![]() |
Re: Mecanum vs Treads
Quote:
|
Re: Mecanum vs Treads
Quote:
Quote:
No more putting off doing a mecanum v 6WD off season test now! (for better understanding of both, not crowning the "best", so pls don't start...) |
Re: Mecanum vs Treads
Quote:
Team 1988 tried it in the "Overdrive" game with my not-quite-sufficient assistance. The robot was optimized for easy turning, but at the cost of straight line stability. In the end, it was indeed "a hoot" when it worked, but there were issues with control of angular momentum and with gyro limits that made it hard to drive in game situations. You could never quite guess which way the rotation transform thought it was going, and the gyro reset got used nearly as much as the stick. We learned a lot and it seems like many of the issues could be managed with better mechanical design, so it would be fun to try again with that plus the improved gyros and closed loop motor controls we have now. We haven't gotten around to it because our drivetrain focus has been on learning to do holonomic right. Field-relative control software for non holonomic drive trains must make decisions in the software that aren't issues with omni/mecanum drive trains. In particular, the tradeoff between changing heading and changing position. Holonomic drives have the same issue, but they're entirely taken care of by physics - the software doesn't have to specify the tradeoffs. I'm guessing a properly tuned program could approach equivalent performance if the software were carefully matched to the hardware, but it's not trivial to do, and it's on top of software that's more complex to begin with. Either is correct, it's absolutely possible. But unless/until it's successfully done in real life the ability to implement field-relative controls must number among the advantages of holonomic drivetrains over others. |
Re: Mecanum vs Treads
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:10. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi