Ouster lidar 64 support about floam HOT 9 OPEN

I have a gradient OS1-64, what configuration should I use?

from floam.

Hi, I have a similar request: I would like to use FLAOM with a Ouster OS0-64 dataset. I can see there are some hard coded angles here:

from floam.

hi @masterhui and @islamtalha01

from ouster website, note that there are several configuration as shown below

By default, it should be uniform beam spacing. We use uniform beam for example.
else if (N_SCANS == 64)
{
scanID = round((angle + 22.5) * 45.0 / 63.0);
if (scanID > (N_SCANS - 1) || scanID < 0)
continue;

}

However, for those who use OS0 and OS2,
The harware configuration is different, OS2 is 22.5 and OS0 is 90, please change accordingly based on the code above.

Hence, for OS0, it is
else if (N_SCANS == 64)
{
scanID = round((angle + 45) * 90.0 / 63.0);
if (scanID > (N_SCANS - 1) || scanID < 0)
continue;
}

You can leave you question here for different sensor support.

from floam.

Hello @wh200720041
thank you for your tips. I have followed your advice and replaced the above lines in laserProcessingClass.cpp for use with my Ouster OS0-64, which is configured for uniform 90° vertical field of view. However, after re-compiling the results look much worse than when using the original Velodyne code.

Map with original code:

Map with Ouster OS0-64 code:

Any ideas why this might be the case?
Regards

from floam.

from floam.

Hi, here is a quick update. I managed to get this to work perfectly with data from my Ouster OS0-64. In case someone else is looking for a solution, please see patch below.
Settings-for-Ouster-OS0-64-90.patch.txt

from floam.

from floam.

Not sure if I understand your question. One of the features of F-LOAM is that it doesn't require an IMU, am I wrong?

from floam.

Hi @gglaspell
Check out the patch I posted above for the OS0-64. You will have to modify the values as the OS1 has different vertical opening angles.

from floam.