Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
I have a few different replies to address the concerns you've brought up. Each reply is independent and can be considered separately, so I'll put each one in its own section. (1) Further development on the
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
When a fleet is adapted to RMF as
full_control
, RMF will take over full management of tasks and their execution. If my understanding is correct, the task doesn't get passed on to the proprietary fleet manager because that would mean that the fleet manager would manage its trajectories which would conflict with the fleet adapter's waypoint control.Fleet managers are often highly specialized in their tasks and domains and so in most cases it makes sense to have the fleet manager be in charge of mission/task execution. That would for example allow for a delivery task where not one but 5 parts are picked up at once and unloaded at 5 different locations in an efficient manner. To make this example new task work with the
full_control
category, one would have to write the newMultiDelivery
interfaces and execution logic in the FleetAdapter which likely won't be as good as the fleet manager's implementation. Alternatively, you could also rely on the proprietary fleet manager to manage the task, but expose a pause/resume interface (traffic_light
adapter) so there's some level of traffic avoidance possible.So even if you have the option to decide between
full_control
andtraffic_light
, I can see the latter being preferable in most scenarios in the field of industrial manufacturing/material handling. Is a scenario with most if not all fleet adapters being of typetraffic_light
something RMF would be well-suited to work with? Am I correct to assume that it's impossible to hand off a full task to a fleet manager and still expect to send it waypoint commands? Curious to hear how people are thinking about this.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions