentlich kennzeichnen)
  E-Mail:   Alexander.Duda at dfki.de

  Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
  Firmensitz: Trippstadter Straße 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
  Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster
  (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff
  Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
  Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
  Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
  USt-Id.Nr.:    DE 148646973
  Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3