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

RAW option for proc_mask #238

Open
Grisly00 opened this issue Oct 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

RAW option for proc_mask #238

Grisly00 opened this issue Oct 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Grisly00
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
At the moment I am switching back and forth between the different XML and Python launch files. As far as I understand the preferred approach in the future would be to use driver.launch.py. The problem for me is that it does not publish raw lidar_packets which I like to record.

Describe the solution you'd like
Would it be possible to add another key to proc_mask like RAW to publish raw lidar_packets?

Describe alternatives you've considered
At the moment I simply use sensor.independent.launch.py. (sensor.independent.launch.xml gave me recently some errors as described in this issue #159.)

Targeted Platform (please complete the following information only if applicable, otherwise dot N/A):

  • ROS version/distro? ROS2 humble
  • Operating System? Jammy
  • Machine Architecture? ARM
@Grisly00 Grisly00 added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 17, 2023
@Samahu Samahu self-assigned this Oct 17, 2023
@Samahu
Copy link
Contributor

Samahu commented Oct 17, 2023

Yes, we do plan on providing a python versions for record/replay launch files..

@Grisly00
Copy link
Author

@Samahu: Thanks, but this does not really answer my question.
To rephrase, is it possible to provide a RAW option to proc_mask so we can record lidar_packets with driver.launch.py launch file, or will sensor.independent.launch.py be the way to go also in future?

@Samahu
Copy link
Contributor

Samahu commented Nov 8, 2023

Got it. It is the same as #251

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants