in my opinion it is the lookahead that have to modified a little bit depending on speed.
Yes, all it needed was the integral to keep turning a bit more to get it there from forces pushing it away.
Honestly, both algorithms use heading to determine the distance and correction. The better the heading - the better it works
Are you say that PP will be working well when we equipped Single GPS + IMU?
Did you watch the latest youtube video on stanley vs PP?
Yes, I have watched a Youtube video. The PP was better than Stanley in U-Turn. But, you and @darrenjlobb say that dual + PP are not good?
But software changes. And stuff gets learned along the way to make it better. The very concept of lining up the pivot on the line makes, in theory, PP far superior to stanley. The limitation, as has been said several times, has been integral.
Stanley has to drive off the line in order to line up the back end (pivot) on the line whereas PP inherently does that. Since it is a calculated steering angle for both, the integral opposes that force by providing more steering angle. The advantage when going around a bend with PP is you first don’t have to add integral to get to the line without any side forces and then also add integral to oppose side forces as well.
Whether dual or single that doesn’t matter.
1 Like
I’m running PP with dual and its great. Like Wolle said, shorten the look ahead and it gets more aggressive and so on.
1 Like
There were certainly issues with the old ino code as well. Too much delay, skips and misses. Now the pid loop is running at 50 hz.
1 Like
Where is this magic ino ?
Is the INO of 4.6.20, available soon.
1 Like
Topic closed. Please continue to this topic for bugs and testing results. Otherwise we need to spit out 2 topics for bugs 
1 Like