4 ms·
I always found Oxford's MOOS to be easier to work with. That plus something like MIT's IvP Helm objective controller will get you an autonomous mobile platform
by ebg13 7y ago
I always found Oxford's MOOS to be easier to work with. That plus something like MIT's IvP Helm objective controller will get you an autonomous mobile platform very quickly.
- ragebol 7y agoCool thing about ROS is that is works for all sorts of robots, while MOOS [0] is focussed on autonomous marine vehicles. With ROS, I can have motion planning for a manipulator in hours, then put in on a mobile robot with whatever sort of locomotion etc all in the same system. [0] https://oceanai.mit.edu/ivpman/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Helm.MOOSIvPIntroduction https://oceanai.mit.edu/ivpman/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Helm.MOOS...
- ebg13 7y ago> MOOS [0] is focussed on autonomous marine vehicles Core MOOS is just an efficient low-overhead IPC middleware, exactly like core ROS but, in my experience, smaller and faster and easier to use. You can use it for literally any communication between multiple distributed processes, robotic or otherwise. I think ROS became more successful at first because of better branding and promotion by Willow Garage. Now it's all network effects. MIT's Ocean AI lab, by virtue of being an Ocean AI lab, uses MOOS for marine vehicles, but other groups have used it for other things as well.