Closed joseandres94 closed 2 years ago
Hi @joseandres15 what you are facing is indeed weird. Can I ask you to record an SVO file that replicates this issue and to share it with us to test the ROS wrapper in the same conditions? You can send a link to download the SVO (Dropbox, google drive, etc) to support@stereolabs.com adding a link to this issue in the email message. Thank you
This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days
Preliminary Checks
Description
I am trying to generate a 3D map using ZED 3.5 SDK and a ZED2 camera.
According to the documentation, the topics /odom shows the 3D absolute position by means of visual odometry (or visual inertial odometry, in my case, since I use a ZED2 camera and IMU fusion parameter in zed2.yaml is set to true), and /pose shows the 3D absolute position but using "Sensor Fusion algorithm + SLAM + Loop closure", so it could be logical they give different results, but in my case, they are always aligned.
As I can read here in "Camera Path" section, /path_odom is "The history of the odometry of the camera in Map frame" and /path_map is "The history of the camera pose in Map frame".
Steps to Reproduce
Expected Result
What I would expect, is that /odom would be aligned with /path_odom, and /pose would be aligned with /path_map, and they all could be aligned, or not, but the first rule should be respected.
Actual Result
Now, if I look at the /path_odom topic (green line), it is not aligned with the odometry (axes), but /path_map (yellow line) it is aligned with /pose (yellow arrow) and with odometry, /odom topic (axes). As you can see in the next pictures.
Is this result normal? It is not logical with the definitions given in the documentation.
ZED Camera model
ZED2
Environment
Anything else?
No response