Re: [ros-users] sensor_msgs Low Cost/Android review

For further clarification, the "fixed inertial frame" is the parent_frame_id, yes? Should we add that field to sensor_msgs/Imu?

It appears to me that for clarity it would make more sense if the orientation were in a separate message than the acceleration and angular velocities, so that they can be independently stamped with different frames.

However since there are IMUs that publish fused data this may not make sense… it doesn't appear to make any less sense than having an Imu publish on separate topics, one for angular velocity/acceleration and another for the magnetic field, however.

-s
>
> > Orientation can also be transformed into /base_link as long as there are
> > frames connecting /imu_link to /base_link. The missing information here is
> > parent_frame_id.
> >
>
>
> So if I understand correctly, for an Imu message with frame_id = X
> - the acceleration and velocities are measured in the frame X
> - the orientation is between a fixed inertial frame and X
>
> If this is so, perhaps it would be worth it to update to IMU message
> description to clarify. The question remains: what should be the
> convention for the frame name? imu? imu_link?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>















--
Sameer Parekh
Falkor Systems, Inc.


On Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM, ros-users-request@code.ros.org wrote:

> Re: [ros-users] sensor_msgs Low Cost/Android review