Chevron Left
Вернуться к Robotics: Mobility

Отзывы учащихся о курсе Robotics: Mobility от партнера Пенсильванский университет

Оценки: 541
Рецензии: 135

О курсе

How can robots use their motors and sensors to move around in an unstructured environment? You will understand how to design robot bodies and behaviors that recruit limbs and more general appendages to apply physical forces that confer reliable mobility in a complex and dynamic world. We develop an approach to composing simple dynamical abstractions that partially automate the generation of complicated sensorimotor programs. Specific topics that will be covered include: mobility in animals and robots, kinematics and dynamics of legged machines, and design of dynamical behavior via energy landscapes....

Лучшие рецензии

4 июня 2017 г.

The material itself is worth a few stars. Clearly lots of work has gone into making some interesting interactive matlab demos. some of the quizzes are unnecessarily confusing.

20 авг. 2017 г.

Very vast and intuitive course.I found all the information required to design my own legged robot ! I will try and design my own . Thank you so much !

Фильтр по:

76–100 из 127 отзывов о курсе Robotics: Mobility

автор: Chandandeep S

30 янв. 2018 г.

COuld have been better if it recommended some prerequisitives. It was a really challenging one especially it requiring background knowledge. Course could provide relevant background study references that are related to the questions asked rather than asking them to forage through the resources section and try to read everything. While it definitely gives a better understanding if one reads the resources. I read one or two papers and they helped me understand the material a little better. What I demand though is provision of relevant resources. Then I would give it 5 stars.

автор: Antonio C R G N S

31 мар. 2017 г.

The course starts with a nice mathematical support. Midway it looses connection with mathematical details in a way that it becomes too vague and does not empower the student to really grasp the concepts. Some energy-based proofs and the few formulas presented are inserted a bit adhoc and not properly explained.

Despite not being to my liking in terms of depth, It is a good course as a general understanding of what has been accomplished in robotic legged-locomotion, what the state of the art is and where to find literature.

автор: Viktoras T

20 нояб. 2017 г.

I found it hard to understand some topics especially when instructors are just reading from the slides. I really wish there was a bit more time spent on explaining the intuition behind some of these concepts so that people completely new to the field could understand what is the meaning of it all. I found quizes even more disconnected from the material and either way too easy or requiring background knowledge. Overall, I enjoyed the material and was just disappointed with exercises and some of the instructors.

автор: Robert E

28 нояб. 2019 г.

Quizzes often have vague instructions and unclear connection to course material. Course content and lectures need editing and revision. For example. 2.1.3 lecture is to dense It has important information that should be spread out more, with other content removed. Lecture 3.2.3 has dubious connection to course. There is interesting material here, but more focus and organization would improve course.


28 сент. 2016 г.

The Course material and method of testing the understanding of the student needs to be improved. Despite the low quality of the quizzes, the course is very inspiring. The examples showed are very good and the lectures concentrated on teaching the underlying concept rather the Mathematics involved, which was refreshing.

автор: Leif K

5 апр. 2016 г.

Nice high level overview of the motion of robots. I would have liked to do more programming (modeling of robots, controllers, etc.) in the course and have the lectures tie in closer with the content of the quizzes. The TAs were very active in the forums and helped clarify/fix any problems that came up.

автор: Jorge H O S

22 янв. 2018 г.

The course is very interesting and full of valuable information, but the evaluations were made to fail. It requires a lot of additional research and the apparent intention of not passing the different quizzes becomes almost frustrating. It is full of tricky questions.


11 июля 2020 г.

Interesting topics covered, I think it may be possible to organize the material to give a better picture of the state of the art in legged mobility, and perhaps add more details on composing the controllers

автор: Iftach

1 окт. 2016 г.

many subjects are not clear enough.

it is better to put links and pictures than send us to look in lectures for a specific time frame.

and still it was very interesting and motivating course. thanks!

автор: Shaun L

8 мар. 2018 г.

The course could give more worked out examples in lecture as opposed to just pure theory and leaving the examples for the students to figure out in the quizzes. A lot of students learn by example.

автор: Guillermo C

4 мая 2017 г.

The content is interesting, it does not go into details, but it was well delivered. The evaluation is ambiguous, way beyond the scope of the presented material, and it contains errors.

автор: Cristian D

13 апр. 2017 г.

Very uneven. There are some good insights and ideas in there, but no way will a beginner be able to make sense of this. It's more like a sort of refresher/inspiration course.

автор: Piotr G

20 апр. 2016 г.

Very interesting course, both tests and assignments are

demanding but fair.

Biggest problem of this course is that not all required topics are covered

enough in lectures.

автор: Julius S

6 июня 2016 г.

Good course. Stands well in the specialization. It was a bit buggy throughout tho. And the assignments could have focussed more on the control part.

автор: Barak R

29 мар. 2020 г.

course started very very interesting and the first two weeks were great.

exercises were unclear and had a lot of errors making it very frustrating.

автор: Yiming Z

27 авг. 2017 г.

It generally introduced mobility. But could have introduce more about the analytical model of these templates in this master level course.

автор: E. A P R

28 мая 2020 г.

I liked the course, it helped me understand leg robotics. Although I think the course has to improve the lectures of week 3 and the last.

автор: Aditya D

22 мая 2016 г.

Good teachers but a lot of questions in the quizzes were very ambiguous and unrelated to the Course Content.

автор: Keng-Hui W

6 июня 2016 г.

There must be something wrong to spend time on google&wiki much more than the course content.

автор: Jianwen L

26 мая 2020 г.

I spent more time on this course than the first and second courses, but I learned less.

автор: Fabio B

26 июня 2017 г.

Theme of the course is very interesting but teachers are not much didactic.

автор: ADITYA N

21 апр. 2020 г.

A bit more detailed explanation on concepts is required

автор: Sanet G

24 июня 2016 г.

This course covers very interesting topics, but there are some serious shortcomings in the lectures. Too much information is just omitted or taken for granted. Some of the lecturers are rather inexperienced. Reading or reciting mathematical expressions in a monotonous voice without actually pointing to the visual representation of the lecture material makes it very difficult to follow. Better care should also be taken with the quizzes - if one looks at the comments or questions posted by some learners, it is clear that we simply don't understand the question, or a question is answered correctly in essence , but the quizz expected more (or less) precision without stating so . Finally for some reason the support from Technical Advisors was also lacking in the specific session that I did, contributing to my frustration and rather negative experience of what could be a very good course

автор: Fernando C

8 апр. 2016 г.

The course has a lot of interesting material, but I believe that a few points may be improved:

1) Exercises with Matlab are not programming ones (except for the PD controller). In my opinion, more detailed exercises (with a guide for solving them) would help to understand better the concepts behind the theory. For example, programming a rimless wheel or a SLIP template.

2) The course has a strong emphasis in theory. Some of the lectures were boring an difficult to follow. As I said before, a more practical approach would be more rewarding.

3) Quizzes were sometimes based on intuition, or topics outside of the course, rather than topics learned from the lessons.

On the other side, the TAs were highly involved in the course. In addition, an extensive list of additional resources (books, papers) is a plus.

I believe that the following sessions will be better than the first one!

автор: karthik r

6 июля 2017 г.

I find the course informative. But it seems like the lectures were really focused bragging about the robots(Hrex,Jerboa,hopping robot etc...) . I'm sure they are good examples and were needed to explain a lot of concepts, but this course doesn't take you through design procedures, how to simulate robots on MATLAB, tuning PID parameters doesn't really help anyone, how to make a simulation on MATLAB?, no information on choosing actuators.I was hoping to design algorithms like in Aerial robotics/Computational motion planning and perception. This course is a collection of data and information. There is hardly any problem solving.

On the brighter side this course give you a different perspective on designing robots and where the present R&D in universities is heading.