Quote:
Originally Posted by davidthefat
Details por favor. I mean details on why you have that belief. I don't see why the line sensors would not be as efficient on a strafing bot than on a robot that can't. Is it because the strafing bot has to change its rotation of the motors(I think these are called crab drive) or reverse the motors (mecanium or omni) to strafe? The robot has to do those actions even with a camera.
|
no our chassis right now is all omni wheels, so we can strafe at no disadvantage. The camera returns the x,y and size of the traget, so for a strafing bot centering the target is easy, and then you just drive straight keeping the target in the center. For a nonstrafing bot you have to correct all the way to the target. Given I still think the camera is the best choice overall, line trackers will work almost equally well as the camera on a non strafing bot. On a strafing bot, I think the camera is the better choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie675
How do you follow the line with the camera? That sounds pretty awesome. You would probably have to go slow though because the camera's refresh rate is terrible.
|
With the camera I look at the target not the lines. Where the refresh rate is not great, capping with the camera will be more accurate. Even their pretty slick line tracker in the video was jerking around quite a bit. If i was to attempt to cap with a line track I would require a gyro for it to be accurate(75% success rate is typically my bar) with the camera you do not need a gyro because you are looking right at the target.
I believe the average automated camera cap will be faster than a human cap, and more accurate than a line tracker cap.
Personally for this task I would rather use dead reckoning than use a line tracker. If you threw a gyro and a range finder on your robot, figured out the distance and said drive straight, I think you could make the 75% cut off for autonomous