[ros-users] Nav Stack with nonholonomic robots

[Brian Gerkey]

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Christian Verbeek
<verbeek at servicerobotics.eu> wrote:
>  I am using move_base for driving a robot with non holonomic drive. I
> found the performance to be poor to wholly unacceptable. I played around
> with the parameters for quite a time and was not able to find a
> satisfactory setting. The problem with the parameters is that I most of
> the time I can not see a difference at all when changing something.
>
> My impression is that the navigation stack works in tidy and roomy
> environments. But in real world settings with narrow passages and stuff
> standing around performance drops dramatically. I tried this both woth
> boxturtle and latest cturtle and can not see any improvements. The
> navigation (which is in my eyes the most basic behaviour) is so to say
> still unsolved for real world environments.

hi Christian,

Hmm, that's a less than glowing assessment of the navigation stack.
I'd be interested to find out exactly what's going wrong.  We use the
navigation stack all the time on the PR2 in our office, which is
neither tidy nor roomy.  It frequently avoids many small obstacles,
and squeezes through tight openings.  Of course, the PR2 is an
omni-drive robot, and we test less often on differential-drive robots.
 But the navigation stack is intended to support differential-drive
robots, and there's no reason that it shouldn't work well in that
situation.

Can someone who's had more success with the navigation stack on
differential-drive robots suggest a good set of parameters?

	brian.