Welcome to the InfoSci Platform
Reference Hub14
Simulator for Teaching Robotics, ROS and Autonomous Driving in a Competitive Mindset

Simulator for Teaching Robotics, ROS and Autonomous Driving in a Competitive Mindset

Valter Costa, Rosaldo Rossetti, Armando Sousa
Copyright: © 2017 |Volume: 13 |Issue: 4 |Pages: 14
ISSN: 1548-3908|EISSN: 1548-3916|EISBN13: 9781522511304|DOI: 10.4018/IJTHI.2017100102
Cite Article Cite Article

MLA

Costa, Valter, et al. "Simulator for Teaching Robotics, ROS and Autonomous Driving in a Competitive Mindset." IJTHI vol.13, no.4 2017: pp.19-32. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2017100102

APA

Costa, V., Rossetti, R., & Sousa, A. (2017). Simulator for Teaching Robotics, ROS and Autonomous Driving in a Competitive Mindset. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 13(4), 19-32. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2017100102

Chicago

Costa, Valter, Rosaldo Rossetti, and Armando Sousa. "Simulator for Teaching Robotics, ROS and Autonomous Driving in a Competitive Mindset," International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI) 13, no.4: 19-32. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2017100102

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite Full-Issue Download

Abstract

Interest in robotics field as a teaching tool to promote the STEM areas has grown in the past years. The search for solutions to promote robotics is a major challenge and the use of real robots always increases costs. An alternative is the use of a simulator. The construction of a simulator related with the Portuguese Autonomous Driving Competition using Gazebo as 3D simulator and ROS as a middleware connection to promote, attract, and enthusiasm university students to the mobile robotics challenges is presented. It is intended to take advantage of a competitive mindset to overcome some obstacles that appear to students when designing a real system. The proposed simulator focus on the autonomous driving competition task, such as semaphore recognition, localization, and motion control. An evaluation of the simulator is also performed, leading to an absolute error of 5.11% and a relative error of 2.76% on best case scenarios relating to the odometry tests, an accuracy of 99.37% regarding to the semaphore recognition tests, and an average error of 1.8 pixels for the FOV tests performed.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore.