How to stabilize the RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator) of low energy Bluetooth beacons (BLE) for more accurate distance calculation?
We are trying to develop an indoor navigation system and came across this problem where the RSSI is fluctuating so much that, the distance estimation is nowhere near the correct value. We tried using an advance average calculator but to no use,
The device is constantly getting RSSI values, how to filter them, how to get the mean value, I am completely lost, please help.
Can anyone suggest any npm library or point in the right direction, I have been searching for many days but have not gotten anywhere.
FRONT END: ReactNative BACKEND: NODEJS
In addition to the answer of #davidgyoung, we would like to point out that any filtering method is a compromise between quality of noise level reduction and the time-lag introduced by this filtration (depending on the characteristic filtering time you use in your method). As was pointed by #davidgyoung, if you take characteristic filtering period T you will get an average time-lag of about T/2.
Thus, I think the best approach to solve your problem is not to try to find the best filtering method but to make changes on the transmitter’s end itself.
First you can increase the number of signals, transmitter per second (most of the modern beacon allow to do so by using manufacturer applications and API).
Secondly, you can increase beacon's power (which is also usually one of the beacon’s settings), which usually reduces signal-to-noise ratio.
Finally, you can compare beacons from different vendors. At Navigine company we experimented and tested lots of different beacons from multiple manufacturers, and it appears that signal-to-noise ratio can significantly vary among existing manufacturers. From our side, we recommend taking a look at kontakt.io beacons (https://kontakt.io/) as an one of the recognized leaders with 5+ years experience in the area.
It is unlikely that you will find a pre-built package that will do what you want as your needs are pretty specific. You will most likely have to wtite your own filtering code.
A key challenge is to decide the parameters of your filtering, as an indoor nav use case often is impacted by time lag. If you average RSSI over 30 seconds, for example, the output of your filter will effectively give you the RSSI of where a moving object was on average 15 seconds ago. This may be inappropriate for your use case if dealing with moving objects. Reducing the averaging interval to 5 seconds might help, but still introduces time lag while reducing smoothing of noise. A filter called an Auto-Regressive Moving Average Filter might be a good choice, but I only have an implementation in Java so you would need to translate to JavaScript.
Finally, do not expect a filter to solve all your problems. Even if you smooth out the noise on the RSSI you may find that the distance estimates are not accurate enough for your use case. Make sure you understand the limits of what is possible with this technology. I wrote a deep dive on this topic here.
I have a set of 12 IMUs mounted on the end effector of my robot arm which I read using a micro controller to determine it's movement. With my controller I can read two sensors simultaneously using direct memory access. After acquiring the measurements I would like to fuse them to make up for the sensor error and generate a more reliable reading than having only one sensor.
After some research my understanding is that I can use a Kalman filter to reach my desired outcome, but still have the problem of all the sensor values having different time stamps, since I can read only two at a time and even if both time stamps will be synchronized perfectly, the next pair will have a different time stamp if only in the µs range.
Now I know controls engineering principles but am completely new to the topic of sensor fusion and google presents me with too many results to find a solution in a reasonable amount of time.
Therefore my question, can anybody point me into the right direction by naming me a certain keyword I need to look for or literature I should work through to better understand that topic, please?
Thank you!
The topic you are dealing with is not an easy one. Try to have a look at the multi-rate kalman filters.
The idea is that you design different kalman filters for each combination of sensor that you can available at the same time, and use it when you have the data from those sensors, while the system state is passed between the various filters.
I would like to increase the density of my AIS or GPS data in order to carry out more precise analyses afterwards. During my research I came across different approaches like interpolation, filtering or imputation. With the first two approaches, there is no doubt that these can be used to approximate the points between two collected data points.
In the case of imputation (e.g. MICE), however, I have not yet found an approach in the literature for determining position data.
That's why I wanted to ask if anyone knew a paper dealing with this subject and whether it makes sense at all to determine further position data approximately by imputation.
The problem you are describing there is trajectory reconstruction for AIS/GPS data. There's a number of papers for general trajectory reconstruction (see this for example), but AIS data are quite specific.
The irregularity of AIS data is a well know problem with no standard approach to deal with, as far as I know.
However, there is a handful of publications which try to deal with this issue. The problem of reconstruction is connected to the trajectory prediction problem, since both of these two shares some of the methods (the latter is more popular in the scientific community, I think).
Traditionally, AIS trajectory reconstruction is done using some physical models, which take into account the curvature of the earth and other factors, such as data noise (see examples here, here, and here).
More recent approach tries to use LSTM neural networks.
I don't know much about GPS data, but I think the methods are very similar to the ones mentioned above (especially taking into account the fact that you probably want to deal with maritime data).
I have a Windows application that currently renders graphics largely using MFC that I'd like to change to get better use out of the GPU. Most of the graphics are straightforward and could easily be built up into a scene graph, but some of the graphics could prove very difficult. Specifically, in addition to the normal mesh type objects, I'm also dealing with point clouds which are liable to contain billions of Cartesian stored in a very compact manner that use quite a lot of custom culling techniques to be displayed in real time (Example). What I'm looking for is a mechanism that does the bulk of the scene rendering to a buffer and then gives me access to that buffer, a z buffer, and camera parameters such that I can modify them before putting them out to the display. I'm wondering whether this is possible with Direct3D, OpenGL or possibly use a higher level framework like OpenSceneGraph, and what would be the best starting point? Given the software is Windows based, I'd probably prefer to use Direct3D as this is likely to lead to fewest driver issues which I'm eager to avoid. OpenSceneGraph seems to provide custom culling via octrees, which are close but not identical to what I'm using.
Edit: To clarify a bit more, currently I have the following;
A display list / scene in memory which will typically contain up to a few million triangles, lines, and pieces of text, which I cull in software and output to a bitmap using low performing drawing primitives
A point cloud in memory which may contain billions of points in a highly compressed format (~4.5 bytes per 3d point) which I cull and output to the same bitmap
Cursor information that gets added to the bitmap prior to output
A camera, z-buffer and attribute buffers for navigation and picking purposes
The slow bit is the highlighted part of section 1 which I'd like to replace with GPU rendering of some kind. The solution I envisage is to build a scene for the GPU, render it to a bitmap (with matching z-buffer) based on my current camera parameters and then add my point cloud prior to output.
Alternatively, I could move to a scene based framework that managed the cameras and navigation for me and provide points in view as spheres or splats based on volume and level of detail during the rendering loop. In this scenario I'd also need to be able add cursor information to the view.
In either scenario, the hosting application will be MFC C++ based on VS2017 which would require too much work to change for the purposes of this exercise.
It's hard to say exactly based on your description of a complex problem.
OSG can probably do what you're looking for.
Depending on your timeframe, I'd consider eschewing both OpenGL (OSG) and DirectX in favor of the newer Vulkan 3D API. It's a successor to both D3D and OGL, and is designed by the GPU manufacturers themselves to provide optimal performance exceeding both of its predecessors.
The OSG project is currently developing a Vulkan scenegraph known as VSG, which already demonstrates superior performance to OSG and will have more generalized culling ability.
I've worked a bunch with point clouds and am pretty experienced with them, but I'm not exactly clear on what you're proposing to do.
If you want to actually have a verbal discussion about the matter, I'm pretty easy to find (my company is AlphaPixel -- AlphaPixel.com) and you could call us. I'm in the European time zone right now, it's not clear from your question where you are but you sound US-based.
This question somewhat overlaps knowledge on geospatial information systems, but I think it belongs here rather than GIS.StackExchange
There are a lot of applications around that deal with GPS data with very similar objects, most of them defined by the GPX standard. These objects would be collections of routes, tracks, waypoints, and so on. Some important programs, like GoogleMaps, serialize more or less the same entities in KML format. There are a lot of other mapping applications online (ridewithgps, strava, runkeeper, to name a few) which treat this kind of data in a different way, yet allow for more or less equivalent "operations" with the data. Examples of these operations are:
Direct manipulation of tracks/trackpoints with the mouse (including drawing over a map);
Merging and splitting based on time and/or distance;
Replacing GPS-collected elevation with DEM/SRTM elevation;
Calculating properties of part of a track (total ascent, average speed, distance, time elapsed);
There are some small libraries (like GpxPy) that try to model these objects AND THEIR METHODS, in a way that would ideally allow for an encapsulated, possibly language-independent Library/API.
The fact is: this problem is around long enough to allow for a "common accepted standard" to emerge, isn't it? In the other hand, most GIS software is very professionally oriented towards geospatial analyses, topographic and cartographic applications, while the typical trip-logging and trip-planning applications seem to be more consumer-hobbyist oriented, which might explain the quite disperse way the different projects/apps treat and model the problem.
Thus considering everything said, the question is: Is there, at present or being planned, a standard way to model canonicaly, in an Object-Oriented way, the most used GPS/Tracklog entities and their canonical attributes and methods?
There is the GPX schema and it is very close to what I imagine, but it only contains objects and attributes, not methods.
Any information will be very much appreciated, thanks!!
As far as I know, there is no standard library, interface, or even set of established best practices when it comes to storing/manipulating/processing "route" data. We have put a lot of effort into these problems at Ride with GPS and I know the same could be said by the other sites that solve related problems. I wish there was a standard, and would love to work with someone on one.
GPX is OK and appears to be a sort-of standard... at least until you start processing GPX files and discover everyone has simultaneously added their own custom extensions to the format to deal with data like heart rate, cadence, power, etc. Also, there isn't a standard way of associating a route point with a track point. Your "bread crumb trail" of the route is represented as a series of trkpt elements, and course points (e.g. "turn left onto 4th street") are represented in a separate series of rtept elements. Ideally you want to associate a given course point with a specific track point, rather than just giving the course point a latitude and longitude. If your path does several loops over the same streets, it can introduce some ambiguity in where the course points should be attached along the route.
KML and Garmin's TCX format are similar to GPX, with their own pros and cons. In the end these formats really only serve the purpose of transferring the data between programs. They do not address the issue of how to represent the data in your program, or what type of operations can be performed on the data.
We store our track data as an array of objects, with keys corresponding to different attributes such as latitude, longitude, elevation, time from start, distance from start, speed, heart rate, etc. Additionally we store some metadata along the route to specify details about each section. When parsing our array of track points, we use this metadata to split a Route into a series of Segments. Segments can be split, joined, removed, attached, reversed, etc. They also encapsulate the method of trackpoint generation, whether that is by interpolating points along a straight line, or requesting a path representing directions between the endpoints. These methods allow a reasonably straightforward implementation of drag/drop editing and other common manipulations. The Route object can be used to handle operations involving multiple segments. One example is if you have a route composed of segments - some driving directions, straight lines, walking directions, whatever - and want to reverse the route. You can ask each segment to reverse itself, maintaining its settings in the process. At a higher level we use a Map class to wire up the interface, dispatch commands to the Route(s), and keep a series of snapshots or transition functions updated properly for sensible undo/redo support.
Route manipulation and generation is one of the goals. The others are aggregating summary statistics are structuring the data for efficient visualization/interaction. These problems have been solved to some degree by any system that will take in data and produce a line graph. Not exactly new territory here. One interesting characteristic of route data is that you will often have two variables to choose from for your x-axis: time from start, and distance from start. Both are monotonically increasing, and both offer useful but different interpretations of the data. Looking at the a graph of elevation with an x-axis of distance will show a bike ride going up and down a hill as symmetrical. Using an x-axis of time, the uphill portion is considerably wider. This isn't just about visualizing the data on a graph, it also translates to decisions you make when processing the data into summary statistics. Some weighted averages make sense to base off of time, some off of distance. The operations you end up wanting are min, max, weighted (based on your choice of independent var) average, the ability to filter points and perform a filtered min/max/avg (only use points where you were moving, ignore outliers, etc), different smoothing functions (to aid in calculating total elevation gain for example), a basic concept of map/reduce functionality (how much time did I spend between 20-30mph, etc), and fixed window moving averages that involve some interpolation. The latter is necessary if you want to identify your fastest 10 minutes, or 10 minutes of highest average heartrate, etc. Lastly, you're going to want an easy and efficient way to perform whatever calculations you're running on subsets of your trackpoints.
You can see an example of all of this in action here if you're interested: http://ridewithgps.com/trips/964148
The graph at the bottom can be moused over, drag-select to zoom in. The x-axis has a link to switch between distance/time. On the left sidebar at the bottom you'll see best 30 and 60 second efforts - those are done with fixed window moving averages with interpolation. On the right sidebar, click the "Metrics" tab. Drag-select to zoom in on a section on the graph, and you will see all of the metrics update to reflect your selection.
Happy to answer any questions, or work with anyone on some sort of standard or open implementation of some of these ideas.
This probably isn't quite the answer you were looking for but figured I would offer up some details about how we do things at Ride with GPS since we are not aware of any real standards like you seem to be looking for.
Thanks!
After some deeper research, I feel obligated, for the record and for the help of future people looking for this, to mention the pretty much exhaustive work on the subject done by two entities, sometimes working in conjunction: ISO and OGC.
From ISO (International Standards Organization), the "TC 211 - Geographic information/Geomatics" section pretty much contains it all.
From OGS (Open Geospatial Consortium), their Abstract Specifications are very extensive, being at the same time redundant and complimentary to ISO's.
I'm not sure it contains object methods related to the proposed application (gps track and waypoint analysis and manipulation), but for sure the core concepts contained in these documents is rather solid. UML is their schema representation of choice.
ISO 6709 "[...] specifies the representation of coordinates, including latitude and longitude, to be used in data interchange. It additionally specifies representation of horizontal point location using coordinate types other than latitude and longitude. It also specifies the representation of height and depth that can be associated with horizontal coordinates. Representation includes units of measure and coordinate order."
ISO 19107 "specifies conceptual schemas for describing the spatial characteristics of geographic features, and a set of spatial operations consistent with these schemas. It treats vector geometry and topology up to three dimensions. It defines standard spatial operations for use in access, query, management, processing, and data exchange of geographic information for spatial (geometric and topological) objects of up to three topological dimensions embedded in coordinate spaces of up to three axes."
If I find something new, I'll come back to edit this, including links when available.