Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

embrace trigonometry (fix also issue #164) #165

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: melodic-devel
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

facontidavide
Copy link

In theory, this modification is just about readability. It should give EXACTLY the same result, but...

In practice, we fixed also a problem with min/max distance, as reported in #164

Please test it before merging it, to be sure I didn't miss anything.

In thoery, this modification is just about readability. It should give
EXACTLY the same result, but...

In practice, we fixed also a problem about mini/max distance, as
reported in SteveMacenski#164
@facontidavide
Copy link
Author

THis is emabrassing.... there is a compilation error. Let me fix it

@SteveMacenski
Copy link
Owner

SteveMacenski commented Apr 7, 2020

@tasilb can you test this? If you set VISUALIZE_FRUSTUM 1 in the depth camera frustum file, it'll publish the points of the frustum (kill performance, but you can see the frustum corners and normal vectors). Just making sure I don't break you guys -- stuff inside updating, stuff outside not, the usual.

@tasilb
Copy link
Collaborator

tasilb commented Apr 8, 2020 via email

@SteveMacenski
Copy link
Owner

@tasilb have you taken a look at this?

@mlsdpk
Copy link

mlsdpk commented Dec 16, 2023

Are there any updates on this? I've noticed a significant improvement in CPU juice after removing the normalize operation

@facontidavide
Copy link
Author

I guess the changes are still valid 😆

Using std array instead of vector surely help too

@SteveMacenski
Copy link
Owner

@mlsdpk if you can validate that this represents the right frustum now, I can merge this in.

@mlsdpk
Copy link

mlsdpk commented Dec 17, 2023

Understood! I'll do my best to share results from real hardware, though I cannot guarantee it due to confidentiality concerns.

Is it acceptable if I submit a PR for unit tests to compare the points from pcl::FrustumCulling filter with STVL's depth camera frustum? This would allow us to thoroughly test the changes introduced in this PR also. Please let me know if this approach aligns with your expectations.

@SteveMacenski
Copy link
Owner

Visualizing the frustum and/or measuring the plane angles and/or measuring the corner points and comparing them to manually computed values from another method would be all ways to validate.

Certainly pcl would be another way :-) Unit tests are always appreciated, but not required for this repository. This is largely in legacy maintenance mode with few/no outstanding issues (beyond this) that hopefully will be superseded by something building on this idea with probabilistic modeling in the medium term future.

I usually require much more formality, but this is an old project that predated that policy and I expect that if Davide tested it, it probably works fine, I just want a 3rd opinion since we're all human

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants