You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Workaround for Version Compatibility (project depends on 2.1.0): GitHub Issue Link
Description:
I am observing different values in the diagonal elements of the mass matrices computed by MuJoCo and Pinocchio when using robosuite. This offset is always constant. This occurs with both a Schunk Robot and a 1-DOF rotational joint setup. However, the torques due to nonlinear effects (sim.data.qfrc_bias) are consistent between the systems.
When I use the following xml-file created from robosuite:
Hello, was there any resolution/work-around for this issue? I'm noticing the same issues between MuJoCo 3.1.4 and Pincchio 2.7.0 with the lower half of Unitree's h1 from the mujoco_menagerie.
Hey, in my case the problem was that the armature was not considered in the Pinocchio model. I resolved it by manually adding the armature to the diagonal elements of the mass matrix.
Note that full support for the robot armature in RNEA, CRBA, and ABA was introduced in Pinocchio 3.0.0 (changelog). In Pinocchio 2.7.0, even if rotor parameters are set, they are ignored (related issue).
Environment:
Description:
I am observing different values in the diagonal elements of the mass matrices computed by MuJoCo and Pinocchio when using robosuite. This offset is always constant. This occurs with both a Schunk Robot and a 1-DOF rotational joint setup. However, the torques due to nonlinear effects (
sim.data.qfrc_bias
) are consistent between the systems.When I use the following xml-file created from robosuite:
and the .urdf for pinocchio:
I get a value of [[5.02]] using the following code from robosuite (base_controller.py)
and [[0.02]] for the pinocchio implementation:
Expected vs. Actual Results:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: