Afrikaans
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bemba
Bengali
Bihari
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Catalan
Cebuano
Cherokee
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Ewe
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Ga
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Indonesian
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Kinyarwanda
Kirundi
Kongo
Korean
Krio (Sierra Leone)
Kurdish
Kurdish (Soranรฎ)
Kyrgyz
Laothian
Latin
Latvian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Lozi
Luganda
Luo
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mauritian Creole
Moldavian
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Montenegrin
Nepali
Nigerian Pidgin
Northern Sotho
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Oromo
Pashto
Persian
Polish
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Quechua
Romanian
Romansh
Runyakitara
Russian
Samoan
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Setswana
Seychellois Creole
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish
Spanish (Latin American)
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Tatar
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tonga
Tshiluba
Tumbuka
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Uighur
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Wolof
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu
Now that we have a conceptual framework for thinking about a wide range of motion
planning problems, in terms of planning trajectories to configuration space,
we can talk about various approaches to solving this problem.
Specifically, in the next few sections I'm going to talk about three approaches,
all of which have a common theme.
Namely, they start with the motion planning problem framed on a continuous
configuration space and then use various approaches to reformulate this problem
in terms of a graph, so that we can apply the kinds of algorithms we discussed
earlier like Grassfire, Dijkstra, and Astock.
We could illustrate these approaches using the 2D planing program
depicted on the following slide.
As usual, our goal is to come up with a trajectory
from the starting two deconfiguration to the ending configuration.
In this case, the configuration space obstacles are modeled as polygons,
which suggests the following discretization.
We associate a node with every configuration space optical vertex,
as shown here.
Then, we compute what is known as a visibility graph.
More specifically, we draw an edge between any two vertices that
can be connected by a straight line that lies entirely in free space.
Note that this includes every pair of
neighboring vertices on the same configuration space obstacle.
In order to be able to run this algorithm, we need to be able to determine whether
a line segment between any two points intersects a configuration space obstacle.
In the situation shown here, where the configuration
space obstacles are polygons, this is actually relatively straightforward.
We also include the start and end points as nodes in our graph.
Once we've done this, we're back to original planning problem we considered
earlier, where our goal is to construct the shortest path through the graph
between the start node and the end node.
A problem that can be readily solved using Dijkstra's algorithm.
Here is a result of finding the shortest path in our example.
This visibility graph algorithm is actually complete.
That is, it will find a path if one exists and
report failure if no path can be constructed.
This could happen if the start position or
end position was entirely surrounded by an obstacle.
Moreover, you can prove that this visibility algorithm
are actually construct the shortest possible path between the two points.
You can see the intuition for
this by thinking of the path between the two vertices as a piece of string.
Imagine what would happen if you pull this string as tight as possible
to eliminate all of the slack.
The resulting trajectory would consist of a series of straight lines
between vertices corresponding exactly to the edges of the visibility graph
However, we can debate whether it's a great idea for
our trajectory to clip the obstacles so closely.
In practice,
we may want to pretend that the robot is actually a bit bigger than it truly is.
This would inflate the configuration space obstacles by a safety margin.
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.