4 ms·
Could you achieve some level of realism by introducing errors randomly at various input/outputs? Likely it wouldn't be as good as a hardware PoC, but I would e
by AYBABTME 12y ago
Could you achieve some level of realism by introducing errors randomly at various input/outputs? Likely it wouldn't be as good as a hardware PoC, but I would expect it to be good enough.
Is this something used in simulations? I would think so.
- angersock 12y agoSo, I've been meaning to write a new sim for in-browser swarm manipulation and programming, taking into account things like message loss and noise in odometry readings, right? Seems quite reasonable on the face of it. The problem is that you get genuinely weird stuff like IR comms just not working inside a torus of say 18 inches, but farther or closer working fine. Or issues where, when the motors both kick in at the same time, maybe a pin gets held a little lower for a little longer than it needs to be, and that causes an unrelated glitch (for a better story, look at http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Whats-the-hardest-bug-youve-debugged http://www.quora.com/Software-Engineering/Whats-the-hardest-... ). For any neat sim you make (and there are many!), people will inevitably just say, "Well that's all well and good, but have you tried it with robots?" Failing to do so consistently leads to a lab culture where you simply don't have the expertise in-house to do meaningful debugging, design, or research, because everybody's busy playing with their toy sims. You'd think that that code would be still useful, but given the general quality of academic code and policies about reproducibility (which is to say, lol), pure sim work just disappears as a waste of money.
- AYBABTME 12y agoThat's a good explanation and clarifies any doubts, thanks. =)