Wim, I'm not sure I understand this rationale. Somewhere someone is
chaining all the transforms and computing the shallow tree. Why not
just publish a more "natural" tree, along with the pre-computed
transforms that go into the shallow tree? To the user, the tree would
make more sense, and computational efficiency would be preserved.
Cheers --Kurt
Wim Meeussen wrote:
>> Also, I noticed that, at least for the PR2 simulator, the PR2's tf
>> tree is very shallow with base_footprint being the parent frame to
>> a large number of frames. I would have thought that tf tree would
>> closely mimic the physical degree of freedom heirarchy in the PR2
>> (i.e. base->torso->upper_arm->lower_arm, etc.) Is there a reason
>> for the PR2s shallow tf tree?
>
> The shallow tree allows you to compute the pose between any two links
> of the pr2, by chaining only two transforms. If the tf tree would
> mimic the physical degree of freedom heirarchy in the pr2, you'd
> often have to chain 10+ transforms to get the pose between two links.
> So this is a performance optimization.
>
> Wim
>
>
(text/plain)