The title implies that there are collision check systems that don’t use point clouds (or that robotics has moved onto something else)? Is that true or did the author just mean personally?
replyI think they meant it in the sense of coming back to the topic yet again after talking about it fairly exhaustively in an earlier blog post.
replyPosts like these really highlight how much there to think about in robotics. Below the surface of what immediately comes to mind there is just an abundance of topics to address to get an actually well working robot.
replyYep. And when you get to an actual robot, you find it’s a distributed system with all the attendant challenges, so you build yourself up for that, and then your time, attention, and maybe your soul are crushed by connectors, cables and batteries.
replySo naturally the funnest work is multi-robot systems…
Especially your soul, I bet.
replyWhy don’t they marry the visual categorisation of objects with a sparse predefined model to simplify?
replyPoint clouds seem like a noisy layer to use and better as verification.
deleted
replydeleted
replyThis reminds me of writing physics in game engines.
replyWhen I worked in robotics, it always pissed me off that our recruiters ignored game devs as candidates. There's such a huge overlap in the two fields in terms of the math underpinning the systems
reply