Posted 22 January 2023

This post is intended to get me synched back up with the current state of play in my numerous wall track tuning exercises. I am using these posts as a memory aid, as my short-term memory sucks these days.

Difference between WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 & _V4:

• V5 uses ‘enums.h’ to eliminate VS2022 intellisense errors
• V5 RotateToParallelOrientation(): ported in from WallE3_ParallelFind_V1
• V5 MoveToDesiredLeftDistCm uses Left distance corrected for orientation, but didn’t make change from uint16_t to float (fixed 01/22/23)
• V5 changed parameter input from Offset, Kp,Ki,Kd to Offset, RunMsec, LoopMsec
• V5 modified to try ‘pulsed turn’ algorithm.

Difference between WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V4 & _V3:

• V4 added #define NO_LIDAR
• V4 changed distance sensor values from uint16_t to float
• V4 experimented with ‘flip-flopping’ WallTrackSetPoint from -0.2 to +0.2 dep on how close the corrected center distance was to the desired offset (However, I believe this was done incorrectly – the PID engine compared the corrected center distance to WallTrackSetPoint – literally apples to oranges)

So WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 seems to be the latest ‘tuning’ implementation.

Comparison of WallE3_WallTrack_Vx files:

WallE3_WallTrack_V2 vs WallE3_WallTrack_V1 (Created: 2/19/2022)

• V2 moved all inline tracking code into TrackLeft/RightWallOffset() functions (later ported back into V1 – don’t know why)
• V2 changed all ‘double’ declarations to ‘float’ due to change from Mega2560 to T3.5

WallE3_WallTrack_V3 vs WallE3_WallTrack_V2 (Created: 2/22/2022)

• V3 Chg left/right/rear dists from mm to cm
• V3 Concentrated all environmental updates into UpdateAllEnvironmentParameters();
• V3 No longer using GetOpMode()

WallE3_WallTrack_V4 vs WallE3_WallTrack_V3 (Created: 3/25/2022)

• V4 Added ‘RollingForwardTurn() function

WallE3_WallTrack_V5 vs WallE3_WallTrack_V4 (Created: 3/25/2022)

• No real changes between V5 & V4

24 January 2023 Update:

I returned WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 to its original configuration, using my custom PIDCalcs() function, using the following modified inputs:

So this is the ‘other’ method – using the modified steering value as the input, and trying to drive the system to zero. Within just a few trials I rapidly homed in on one of the PID triplets I had used before, namely PID(3,0,1). Here’s the raw output, a plot of orientation-corrected distance vs setpoint, and a short video on my 4m straight wall section:

So, the ‘steering value tweaked by offset error’ method works on a straight wall with a PID of (3,0,1). This result is consistent with my 11 January 2023 Update of my ‘WallE3 Wall Tracking Revisited‘ post, which I think was done with WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 (too many changes for my poor brain to follow).

Unfortunately, as soon as I put breaks in the wall, the robot could no longer follow it. It runs into the same problems; the robot senses a significant change in distance, starts to turn to minimize the distance, but the distance continues to go in the wrong direction due to the change in the robot’s orientation. This feedback continues until the robot is completely orthogonal to the wall.

26 January 2023 Update:

I went back and reviewed the post that contained the successful 30 October 2022 ‘two 30deg wall breaks’ run, and found that the run was made with the following wall following code:

As can be seen from the above, the line

Compares the orientation-corrected wall distance to the desired offset distance, as opposed to comparing the computed steering value to a desired steering value of zero, with a ‘fudge factor’ of the distance error divided by 10 as shown below:

So, I modified WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 to use the above algorithm to see if I could reproduce the successful ‘two breaks’ tracking run.

Well, the answer was “NO” – I couldn’t reproduce the successful ‘two breaks’ tracking run – not even close – grrr!!

So, as kind of a ‘Hail Mary’ move, I went back to WallE3_WallTrack_V2, which I vaguely remember as the source of the successful ‘two break’ run, and tried it without modification. Lo and Behold – IT WORKED! Whew, I was beginning to wonder if maybe (despite having a video) it was all a dream!

So, now I have a baseline – yes!!! Here’s the output and video from a successful ‘two break’ run:

And here is the wall tracking code for this run:

And here is just the wall tracking portion of the above function:

From the above, it appears that WallE3_WallTrack_V2 uses a ‘steering value’ setpoint of zero, and also ‘tweaks’ the input to the PID engine using the error between the measured wall distance and the desired wall offset, as shown in the following snippet:

This is very similar to what I was trying to do in WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 initially below (copied here from ’24 January 2023 Update:’ above for convenience):

So, the original Tuning_V5 math appears to be identical to the WallTrack_V2 math; both use an offset factor as shown:

WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5:

WallE3_WallTrack_V2:

Aha! In WallE3_WallTrack_V2 the offset error (in mm) is divided by 1000, but in WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 the offset error (in cm) is divided by 10, which still leaves a factor of 10 difference between the two algorithms! I should be dividing the cm offset by 100 – not 10!

28 January 2023 Update:

SUCCESS!!! So I went back to my WallE3_WallTrackTuning_V5 program, and modified it to be the same as WallE3_WallTrack_V2, except using distances in cm instead of mm, and dividing by 100 instead of 10. After the usual number of stupid errors, I got the following successful run on the ‘two break’ wall setup:

After running this test a couple more times to assure myself that I wasn’t dreaming, I started to play around with the PID values to see if I could get a bit better performance. The first run (shown above) produced an average offset distance of about 36.9cm. A subsequent run showed an average of 26.4cm. This implies that the steering value ‘tweak’ isn’t really doing much. For instance, this line:

shows that for a corrected distance of 28.13cm, the calculated steerval is (21.4-19.3) /100 = 2.1/100 = 0.021, the ‘offset_factor’ is (40-19.3)/100 = 20.7/100 = 0.207. So, the ‘tweaked’ steerval should be 0.228 and should produce an error term of +0.228 but it is only reporting an error of 0.00!

I added the steerval and the offset_factor to the output telemetry and redid the run with 300,0,0 as before. This time I got

In this case, steerval = (37.7 – 37.1)/100 = +0.06 (pointing slightly away from the wall), tweak = (38.87-40)/100 = -1.13/100 = -0.013, so the total error of +0.0487, giving left/right motor speeds of 60/89, i.e. correcting slightly back toward the wall – oops! It looks like I need to use a slightly smaller divisor for the ‘tweak’ calculation.

I added the divisor for the offset_factor to the parameter list for ‘Tuning_V5’ and redid the run, using ‘100’ to make sure I got the same result as before.

I was able to confirm that using this method with the ‘tweak’ divisor as a parameter I got pretty much the same behavior. Then I started reducing the divisor to see what would happen as the ‘tweak’ became more of a factor in the PID calculation.

For a divisor of 75, we got the following output:

Looking at the line at time 124142, we see:

The steering value is very low (0.02) because the front and rear sensor distances are very close, but because the robot is well inside the intended offset distance of 40cm, the ‘tweak value’ of -0.11 is actually dominant, which drives the robot’s left motors harder than the right ones, which should correct the robot back toward 40cm offset. When we look at the Excel plot, we see:

The plot shows the ‘tweak’ value becoming more negative as the corrected distance becomes smaller relative to the desired offset distance of 40cm, and thus tends to correct the robot back toward the desired offset. At the 12.41sec mark (shown by the vertical line in the above plot) the ‘tweak’ value is -0.11, compared to the steering value of +0.02, so the ‘tweak’ input should dominate the output. With a P of 300, the output with just the steering value would be -300 x 0.02 = -6 resulting in left/right motor speeds of 69/81, steering the robot very slightly toward the wall. However, with the ‘tweak’ value of -0.02 the output is -300 x (0.02 -0.11) = +27 (actually +28), resulting in motor speeds of 103/46, or moderately away from the wall, as desired.

To simply the tuning problem, I changed the wall configuration back to a single straight wall, but started the robot with a 30cm offset (10cm closer than desired) but still parallel (steering value near zero). Here’s the output:

As can be seen from the above plot, the robot starts out at about 32cm, and slowly closes to about 28cm. Simultaneously the ‘tweak’ value goes from about -0.12 to about -0.18 (at 109749 mSec, the black line). The result is the robot starts moving away from the wall, getting to the desired 40cm offset a little over 2sec later (the red line). After this point it maintains about 40cm offset, as desired. The average offset distance from the red line to the end of the run is about 37.5cm – nice!

So it looks like P = 300 and tweak divisor = 75 is a nice starting point.

30 January 2023 Update:

Now that I have both the PID and divisor values as parameters, I plan to make some more ‘straight wall’ runs to see how the robot behaves. My belief is that a slightly lower divisor ratio, and possibly a slightly higher P value will be beneficial – we’ll see

Starting with P = 300 and divisor = 50:

This run started with the robot placed roughly parallel to and offset about 32cm from the start of the 4m straight wall section. For the first two seconds the offset increased monotonically to about 38cm, and after that the robot maintained an offset between 35 and 39cm. The average for the ‘maintenance’ portion of the run was approximately 38cm – nice!

PID(350,0,0), divisor = 50:

As can be seen in the above plot. the robot started off at an offset of approx 27cm, and rapidly (about 1.5sec) moved to an offset of about 38cm. After that it maintained an offset of between 35 and 41cm for the rest of the run for an average of 37.5cm. This is excellent performance, and now I have to wonder just a bit if a separate ‘offset capture’ phase is really required.

Making another run with the same parameters (350,0,0) div 50 but with the robot placed more or less parallel but about 10cm from the wall:

As can be seen from the above raw data and plot, the robot starts out at about 15cm and rapidly (within about 1sec) moves to about 37cm. After that the robot maintains a wall distance between 35 and 40cm, with an average distance of 38.4cm – very nice!

Here’s a short video showing the action:

After this run I decided to try a wall configuration with a single 30º break using the same PID(350,0,0) and div factor (50) as before. The robot was placed nearly parallel with an approx 13cm offset. Here’s the telemetry, the corresponding Excel plot, and a short video.

After this run I decided to push my luck and try a ‘two break’ wall configuration, again with a very small initial offset. Here’s the raw telemetry output, the corresponding Excel plot, and a short video showing the action.

From the above it is pretty clear that PID(350,0,0) and ‘tweak’ divisor 50 does a very good job of tracking a straight, one-break or two-break wall at a defined offset distance. In addition it is pretty clear that this configuration does not require a separate ‘offset capture’ function – it does just fine all by itself. I guess I’m a little bummed out that I spent so much time ‘perfecting’ (to the degree that anything I do can be said to be ‘perfect’) the capture function.

23 July 2023 Update:

I have been trying to address the tendency of WallE3 to oscillate back and forth after navigating past the 45º break from the entrance hallway into the kitchen, and I kept getting the feeling I had already solved this problem at least once before. I searched through my older posts and found this one, which clearly shows much better performance than I was now seeing. After carefully perusing the above data, I finally figured out the difference; the above runs used a 50mSec interval, and I was currently using a 100mSec interval – oops!

I changed my current code to 50mSec, and ‘sure nuff’ WallE3’s wall tracking performance around breaks improved dramatically – yay!

This episode proves once again the value of copious documentation – you never know when you will need advice from your former self!

After changing the PID update interval to 50 vs 100 mSec, I made a few runs on my ’45º break’ wall configuration with PID = (350,0,0), (350,0,10), (350,0,20), and (350,0,30). As shown in the following three short videos, both the (350,0,10) and (350,0,20) produced better tracking performance, but the (350,0,30) was definitely inferior.

After these tests, I edited WallE3_Complete_V3 to use PID = (350,0,20) with a 50mSec interval.