4 ms·

I tried to understand the point of your reply but Im not sure what your point was - I only seemed to glean "its easier to balance if the operator is moving it".

I tried to understand the point of your reply but Im not sure what your point was - I only seemed to glean "its easier to balance if the operator is moving it". Please elaborate unless Im being thick. EDIT > I upvoted your comment in any case as Im sure its helping

rcxdude 1y ago
'control system' in this case is not implying remote control, it's referring to the feedback system that adjust the actuators in response to the sensed information. If the motion is controlled automatically, then the control loop can in principle anticipate the motion in a way that it could not if it was remote controlled: i.e. the opposite, it's easier to control the motions (in terms of maintaining balance and avoiding overstressing the actuators) if the operator is not live puppeteering it.
- dwattttt 1y ago
  Apologies, yes, "control system" is somewhat niche jargon. "Balance system" is probably more appropriate.
  - dboreham 1y ago
    Well "control system" is a proper term understood by anyone with a decent STEM education since 150 years ago.
    - dwattttt 1y ago
      To be fair, lots of fields have a notion of a "control" system. Control Theory doesn't have a monopoly on the term, for all that the field revolves around 'control systems'.
  - tekla 1y ago
    > "control system" is somewhat niche jargon Oh my god. What the hell is happening to STEM education? Control systems engineering is standard parlance. This is what Com Sci people are like?
- ionwake 1y ago
  Thank you for the explanation
dwattttt 1y ago
It's that there's nothing special about blending "operator initiated animation commands" with the RL balancing system. The balance system has to balance anyway; if there was no connection between an operator's wave command and balance, it would have exactly the same job to do. At best the advantage of connecting those systems is that the operator command can inform the balance system, but there's nothing novel about that.

rcxdude 1y ago

'control system' in this case is not implying remote control, it's referring to the feedback system that adjust the actuators in response to the sensed information. If the motion is controlled automatically, then the control loop can in principle anticipate the motion in a way that it could not if it was remote controlled: i.e. the opposite, it's easier to control the motions (in terms of maintaining balance and avoiding overstressing the actuators) if the operator is not live puppeteering it.

dwattttt 1y ago
Apologies, yes, "control system" is somewhat niche jargon. "Balance system" is probably more appropriate.
- dboreham 1y ago
  Well "control system" is a proper term understood by anyone with a decent STEM education since 150 years ago.
  - dwattttt 1y ago
    To be fair, lots of fields have a notion of a "control" system. Control Theory doesn't have a monopoly on the term, for all that the field revolves around 'control systems'.
- tekla 1y ago
  > "control system" is somewhat niche jargon Oh my god. What the hell is happening to STEM education? Control systems engineering is standard parlance. This is what Com Sci people are like?
ionwake 1y ago
Thank you for the explanation

dwattttt 1y ago

It's that there's nothing special about blending "operator initiated animation commands" with the RL balancing system. The balance system has to balance anyway; if there was no connection between an operator's wave command and balance, it would have exactly the same job to do. At best the advantage of connecting those systems is that the operator command can inform the balance system, but there's nothing novel about that.