... | ... | @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ After implementing the programs enabling easy PID parameter search, we started p |
|
|
To systematically observe which values of P, I and D worked better for our robot we needed to have a best possible starting point (i.e. the robot being in equilibrium), and we therefore began by trying to find a good setpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Finding a good setpoint
|
|
|
To find the best possible setpoint we decided to use the PID values of Bagnall's initial program (p = 28, i = 4, d = 33) and then trying to narrow our way into the best possible value by starting with a (from our prior experience) low- and high value. This resulted in the observations presented in table 1.
|
|
|
To find the best possible setpoint we decided to use the PID values of Bagnall's initial program (p = 28, i = 4, d = 33) and then trying to narrow our way into the best possible value by starting with (from our prior experience) low and high values. This resulted in the observations presented in table 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Setpoint value | Status | Observation |
|
|
|
| --- | --- | --- |
|
... | ... | @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ To find the best possible setpoint we decided to use the PID values of Bagnall's |
|
|
| 570 | Too low | Falls backwards, with less balance than for sp = 570 |
|
|
|
| 575 | OK | Seems to mostly be falling backwards|
|
|
|
| 578 | OK | Pretty good initial balance with no preferred fall-direction|
|
|
|
| 577 | OK | Maybe better - really hard to tell |
|
|
|
| 577 | OK | Same as or better than 578 - really hard to tell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Table 1: Observations for the effect of various setpoint values for the balancing robot as moving towards better values*
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |