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

Rover: QuickTune velocity tune gains too high #24729

Closed
xianglunkai opened this issue Aug 22, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Rover: QuickTune velocity tune gains too high #24729

xianglunkai opened this issue Aug 22, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels

Comments

@xianglunkai
Copy link
Contributor

I found that PSC_ The parameters set by VEL are too large, resulting in oscillation behavior after turning at large angles.
My personal opinion is:

  1. Set P first instead of D, and D should be relatively small to prevent noise diffusion;

  2. I can be set to 0 or 10% of the P value;

  3. The maximum setting of D value should be 20% of P value;

图片2 图片1
@rmackay9 rmackay9 added the Rover label Aug 22, 2023
@rmackay9 rmackay9 changed the title Rover QuickTune: Excessive setting parameters causing oscillation Rover: QuickTune velocity tune gains too high Aug 22, 2023
@rmackay9
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for this. I have a few ideas:

  1. remove the velocity tune because it doesn't work well enough
  2. the Slew Rate calculator can only detect relatively high frequency oscillations (3hz or higher). Rover/Boat oscillations may be lower frequency than this meaning that we need to increase the SlewLimiter.cpp's WINDOW_MS definition to 1000 (or higher). In my simulator tests however this did not help
  3. try a different approach to find a good tune. For example we could set the I gain to zero, then increase P until the root-mean-square error reduces.. perhaps then we could continue increasing it until it starts to deteriorate.

@xianglunkai
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rmackay9
I agree with your suggestion 1. In fact, manual adjustment of PSC is not difficult and the effect is acceptable.
Also, why do we always start setting from D instead of P?

@rmackay9
Copy link
Contributor

@xianglunkai,

Cool, I'll go ahead and remove it then (or you can of course).

I think we do D before P because tuning P may lead to us needing to reduce D.

@rmackay9
Copy link
Contributor

I've created a PR here to greatly simplify the rover quick tune #25629

@rmackay9
Copy link
Contributor

We've removed the velocity tuning from the quick tune process so I'll close this issue.

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

2 participants