-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
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
Time ref beloning to which measurement #76
Comments
Hi @Youras, If your MTi device is configured to output SampleTimeFine (which it should be, as otherwise the imu/time_ref topic would not be published) then the MTi will output all of its Acceleration data samples together with its corresponding SampleTimeFine value, as a single data packet. Upon arrival of this data packet, the imu/time_ref and imu/acceleration topics are created and the header.seq and header.stamp values are assigned by ROS. Only the time_ref field of the imu/time_ref topic is filled with the SampleTimeFine value. I am not sure what causes the difference in header.seq value here, but considering the above, if the two topics have the same ROS timestamp then I would expect them also to correspond to each other. |
Thanks. for your fast answer @StevenXsens Okay if time_ref and acc come with the same data packet, then the delay of the low pass filter shouldn't be measurable this way. I can also confirm that /imu/angular_velocity share the same header.seq value with /imu/time_ref at approx. same ROS time stamp. I forgot to mention, that above I was comparing with /filter/free_acceleration, not with the raw acc data.
|
Hi @Youras, Apologies for the delayed response; I was unavailable for the past two weeks.
|
Hello,
I am wondering which sensor time message from time_ref topic belongs to which sensor measurement message.
Should the header.seq. value be compared? or the time of arrival stamped by ros timestamps? Cause there is some difference, e.g. for 100 Hz acceleration measurements, see figure below:
As seen in the figure, the timestamped messages of acc and time_ref are almost simultaneously, is this a coincidence and caused by the delay coming from the analog and/or digital low pass filters for the acc? Since, they differ in the header.seq by a value of two which would lead to a delay of approx. 20 ms.
Could you clarify this and maybe confirm the acc delay? I used the MTi-620 in responsive mode.
Many thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: