7 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 16.2 ms ] thread
Posts 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.
In my opinion, it's not just robotics, there are so many processes involved in manufacturing a single high-performance bolt used in an F1 racing car.

Life of Bolt(2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iptAkpqjtMQ

Most high quality systems performance relies heavily on high-quality subsystems to achieve optimal performance.

This reminds me of writing physics in game engines.
When 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
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?
Why don’t they marry the visual categorisation of objects with a sparse predefined model to simplify?

Point clouds seem like a noisy layer to use and better as verification.

(comment deleted)