-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
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
Resolve time optimization issues #217
Conversation
b114158
to
ae47432
Compare
ae47432
to
efa30cd
Compare
@@ -1946,8 +1954,8 @@ def _plan_js_from_solve_state( | |||
og_solve_time = traj_result.solve_time | |||
|
|||
scaled_dt = torch.clamp( | |||
torch.max(traj_result.optimized_dt[traj_result.success]), | |||
self.trajopt_solver.interpolation_dt, | |||
torch.max(traj_result.optimized_dt[traj_result.success]) * self.finetune_dt_scale, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is I think a minor fix as finetune_dt_scale must have been applied
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Currently, we only use finetune_dt_scale only for pose planning. Joint space planning was implemented to facilitate going to a home configuration after doing manipulation tasks.
The finetune attempts could be implemented in plan_single_js as well. Thanks for bring this up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should I remove this from the PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have forked your changes, I have a few more changes to make to get this working correctly. I will push these changes and other adjustments before the end of this week.
This way, we don't duplicate efforts.
One of the issues has been already fixed in the latest release so I removed the corresponding changes from my PR Lines 49 to 50 in d6e600c
|
This has been added to v0.7.2 |
Possibly resolves issues mentioned in #210