Note that this has been this way since at least 2009 based on blame
[amcl_laser] Revert the measurement computation to what is in Probabilistic Robotics textbook.
Originally raised in this QandA.
I'm also wondering how this ad-hoc weight was developed. I understand that this ad-hoc value has been functioning for the purpose, but ideally should better be to be documented with a mathematical rationale considering it's based on a textbook.
I don't expect this to be merged as it is, or even understand if rejected; if the rationale for the current ad-hoc modification is provided, I think that would be fine. And we might want to keep using a long-standing logic rather than modifying it, unless new logic is tested thoroughly or gone through a heavy review process.
- 点赞 评论 复制链接分享
Have you tested this change and seen it working effectively? I tried making the change in some stuff that I've been working on and it resulted in scoring not working correctly.点赞 评论 复制链接分享
Not tested exhaustively. As mentioned I created this PR more for raising an attention.
But if you have a
.bagfile that you can share publicly, that'll be great (not just for me. We might be able to integrate that into the system test).点赞 评论 复制链接分享
I'm not able to release what I've done, sorry. :disappointed: But, I understand the point you've raised and I appreciate it.点赞 评论 复制链接分享
I'm pretty sure if we were to change this, everyone would get pretty angry. If you really want to get something along these lines in, I would suggest adding a new parameterized approach that can be enabled by choice and opening a new PR against K or L.点赞 评论 复制链接分享
- 即使程序包存在，Dep init也会失败