@@ -90,19 +90,19 @@ We tried to change the i-value - which was 4 initialy
*Setpoint:*
We tried a form of grid search on the value of the setpoint: Noting that the value measured by the robot initially was around 580, we started with a value of 500 to see the effect. We then tried a value of 750 (simply to try something somewhat in the middle between 500 and the highest possible value of 1000-something). Seeing how poorly both of these affected the robot's performance, we then tried a value of 600 which made the robot perform a lot better. We then started narrowing in between 600 and 550, ending at a value of 577.
NB: The robot was casting shade, depending on the direction that the light was coming from, which affected the light readings.
*P value:*
Was originally 28, in the code that we used as basis for our own.
Using the grid search approach again, we first tried with 40 (robot falling forward a lot) and 10 (robot corrects too slowly but simply falls forward right away). We then tried 70, in which case the robot also kept falling a lot, but the corrections seemed more aggressive (which makes sense), causing it to oscillate violently.
We changed the setpoint to 585 and tried values of p between 40 and 70. As before, 70 caused violent oscillations and instability. Both 55 and 40 seemed more stable. We decided to continue testing with a value of 40.
Additional observation: The robot seems to stop briefly once in a while. This seemed to happen more with p = 70 than with p = 40.
*TRYING SOMETHING NEW (inspired by the above approach)*
Strategy: Trying extreme values for each variable to understand the effect of changing it. Then trying empirically to find good parameter values by utilizing this knowledge.
