Loco positioning system performance in TDoA 2 mode
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:28 pm
Hello!
First of all, I am sorry if this questions seems similar to the ones already asked, but it's hard to compare the expected behavior with the observed one and I have not found any questions about exactly the same setup as ours.
We've been trying to get the loco positioning system working with multiple crazyflies. We have positioned six anchors in the following points:
0: {x: 0.0, y: 0.0, z: 0.0}
1: {x: 0.699999988079071, y: 2.64, z: 0.0}
2: {x: 3.430000066757202, y: 1.3799999952316284, z: 0.0}
3: {x: 3.3399999141693115, y: -0.05999999865889549, z: 2.819999933242798}
4: {x: -0.38999998569488525, y: 0.7099999785423279, z: 2.8299999237060547}
5: {x: 3.3399999141693115, y: 2.27, z: 2.819999933242798}
They are a bit close to each other, but we were trying to keep the 2m separation and reproduce the recommended setup as closely as possible.
In this gallery you can see the results:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DvZEFUyMQ6CBDtBd9
The single drone video was recorded using the TWR mode. It's not perfect, but I'd say it's good enough to continue our work.
The two drone demonstration on the other hand was made using the TDoA 2 mode. You can see the performance is much worse.
Is that an expected result for such small room in TDoA mode and 6 anchors? What steps could we perform in order to improve it?
We have already tried to improve the calibration of the whole system -- we have used Optitrack available in the room to measure exact positions of nodes. Unfortunately in order to do that we needed to bring the anchors closer together and the result was actually worse.
First of all, I am sorry if this questions seems similar to the ones already asked, but it's hard to compare the expected behavior with the observed one and I have not found any questions about exactly the same setup as ours.
We've been trying to get the loco positioning system working with multiple crazyflies. We have positioned six anchors in the following points:
0: {x: 0.0, y: 0.0, z: 0.0}
1: {x: 0.699999988079071, y: 2.64, z: 0.0}
2: {x: 3.430000066757202, y: 1.3799999952316284, z: 0.0}
3: {x: 3.3399999141693115, y: -0.05999999865889549, z: 2.819999933242798}
4: {x: -0.38999998569488525, y: 0.7099999785423279, z: 2.8299999237060547}
5: {x: 3.3399999141693115, y: 2.27, z: 2.819999933242798}
They are a bit close to each other, but we were trying to keep the 2m separation and reproduce the recommended setup as closely as possible.
In this gallery you can see the results:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DvZEFUyMQ6CBDtBd9
The single drone video was recorded using the TWR mode. It's not perfect, but I'd say it's good enough to continue our work.
The two drone demonstration on the other hand was made using the TDoA 2 mode. You can see the performance is much worse.
Is that an expected result for such small room in TDoA mode and 6 anchors? What steps could we perform in order to improve it?
We have already tried to improve the calibration of the whole system -- we have used Optitrack available in the room to measure exact positions of nodes. Unfortunately in order to do that we needed to bring the anchors closer together and the result was actually worse.