You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We use the multiscan 165 with this driver and have the following issue:
We use the tick_to_timestamp_mode = 0 and get timestamps that look correct, but they overlap if you look closely at the t field.
If you calculate the offset in field t to each point from one scan, it looks like, that the latest points are detected, after the next scan is already started.
It looks like an overlap from one scan to the next scan.
We analysed the timestamps with the calculated offset in field t and tried to displayed it on the following image:
In the image you can see the header stamp as the dashed vertical line and the horizontal lines show the offsets for each layer.
You can see that some scans do not start exactly after the previous one according to the header stamp and the next, subsequent scan starts before the previous one is finished according to the header stamp.
It looks to us as if the headerstamps jump back and forth.
Hopefully the picture helps to understand the problem.
Our Setup
Sick Scanner: multiScan165
Driver: sick_scan_xd
Firmware: 2.2.2
ROS2: Humble
Timesync: PTP
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Problem
We use the multiscan 165 with this driver and have the following issue:
We use the tick_to_timestamp_mode = 0 and get timestamps that look correct, but they overlap if you look closely at the t field.
If you calculate the offset in field t to each point from one scan, it looks like, that the latest points are detected, after the next scan is already started.
It looks like an overlap from one scan to the next scan.
We analysed the timestamps with the calculated offset in field t and tried to displayed it on the following image:
In the image you can see the header stamp as the dashed vertical line and the horizontal lines show the offsets for each layer.
You can see that some scans do not start exactly after the previous one according to the header stamp and the next, subsequent scan starts before the previous one is finished according to the header stamp.
It looks to us as if the headerstamps jump back and forth.
Hopefully the picture helps to understand the problem.
Our Setup
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: