New Trajectory Planner - Testers/programs wanted

I noticed that your screenshots have offsets displayed in the preview pane.. If you turn them off in the view menu - it then displays the velocity. (it is a bug - there is a bug tracker on it)

ie

rellenberg wrote:

skunkworks wrote: wow - rob, as aways, very impressive. (I am someone that keeps checking you experimental branch to see if you have added any commits.. )

Glad to hear it! It's been a little quiet lately because I've got a few features in development, but they aren't quite ready for testing. I'm trying to get at least one out today, and also push the stable fixes to the beta branch.

Thanks for the tip! That certainly cleans up the screen a bit.

In other news, I think I've found a fix for the slowdown problem on the experimental branch. Here's how it works:

1. If we get within two segments of the end, force the last segment to be "finalized", i.e. we can't change it's length
2. Re-run the optimization over the last 2 segments
3. If we're not actually at the end (queue starvation), then the next blend arc will fall back to parabolic, so we won't have acceleration violations

There are a few other under-the-hood changes in the experimental branch, but nothing that should have a huge effect on performance yet.

I just pulled the experimental branch. The last segment now runs smooth.

just goofing around - I ran steve.ngc - it had huge acceleration constraint viloations. Maybe part of your arc-line work?

rellenberg wrote: Thanks for the tip! That certainly cleans up the screen a bit.

In other news, I think I've found a fix for the slowdown problem on the experimental branch. Here's how it works:

1. If we get within two segments of the end, force the last segment to be "finalized", i.e. we can't change it's length
2. Re-run the optimization over the last 2 segments
3. If we're not actually at the end (queue starvation), then the next blend arc will fall back to parabolic, so we won't have acceleration violations

There are a few other under-the-hood changes in the experimental branch, but nothing that should have a huge effect on performance yet.

That's strange, steve.ngc seems to run fine in my simulation and RT builds. However, I ran a big batch of tests and found a small overage on arc-parabolic-blend.ngc (attached). Is it consistently going over at a particular spot?

This is v2.5.3-2611-g9ea88c1

I get this running steve.ngc

sam

rellenberg wrote: That's strange, steve.ngc seems to run fine in my simulation and RT builds. However, I ran a big batch of tests and found a small overage on arc-parabolic-blend.ngc (attached). Is it consistently going over at a particular spot?

here is the x axis - first at around line 25-27 and 27-28...

That is with steve.ngc strait G64

sam