
Modern Robotics: Mechanics, Planning, and Control – Free Textbook (2017) - n-izem
http://hades.mech.northwestern.edu/index.php/Modern_Robotics
======
TheCuriousGuy
Thanks.

I will highly recommend reading this textbook along with RM Murray's "A
Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation" [1]. Both of these
textbooks provide very intuitive and clear cut explaination of principles
behing robotic motion and planning.

I would also highly recommend completing a 5-course specialization on Coursera
[2] by the same name as the first textbook. The course is conducted by the
author, he uses plenty of great visualization to explain the concepts clearly
and the course follows the textbook.

1\.
[https://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/books/MLS/pdf/mls94-comp...](https://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/books/MLS/pdf/mls94-complete.pdf)

2\.
[https://www.coursera.org/specializations/modernrobotics](https://www.coursera.org/specializations/modernrobotics)

~~~
chombier
After quickly scanning the summary and first chapters, it looks pretty similar
to MLS94, perhaps a little more approachable.

------
candiodari
Whilst this is interesting, this isn't where the field is going. This is
useful if, say, you want to make a CNC robot with extreme rigidity.

Replacing forward and inverse kinematics with machine learning is extremely
simple, and avoids most of the problems these formulas have (for instance,
they don't consider that a robot might attempt to move through itself). And
while grasping and manipulation isn't simple even with machine learning, I
think you'll agree that the theory in these books also very, very much isn't
simple.

And the problem is that the current capabilities of robots using these
formulas from books like these ... are insufficient. They need to become WAY
more complex to be useful, but that's impossible: they're already damned
complicated.

The outlook very much is that the only way we'll ever arrive at the required
complexity for these machines is through machine learning, and if not that,
then through some form of automated program writing. A human just cannot write
safe and working code that deals with robots in open settings and/or where
interactions might occur.

You should probably still learn the very basic parts. Chapter 9 and 11. But
after that, you will likely get further with machine learning.

~~~
salamanderman
You can go a long long way with what's in this book. Think of factory robots,
medical robotics, cruise control, aircraft components, etc. Just because it
can't handle a robot octopus doesn't mean it's pointless.

------
mrcoder111
The topology part of these textbooks is the hardest for me. Understanding the
2d representations of the shapes. Where can one get a more bottom up
explanation of the crucial topology concepts? Also bad at geometry in general

~~~
pvarangot
Control or spatial-related DSP has a lot of geometry going on and it's really
hard to get with a good working knowledge. I don't know if there's a short
path. Start with a good linear algebra course maybe in parallel to actually
trying to solve or hack though the type of problems you want to solve, and
thinking about how the basic stuff you are learning complements with the high
level one.

Besides the courses recommended here this are other online materials related
to planning, location and control I found really useful and consider to be
high quality:

[https://github.com/rlabbe/Kalman-and-Bayesian-Filters-in-
Pyt...](https://github.com/rlabbe/Kalman-and-Bayesian-Filters-in-Python)
[https://www.coursera.org/learn/mobile-
robot](https://www.coursera.org/learn/mobile-robot)

For Linear Algebra I really like Strang's course on OCW taken together with
reading through his book.

~~~
mrcoder111
I took a linear algebra course. Maybe I need to restudy but I would rather
have links to exact chapters than reading the whole thing, as I don't see a
direct path from the linear algebra I studied to the topology concepts and
geometry here. Specifically there weren't any curves in linear algebra. Ex
4.10 and 4.11 here:
[http://planning.cs.uiuc.edu/node143.html](http://planning.cs.uiuc.edu/node143.html)

Are examples of things that are hard for me to understand. Especially that 2d
picture in 4.11

~~~
chongli
You have to study quite a lot of linear algebra before you can tackle
functional analysis, the subject which includes the study of topological
vector spaces. I don't know anything about robotics, however, so I don't know
how functional analysis would apply, if at all.

~~~
tnecniv
Functional analysis shows up all over the place. Everywhere you can take a
Fourier transform, you can use functional analysis. For robotics, control
theory and computer vision both come to mind.

------
msadowski
Thanks for the link! That seems super interesting! You just made me regret
publishing Weekly Robotics couple of hours ago. This link would make for a
great addition!

~~~
wonjohnchoi
This made me interested what Weekly Robotics is about and just did a search on
it. It seems useful. I put link for you:
[https://weeklyrobotics.com/](https://weeklyrobotics.com/)

~~~
ngcc_hk
Well beyond my level. But good to scan through

------
solipsism
Are robotics courses these days not covering flight-related topics? It seems
like they should, given the state of drone/uav technology.

~~~
godelski
I wouldn't assume that an introductory course would. The concepts in an
introductory course will lend a lot to flight vehicles, but flight adds a lot
of complications and reduces survivability when failure happens.

Learn to walk before you fly.

~~~
CamperBob2
Flying is one helluva lot easier than walking.

~~~
Zeebrommer
*Learn to roll before you fly!

~~~
godelski
Thanks. Sometimes I forget that people will abuse the intent of a comment to
be technically correct.

------
LifeLiverTransp
I have seen this so often, this top-down approach. And it never arrives at the
factory floor. All those object orientated, industry 4.0 robots, they looks so
nice to the professionals on trade-shows, and then there is one example
bought- and put to all the other show-off-proto-types in the company-tour room
of archievments- and on the factory floor we use the same old robots, for
which all the legacy software was written - that nobody can ditch anymore.

And none of those high flying concepts ever talk about those maintaining the
robots. Those who never attended High School, who are okay with a 9000 line
copy pasted Procedural program, and not okay with object orientation or even
functional programing style.

Im so sick of all that wasted time in startups, where people like me fresh
from university develop - new, idea robots, who will never take hold in a
actual factory- because none of those revoluzzers wants to spend all its time
in that factory, maintaining the robot- beeing the only one competent enough
todo so.

Sorry if this is a rant, but i wish for once that economic reality would nuke
some sense into the architects of that tomorrow that never comes. Maybee we
could have small, nice things, if we where willing to do the little steps.

