MSRS: Critique on its Usability via a Path Planning Algorithm Implementation

  • George Markou
  • Ioannis Refanidis
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 296)

Abstract

In recent years an expanding number of robotics software platforms have emerged, with Microsoft expressing its interest in the field by releasing its own in 2006. This fact has created a highly competitive environment, as the majority of the products are mostly incompatible to each other, with every platform trying to establish itself as the field's standard. Thus, the question that arises is whether a platform is suited for educational purposes or creating a complete robotics intelligence package. This paper provides a study on the learnability, usability and features of Microsoft Robotics Studio, by creating and integrating into it a version of the Lifelong Planning A* algorithm (LPA*) algorithm.

Keywords

Migration Editing 

References

  1. 1.
    Blank D, Kumar D, Marshall J & Meeden L (2007) Advanced robotics projects for undergraduate students. AAAI Spring Symposium: Robots and Robot Venues: Resources for AI Education: 10–15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruyninckx H (2001) Open robot control software: the OROCOS project. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (3): 2523–2528Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruyninckx H (2007) Microsoft Robotics Studio: Expected impact, Challenges & Alternatives. Panel presentation at the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and AutomationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerkey B (2005) The Player Robot Device Interface — Player utilities. http://playerstage.sourceforge.net/doc/Player-2.0.0/player/group__utils.html. Accessed 15 January 2009
  5. 5.
    Hart P E, Nilsson N J, Raphael B (1968) A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science & Cybernetics, 4(2):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson J (2007) Microsoft Robotics Studio: A Technical Introduction. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 14(4):82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koenig S, Likhachev M & Furcy D (2004) Lifelong Planning A*. Artificial Intelligence, 155 (1–2):93–146MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koenig S, Likhachev M, Liu Y & Furcy D (2004) Incremental Heuristic Search in Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine, 25(2):99–112Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Likhachev M & Koenig S (2005) A Generalized Framework for Lifelong Planning A*. Proceedings International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling: 99–108Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michael N, Fink J & Kumar V (2008) Experimental Testbed for Large Multirobot Teams. IEEE Robots and Automation Magazine, 15(1):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Microsoft Corporation (2008) Microsoft CCR and DSS Toolkit 2008: Tyco Case Study. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=130995. Accessed 13 January 2009
  12. 12.
    Microsoft Corporation (2008) Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio: CCR Introduction. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb648752.aspx. Accessed 12 January 2009
  13. 13.
    Microsoft Corporation (2008) Microsoft Robotics Studio Partners. http://msdn.micrsoft.com/en-us/robotics/bb383566.aspx. Accessed 15 October 2008
  14. 14.
    Morgan S (2008) Programming Microsoft Robotics Studio, Microsoft PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morgan S (2008) Robotics: Simulating the World with Microsoft Robotics Studio. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc546547.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2009
  16. 16.
    Ramalingam G & Reps T (1996) An incremental algorithm for a generalization of the shortest-path problem. Journal of Algorithms, 21:267–305MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richter J (2006) Concurrent Affairs: Concurrency and Coordination Runtime. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163556.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2009
  18. 18.
    RoboCupRescue (2006) Rescue Simulation Leagues. http://www.robocuprescue.org/simleagues.html. Accessed 25 October 2008
  19. 19.
    SimplySim (2008) Generic Environment. http://www.simplysim.net/index.php?scr=scrAc-cueil&idcategorie=1. Accessed 12 January 2009
  20. 20.
    Somby M (2008) Software Platforms for Service Robotics http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9631072539.html. Accessed 18 October 2008
  21. 21.
    Taylor T (2008) MSRS Maze Simulator. http://www.soft-tech.com.au/MSRS/MazeSimulator/MazeSimulator.htm. Accessed 23 September 2008
  22. 22.
    Tick J (2006) Convergence of Programming Development Tools for Autonomous Mobile Research Robots. Proceedings Serbian-Hungarian Joint Symposium on Intelligent Systems: 375–382Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsai W T, Chen Y, Sun X, et al. (2007) Designing a Service-Oriented Computing Course for High Schools. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering: 686– 693Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turner D (2006) Microsoft Moves into Robotics. http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/17419/page2/. Accessed 21 October 2008
  25. 25.
    Ulanoff L (2006) Rivals Skeptical of Microsoft's New Robot Software. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1979617,00.asp. Accessed 21 October 2008
  26. 26.
    Workman K & Elzer S (2009) Utilizing Microsoft robotics studio in undergraduate robotics. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 24(3):65–71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Markou
    • 1
  • Ioannis Refanidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied InformaticsUniversity of Macedonia ThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations