Hi Stéphane<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">

<br>
1. Having multiple implementations of Kinect ROS nodes is not harmful as<br>
we happily share code. However, to ease the end-user&#39;s life I think that<br>
we should agree on a naming convention for node and topic naming. Here<br>
is a first suggestion:<br>
   node name: &quot;kinect&quot;<br>
   point cloud frame: &quot;/kinect&quot;<br>
   point could topic: &quot;/kinect/cloud&quot; (PointCloud + color in &quot;rgb&quot;)<br>
   rgb image topic: &quot;/kinect/image&quot; (Image, rgb)<br>
   depth (raw in 8bpp) image topic: &quot;/kinect/depth_image&quot; (Image, mono8)<br>
   accelerometer topic: &quot;/kinect/acc&quot; (Vector3)<br>
   tilt input: &quot;/kinect/tilt&quot; (Int16)<br>
Feel free to discuss it and propose more conventions, for instance for<br>
the params/etc.<br></blockquote><br></div>While things are rapidly developing and different approaches are being 
tried out multiple drivers are not harmful and potentially are beneficial as people are exploring how to interface with the device.  
Unless there are irreconcilable differences it makes sense in the long 
run for them to merge.  A few of these differences might be licensing 
and dependency requirements.  However with the scope of the Kinect 
device I expect that these can be resolved to everyone&#39;s satisfaction.  <br>
<br>
I agree that finding a common API for the device will make everyone life easier.  There&#39;s also the ccny API documented at <a href="http://www.ros.org/wiki/kinect_node" target="_blank">http://www.ros.org/wiki/kinect_node</a>  They have laid out a few parameters in addition to a very similar set of topics.   <br>

<br>The most important aspect of making life easy for end-users as well as developers is documentation.  <br><br>It&#39;s awesome to see the Kinect driver useable so quickly, keep up the great work everyone. <br>
Tully<br>