Skip to content

Conversation

@e1d1s1
Copy link

@e1d1s1 e1d1s1 commented Jun 2, 2020

Many improvements to ROS package "airsim_ros_pkgs"

  • ROS Support for all sensor types
  • Support for ENU frames typical of ground vehicles
  • Better support for multiple agents
  • Option to publish sim /clock topic
  • ROS Joystick support for car via python
  • Bring CarApiBase interface to parity with MultirotorApiBase

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 2, 2020

CLA assistant check
All CLA requirements met.

Copy link
Contributor

@rajat2004 rajat2004 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will be a great improvement to the ROS wrapper, thanks!
Can you add some details about the new sensor publishers, etc in airsim_ros_pkgs.md
Just a light lookover, will try to test it out soon

@e1d1s1
Copy link
Author

e1d1s1 commented Jun 5, 2020

Should be all set for merge. Let me know if you see any other issues.

@phil333
Copy link

phil333 commented Jun 18, 2020

nice work on the car interface. I found 1 little issue: Naming the car anything other than drone_1 means no control api, because the ros interface is looking for /airsim_node/drone_1/car_cmd and this is hard-coded. This is not a big deal though if you mention it in the documentation. Would be great to see this addition on the main branch.

@rajat2004 rajat2004 mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2020
@e1d1s1
Copy link
Author

e1d1s1 commented Jun 24, 2020

nice work on the car interface. I found 1 little issue: Naming the car anything other than drone_1 means no control api, because the ros interface is looking for /airsim_node/drone_1/car_cmd and this is hard-coded. This is not a big deal though if you mention it in the documentation. Would be great to see this addition on the main branch.

You should be able to change the topic via launch config:
node: car_joy
param: car_control_topic

The vehicle name/ID comes out of the airsim config, so if you alter this topic to match it "should" be fine.

@GimpelZhang GimpelZhang mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants