1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
63
lateral component and exhibits smaller variation in steady-state (e.g. Figure 4.4).
|
|||||||||||
4. 1. 1 |
|||||||||||
The walks generated using the up-vector display a number of notable characteristics. |
First, while |
||||||||||
step length is not a regulated variable, virtually all of the walks travel a uniform distance from one |
|||||||||||
step to the next. Figure 4.7 shows the step lengths over the course of a typical walk. |
This result |
||||||||||
is encouraging since an irregular walk would be much less appealing and a suitable remedy is not immediately obvious. This also serves as evidence that the unobservable state variables approach a limit cycle as desired.
|
|||||||||||
This can be seen clearly in the hip plots of Figure 4.3. |
Without any form of directional control, |
||||||||||
most of the walks follow a curved path. The chaotic walk corresponding to the Qd= [.35,0] trial of Figure 4.3 (d) follows a less regular path, weaving back and forth over the course of the trial. As we shall see in the next chapter, this can be solved by explicitly controlling the biped's direction with an additional feedback loop.
|
|||||||||||
line with the previous in the lateral dimension as if walking a tightrope. |
In a few cases, this even |
||||||||||
results in the biped crossing legs slightly each step, with one leg passing through the other since |
|||||||||||
such interpenetrations are not prohibited in our simulations. |
While the tightrope walkingis |