- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
First of all, once again I have to say that this project deserves much more attention than what it has at the moment! This is an extremely valuable project for the geospatial community!
That being said, I think that people would more easily engage in the project and participation if they knew if the project is still ongoing or it is “finished” etc.
Ryan, We already spoke briefly about this, but what are the future goals of this project?P.S. do you have any papers published related to the development of software and hardware?
Brs,
Luka -
Hi Luka,
Thanks for the positive feedback regarding the project, I really appreciate it. Hopefully over time more interested users will join the OpenMMS project, as creating a community is the top long-term goal of the project. I’m pretty sure we are all in agreement that lidar technology is only just beginning to emerge on a societal scale (self-driving cars, iPhones, UAV/drones, etc.) and the applications for the technology are endless, IMHO!
Regarding the state of the project, I feel a bit of background is necessary. The OpenMMS project materialized as a result of the academic research I have been conducting in an effort to complete a graduate degree in geomatics at the University of Florida (fingers crossed I’ll be done by mid-2021). However, my academic goals were the catalyst for the project and do not define the project’s scope. Meaning, the OpenMMS project is here to stay…indefinitely! Even if a community never emerges, I will still be actively researching the areas of lidar, photogrammetry, GNSS, INS, and eventually SLAM and AI. Slowly, but surely, new hardware integrations and software applications will be added to the project, along with improvements to the current solution. I can only hope others will decide to join the project!
At the top of the OpenMMS R&D list are the following ideas. Unfortunately, I do not have any time estimates for when these developments will begin.
1. Modify the current OpenMMS aluminum case to support the installation of a Livox Horizon ($800) and/or Avia ($1600) lidar sensor. I have purchased a Horizon sensor already.
2. Explore using an Emlid Reach M2 GNSS receiver ($500) in combination with a Livox Horizon or Avia lidar sensor as an alternative GNSS-INS sensor solution. I have purchased an M2 sensor already. The M2 will acquire the raw GNSS observations and provide the timing reference for the mapping camera photos and lidar observations, and the internal IMU onboard the Horizon or Avia will acquire the raw accelerometer and gyroscope observations. It would still be a post-processed (PPK) solution and therefore would require the use of GNSS-INS processing software. NovAtel’s Inertial Explorer Xpress or possibly Aceinna’s OpenIMU software ecosystem could be used. The ultimate goal would be to find/develop a 100% open-source GNSS-INS processing software.
3. Investigate using a ByNav A1-3H GNSS-INS sensor ($700) as an alternative to the Applanix APX-18. It would also still require the use of GNSS-INS processing software.
4. Develop an alternative OpenMMS case design that utilizes 3D printing rather than CNC milling. The goal is to provide a more accessible means for interested users to produce the needed hardware components.
We just recently submitted our first manuscript to an academic journal. If the paper is accepted I will surely be posting a News announcement here on the website.
All the best,
-Ryan
-
Dear Professor Ryan,
I have read with great enthusiasm all your work on OpenMMS and I am really convinced that OpenMMS is on the right path to allow the dissemination of mapping through LIDAR technology at all levels. I have had the opportunity to work for about seven years with integrations of LIDAR systems from different origins of the world and managed to acquire the necessary knowledge to achieve very successful mapping of large areas. Of course putting small grains of sand that managed to significantly improve the development of lidar mapping in my country of origin.
Regarding the discussion about the cost of the APX-18 system, he believed that APPLANIX is a very effective turnkey solution. Despite the high cost involved.
I believe that the way to obtain a much cheaper solution and manage to maintain the quality and precision of the data. At least the airborne acquisition is in the hands of a Trimble BD940 receiver in combination with an IMU STIM300 sensor processed by NovAtel’s Inertial Explorer Xpress solution.
Technical discussions are always very enthusiastic and diverse. I have taken the audacity to make suggestions given the clarity and precision with which you managed to get great results for OpenMMS. considered that being able to integrate these two sensors through a microprocessor board, will be a very accessible challenge for the objectives of OpenMMS. Whichever direction your organization takes, I’ll be very excited to hear about it.
-
Hi, Traslavina.
Thank you for your positive and encouraging message. OpenMMS research and development has slowed down (ok, basically stopped) for the time-being but I still have big plans for tackling the GNSS/INS hardware and software problem that is necessary in order to substantially lower the cost of the solution. Ideally, the problem with be solved with a new, custom developed GNSS receiver(s) and IMU open-source hardware integration (using OEM sensors like the BD940 and STIM300) and open-source post-processing software. But it’s a big and complex problem so it’s going to take some time.
All the best,
Ryan
-
-
-
Great hearing Ryan.
I am mining engineer though & try to work on lidar data and Mostly loved your work. Its great to see all those low cost solutions such as Livox lidar use here.
I am planning to buy a Livox Mid-70 buy next month. Could you please advise me, as the mid-70 does not have internal IMU, is it wise to go for a Livox horizon ? (Avia is still out of my budget for my initial experimentations).-
hi,
to my knowledge the mid 70 sensor is not equipped with an IMU -
Hi rmb,
I do not have any first-hand experience with the Livox Mid-70 lidar sensor. I did read through the online user manual and I agree that the Mid-70 does not include an internal IMU. The sensor appears to be very similar to the Mid-40, but with a circular field of view of ~70 deg. Besides the inclusion of an internal IMU within the Horizon sensor, the other primary differences between the two sensors are the field of view, angular precision, point rate, and weight. It really comes down to the application(s) you have in mind for the sensor that will ultimately determine which one is best. Hope this helps? Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,
-RB
-
The OpenIMU route looks promising, with open software and and IMU unit for ~£100 which according to them is the highest grade accuracy available … better than £19,000! Team that up with something like the sparkfun gnss rtk Base system, and that is a pretty affordable setup.
-
-
Hi Ryan!
Thanks for the detailed reply! There are some fantastic things that you have in plans and they will definitely attract people here!
1. Nice, also it would be a good idea to have a 3d model of the case available for download somewhere. I know it is available embedded in the website but it does not allow me to “run in fusion360”. I also found ti on the grabcad.com but I can not open that one too. When I try that it says “New design cannot be created from a local file containing external references”.
2. Great, emlid reach is already a well-known product that is relatively cheap. Using this with the Livox built-in imu would decrease the price of the hardware integration basically to the hobby level! That would be fantastic!
3. Up to now I haven’t heard of this GNSS/IMU but having it on the existing 1.3v LiDAR would be great. It would make high accuracy scanning available with a fraction of funds required for Applanix hardware!
4. What is the problem with the current case? It cant be 3d printed? My first idea when I saw the case was to print it haha
In general, I think that this is a great way to make this project more accessible but it also brings a lot of questions to the table. i.e. will plastic flexibility influence IMU performance (if I remember well, in 1.2v of the project there was unknown “force” influencing the IMU? apparently it is sensitive), is a consumer-grade printer (e.g. ender 3) capable of printing components with required accuracy…And in my opinion, publishing the paper is the best advertisement for the project. This is at the moment very expensive hobby and most people that have private companies dealing with lidar do not have time for such hobbies, however, people from faculties and institutes typically have funds to “play around” and they are the ones reading the papers! In my next project I am definitely planning to get some equipment that can be used for OpenMMS development! 🙂
-
Hi Luka,
Thanks for the information regarding the issues with the 3D model embedded within the website. I will look into creating a ‘better’ assembled model for the current case design, and make it available for viewing and directly downloading.
There is no problem with the current case design; however, it has been designed to be constructed out of aluminum. I imagine there would be some structural integrity/rigidity issues if the current v1.3 case design were made using PLA/ABS 3D printed parts. The ‘new’ case design I mentioned would be optimized for 3D printing using carbon fiber infused PLA filament. It would be similar in concept to the case used for the v0.9-Beta OpenMMS sensor, as discussed here. The unknown Gremlin/force that plagued the v1.2 sensor design did not have to do with the case material. The v1.2 case was also machined out of aluminum. I believe that the issue resulted from positioning the GNSS-INS sensor in too close of a proximity to the main power circuitry inside the aluminum case. The 3D printed case used within the v0.9-Beta system actually proved to be very rigid and we experienced absolutely no issues with it, besides the case being rather heavy.
Thanks for your continued support!
-RB
-
-
Hi everybody,
I am a new comer here and I am amazed by the quality of what I read. Congratulations Ryan and others.
I really think that the GNSS/IMU integration through APX-18 and PostPac is an obstacle to large diffusion.
So my 2 cents :
1. I saw a promising software alternative here : https://github.com/rodralez/NaveGo
2. Ardusimple is also a good source for GNSS units, with Ublox F9P inside (up to 3 in one board, so pos, pitch roll yaw in once) https://www.ardusimple.com/simplertk2b-receivers/Keep on the good work !
Pascal
-
Ryan, do you have any updates about the ByNav A1-3H GNSS-INS sensor? The specifications look good and it is much cheaper.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.