-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
VFH Decision Module #54
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
reviewed
:param wide_valley_threshold: Number of sectors distinguishing wide valleys from narrow ones. | ||
""" | ||
self.density_threshold = density_threshold | ||
self.min_consec_sectors = min_consec_sectors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
following WARG style guide, this variable name should not be short-form. it can be renamed to min_consecutive_sectors. (https://uwarg-docs.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CV/pages/2253226033/Python+Style+Convention#Naming)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
got it, will just do
|
||
:param density_threshold: The threshold for identifying candidate valleys. | ||
:param min_consec_sectors: Minimum number of consecutive sectors for a valid valley. | ||
:param wide_valley_threshold: Number of sectors distinguishing wide valleys from narrow ones. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why do we define a wide valley threshold? is a narrow valley not wide enough? is this the minimum narrow valleys required for the drone to fly down the valley? if so, can the description make this more clear?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it's for a refinement outlined in the research paper. Technically we can go lower than the wide_threshold, but that would require us to slow down our flight_speed (formula given in paper, relates to maximal steering speed) so could implement that in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(also its just a bit safer, until we concretely decide on a safe threshold based on tests)
modules/vfh_decision/vfh_decision.py
Outdated
far_angle = valley[-1].angle_end | ||
|
||
# Ensure the valley contains 0° and has enough space on both sides | ||
if ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why does our valley at 0 degrees have to be a wide valley?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i made an oversight. our candidate valley search should also rely on wide-valley threshold. so candidate valleys in the pre-check and in the general search should be > wide_valley threshold, not min_consec_sectors
Initial commit for vfh_decision.
followed shortly by integration tests