Chevron Left
Robotics: Computational Motion Planning に戻る

ペンシルベニア大学(University of Pennsylvania) による Robotics: Computational Motion Planning の受講者のレビューおよびフィードバック

4.3
928件の評価
237件のレビュー

コースについて

Robotic systems typically include three components: a mechanism which is capable of exerting forces and torques on the environment, a perception system for sensing the world and a decision and control system which modulates the robot's behavior to achieve the desired ends. In this course we will consider the problem of how a robot decides what to do to achieve its goals. This problem is often referred to as Motion Planning and it has been formulated in various ways to model different situations. You will learn some of the most common approaches to addressing this problem including graph-based methods, randomized planners and artificial potential fields. Throughout the course, we will discuss the aspects of the problem that make planning challenging....

人気のレビュー

FC

Nov 28, 2018

The course was challenging, but fulfilling. Thank you Coursera and University of Pennsylvania for giving this wonderful experience and opportunity that I might not experience in our local community!

AD

Jul 03, 2018

The topic was very interesting, and the assignments weren't overly complicated. Overall, the lesson was fun and informative , despite the bugs in the learning tool(especially, the last assignment.)

フィルター:

Robotics: Computational Motion Planning: 176 - 200 / 232 レビュー

by Anton L

Oct 30, 2017

Lectures are small, assignments are poor quality, you will probably solve matlab coding problems and try to adapt your working (at least your visual inspection says so) solution bad autograder without ANY FEEDBACK

by Julius S

Jun 06, 2016

Great course! but there was too little content!!!! Double it !! Or double the coursework! make us do more work! Also, tell people to use 'parfor' to speed up the computations.

Otherwise, great course!

by Mike Z

May 23, 2016

Very good introduction course for motion planning. Could be better if there is more interactions with the TAs. Also the matlab assignments have some minor mistakes which takes time to figure it out.

by Emeka E

Mar 11, 2016

I think there is need to provide clearer instructions on how to get the programming assignments done. The course content is good, but doing the programming assignments needs to be more clarified.

by Alex M

Mar 13, 2016

Most of the homework assignments aren't graded correctly out of the box and have errors. Also, only specific solutions are selected. Otherwise it's great material at a good pace.

by Lucas H C S

Sep 23, 2017

Matlab online makes this course activities expensive in time, and some algorithms are not explained on the classe or texts, so you need to search a lot.

by Taimoor D K

Aug 28, 2018

Course content is very good however topics should be covered in much detail. Frequent bugs in programming assignments is also a concern.

by 李晨曦

Jun 25, 2017

Too few details of the algorithms are provided. The assignment are too simplified to help students develop a good grasp of the contents.

by Luke J

Sep 13, 2016

Not much content covered in course, especially compared to Aerial Robotics. No real great sense of achievement on completion.

by Unnat A

Jul 01, 2019

The lectures should cover more in depth theory to better explain the concepts before giving such challenging assignments.

by Rayad K

Mar 09, 2016

In comparison to the first course this one lacks a lot of organization and debugging before sending it to the public

by Marthinus J

Apr 09, 2020

There was not enough examples or supplementary readings. Also the mentors and teachers dont reply on the forum.

by Sathvik D

Sep 24, 2017

Covers the essentials pretty well. But, the programming assignments need a lot of improvement !!!

by Ajay G

Nov 20, 2016

can be much better with little bit of more explanations and more relevant resources for help

by Chris A

Apr 08, 2016

Very interesting material, but also very light instruction. Requires some MATlab intuition.

by Yixuan B

Mar 21, 2016

The materials are not deep enough. And the programming assignments are just so-so.

by Fernando C

Mar 31, 2016

The lectures were good, but many assignments had errors (graders, errors in code)

by Dmitry V

Mar 13, 2016

Great course but programming assignments in MATLAB had too many issues.

by JOSÉ M L R

Apr 14, 2020

Its good but we need more support in the programming task

by Qiu Q

Jun 20, 2016

Only for introduction, more materials shoulb be supplied.

by 一敏 葛

Feb 25, 2016

Feedback is useless, but content is fine.

by Yiming Z

Aug 17, 2017

Could have brought more advanced topics

by Elie S

Nov 06, 2019

should improve the online assignments

by Bakhtiar M

Nov 27, 2019

The grader had quite some issues.

by JJ W

Mar 14, 2016

So I'll start with the positives. The material was appropriate and interesting and well presented. CJ Taylor is an enthusiastic lecturer and the material was presented in an enjoyable easy to understand way and having finished the course, I definitely want to learn more about computational motion planning.

The problems I have with this course though are numerous. This is the second part of the Robotics Specialization and compared to the first part, this course was very weak. There was very little lecture material and the course felt thin - as if it were 2 weeks of material stretched over 4. There were many instances where the lectures could have gone in to much more detail and just didn't, I appreciate that you can't cover everything in lectures, but would it have killed you to provide or at least point to some good additional reading resources?

The assessments were the worst part. The quizzes barely tested what I had learnt and could mostly be solved by common sense. What I find shocking is that there were so few questions with few multiple choice answer that you could easily brute-force these quizzes if you really wanted to. Compare this to the Aerial Robotics course where the quizzes took time and forced me to think and understand what was discussed in lecture.

The programming assignments were shockingly bad. They were hard for completely the wrong reasons. I spent most of my time on them not coding the solution, but trying to figure out what was actually wanted and fixing bugs that were in the provided code that we WEREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO EDIT. The autograder would never tell you why you were wrong, just "I'm sorry, your solution didn't pass all of our test cases." This meant that finding the solution was based on guesswork rather than considered thought. This was made even worse by the fact that some simulations took a long time to run which made iterating guesses very slow - and doing this on a time limit is just pointlessly stressful.

One of the assignments had the solution already in the source code as the instructors had forgotten to take it out.

The final assignment wouldn't even run out of the box without fixing bugs in the provided code. This would have taken seconds to check had the person who wrote it bothered to check their work beforehand.

Thing is, the tasks provided in principle weren't that hard, they were actually kind of too easy. Dijkstra's algorithm isn't that difficult to implement from scratch, and yet all that was asked of us was to implement a small 10 line for-loop. That said, I appreciate that as a software engineer, I might find this sort of thing much easier than most, but even so I don't feel as though the programming assignments helped me learn anything.

Overall, regardless of how interesting the material was, this course was very shoddily put together. I appreciate this is the first time the course has been run, but this really felt phoned in and unacceptable. I paid money for this course and the quality of it is notably worse than most free MOOCs I have taken. I feel ripped off and I sincerely hope that the next section is better otherwise I doubt I will bother to continue until the end. I thought Penn University was better than this.