Hi Stéphane
> 1. Having multiple implementations of Kinect ROS nodes is not harmful as
> we happily share code. However, to ease the end-user's life I think that
> we should agree on a naming convention for node and topic naming. Here
> is a first suggestion:
> node name: "kinect"
> point cloud frame: "/kinect"
> point could topic: "/kinect/cloud" (PointCloud + color in "rgb")
> rgb image topic: "/kinect/image" (Image, rgb)
> depth (raw in 8bpp) image topic: "/kinect/depth_image" (Image, mono8)
> accelerometer topic: "/kinect/acc" (Vector3)
> tilt input: "/kinect/tilt" (Int16)
> Feel free to discuss it and propose more conventions, for instance for
> the params/etc.
>
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's satisfaction.
I agree that finding a common API for the device will make everyone life
easier. There's also the ccny API documented at
http://www.ros.org/wiki/kinect_node They have laid out a few parameters in
addition to a very similar set of topics.
The most important aspect of making life easy for end-users as well as
developers is documentation.
It's awesome to see the Kinect driver useable so quickly, keep up the great
work everyone.
Tully
(text/plain)