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
**Pedro Pathing** is a path-following library that utilizes a reactive vector follower
4
-
that implements translational, heading, and centripetal force correction
5
-
to dynamically converge to the target position.
3
+
| Feature | Pedro Pathing | Road Runner |
4
+
|--------|--------|--------|
5
+
|**Path Following**| Path Follower | Trajectory follower using motion profiling |**Visualizer**| Web-based using a nonstandard (0 - 144) coordinate scheme | Code-based using the standard FTC coordinate scheme |
6
+
|**Tuning**| Half manual and half automatic | Nearly all automatic |
7
+
|**Motor Write Caching**| Used by default | Able to be implemented manually |
- Stable, minimal bugs if any. (Recently, this has not been true)
43
-
- Time consistent by default.
44
-
- Tuning is almost fully automated, making it difficult to screw up. <!-- 5 automatically tuned constants, 3 manually tuned constants ... PEOPLE still do? -->
45
-
- Extensively tested and used by thousands of teams; almost all possible problems have been solved before.
46
-
- Uses the FIRST-recommended standard coordinate system consistently.
47
-
<!-- - Works with SlothLoad immediately. || this is a quickstart thing, not a library thing itself? -->
48
-
- Built-in custom logs, for easier debugging and full replays of every run.
49
-
50
-
**Cons of Roadrunner:**
51
-
- Prioritizes time consistency above all else, meaning worse correction.
52
-
- Slower speed by default.
53
-
- Path curves are less flexible then Pedro.
54
-
- Path visualizer is code based.
55
-
- Does not cache motor writes by default.
56
-
- No built-in centripetal force correction.
57
-
- Bulk reads by default.
58
20
59
21
<!--
60
22
@@ -63,8 +25,6 @@ Guidelines for editing this page:
63
25
Differences must be objective issues from a neutral point of view, not one sided.
64
26
Ideally, people with biases in both directions should agree about these differences.
65
27
66
-
Each difference will be listed twice, as a pro of one library and as a con of another. // Just because something is a pro of smth doesnt mean its a con of the other...
67
-
68
28
Actively avoid being reductive or summarizing into an overall recommendation;
69
29
the idea of the page is that both libraries are good for different needs,
70
30
and the reader should decide for themself which library aligns with their priorities.
@@ -76,7 +36,6 @@ If you feel that a library has too many cons, consider fixing the underlying iss
76
36
and improving the experience for all users. Let us know (in an issue, PR, or in the Cookbook Discord)
77
37
after this happens and we will be happy to remove it from the list.
0 commit comments