On 2015-09-22 18:51, Mike Purvis via ros-users wrote:
> No, tf is copied across as it is. Also, our system has no message
> introspection capabilities, so changing fields inside a message would be
> difficult. Our policy so far has been to avoid TF name clashes
> across all
> systems. This is certainly annoying in multi-robot scenarios, but I
> haven't
> seen a nice, completely robust solution yet.
>
>
> Hugely annoying, yes. The gold standard for ROS multimaster is
> definitely when each individual robot looks exactly like a
> non-multimaster robot, and can be added to the multimaster system with
> no modifications to its underlying launchfiles, topics, diagnostic
> outputs, TF frames, etc. But that obviously requires some sophistication
> at the robot boundary to handle translation. And it gets interesting in
> sim, for.... well, a variety of reasons.
We have tried to solve that by requriring a namespace for each robot. In
our case we use /uav0 , /uav1, /operator0, and so on.
Does it not become confusing if you run without prefix for each robot.
Then if you forward a pose and prefix it you might on one robot get the
topics:
/pose
/uav1/pose
and on the other
/pose
/uav0/pose
Is this really the gold standard? We find it more convenient that we on
all robots get:
/uav0/pose
/uav1/pose
Or did you mean that you also translate locally and add prefix?
/Tommy Persson
Linköping University
Sweden
_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
(text/plain)