Oct 23, 2017
The course is very good.\n\nThe classes are well taught and show general concepts. It is necessary to do research on the internet, to solve the assignments. This is not a bad thing in my point of view
Jun 09, 2018
I think this is very good course of aerial robotics research. Being a student of robotics, I feel that some of stuffs in this course needs a good background in control and mechanical engineering.
교육 기관: Jon H•
Feb 13, 2016
This course was very good and very interesting. The teacher explained things well. The BIG problem with the course is that the level of the lectures no way matched the level of the assignments, especially the last one. It was way too hard compared to the material presented. It was supposed to take 3 hours but it took me more like 50 hours. And from the forum it seems like a lot of people spend 40 or more hours on this one last problem. Was too hard and too much. A lot of prayer and sweat I finally got it with a lot if discussion on the forums. But 40 hours for one problem is crazy. There needed to be a lot more thorough instruction in order to do this problem in a reasonable time.
교육 기관: Jose M H•
Jul 30, 2017
I learned a lot from this course. I wish there was more supplemental materials (week 4 was lacking and in need of additional material specially on the trajectory generation) and exercises to help gain a better understanding on the concepts.
교육 기관: MILIND.V.BHAT•
Aug 01, 2016
The course provides a good insight into the world of Aerial Robotics and the dynamics involved in controlling the quad-rotors. Were the course fails is it does not explain the basics , there is more focus on trial and error and the questions are not formulated correctly such that they are simple to understand. It could have been better if the Introductory course to the specialization had little mathematical involved or could have been explained in simpler terms or with examples instead of showing the equation in the video.
교육 기관: Lucas M G•
Feb 20, 2017
This is a good course, and you get an overview of a lot of interesting topics. However, as you advance further in the course, some of the math begins to lose consistency, while some of it just gets skipped.
교육 기관: Akshit J•
Dec 05, 2019
This course is more of an introduction/overview of the parts of theory for navigation and mapping of drones. Controller part is touched more in depth with a great video on differential flatness. You will easily understand Vijay kumar's paper on "Minimum Snap Trajectory Generation and Control for Quadrotors" after watching this. Topics such as SLAM for mapping and localization, State estimation(Kalman filter) actuators are touched upon very lightly. Nowhere near with intent for implementation.
The programming exercises in this course are terrible. In a nutshell in the first 2 weeks you are told to tune some PD gains by just varying values in an input field in a GUI. In next 2 weeks everything is again about manually tuning PD control gains as dynamics equations are straight forward in writeup. All the complexity/dynamics of equations is replaced by PD gains and linear assumptions.
교육 기관: Sj•
Feb 15, 2016
Overall good course that would definitely make you spend more time reading and learning on the side. Would recommend it those who have good background in college level math like Linear Algebra and a little bit of Robotics Background from a Math perspective - like working with translations, rotations, transformation matrices of that sort to make the transition easier. (There are basic robotic courses online to help with that, like Peter Corke's course). But overall this course requires some significant effort to explore the material from an external perspective.
Some issues however -
1. Lack of added resources like reading material to support the course and help advanced students go beyond the course themselves.
2. Severe lack of activity from TA(s) on the forums. It's good that students get to interact among themselves and learn on their own, but every single post should be either answered by a TA to clarify doubts or they should acknowledge that another student's explanation was good enough to answer a particular question.
3. The in-video quizzes weren't up-to-the-mark as per me. One question asked "why" and the answer was literally "because that's how that algorithm is".
4. This is a trend in MOOCs and I don't think it can be helped, but perhaps more assignments that help understand the concepts better with examples would help students go beyond. If this course had such optional assignments that would be great for understanding the concepts with a more hands-on approach. But this is probably not the best platform to do so.
Overall would recommend future iterations of this course, especially if the first two points above are improved upon.
교육 기관: Masoud H•
Apr 21, 2017
Well I liked the course untile the last assignment. It says you need 3 hours for this assignment but I could finish it after two days (and I am good in programming). The last assignment is not really well designed specially the trajectory part. The rest of the course was good.
교육 기관: Abhijeet P•
Nov 16, 2019
The supplementary videos really helped me a lot to understand concepts better. I wish I could see more of these in week 1 and week 2. As a newbie to Robotics and Mechanical concepts, It was difficult for me to follow through the material in week 1 and week 2.
교육 기관: Mohsen Z•
Jun 01, 2017
Provides a good over view but would it be more helpful if the instructor could make better connection between his speech and equations presented in slides. These two seem not to be well connected.
교육 기관: J. D•
Feb 16, 2016
Quizzes and Assignments are poorly designed. You will spend most of your time tuning parameters
and deriving matrices that were never discussed in the course. Unfortunate.
교육 기관: Bishwajit P•
Sep 14, 2016
Much better Courses are available for free on udacity and edx. this is only a money making course. concepts used are very old. nothing new in this course. One can dwell in PID controllers for life, its a huge are and the way its used here is totally ancient. its just some ancient methods in new quadcopters.
교육 기관: Hugo d l C•
Mar 03, 2016
Not well prepared and not well explained. They throw formulas at you and read it aloud instead of explaining the nature behind those.
They change notations every lecture, sometimes in the same lecture. It's easy but these things made it artificially dificult.
At least it's better than the next one in the specialization
교육 기관: Antoine L•
Feb 12, 2016
This course feels like a bad news anchorman reading the teleprompter. It gives a lot of formulae without proper explanations. A lot of quiz answers do not come from the video lectures. The course is really just spitting formulae from the dissertation "Trajectory Generation and Control for Quadrotors" by Daniel Warren Mellinger (easily found using search engines). Reading the dissertation before doing the course would probably help understand the formulae they say out of context without the proper explanations. Sorry for the bad review, it's the first time I leave one like that, although I've completed many MOOCs. I hope it will help to improve the course.
교육 기관: Georg W•
Mar 09, 2016
I think this course does not a good job of explaining the mathematics very well. The supplementary material is very good in that regard, compared to the lectures. However, there are too few to make up for it. I would need a few example calculations of similar problems to what we are expected to solve in the exercises.
As a result, my learning success is not very satisfactory.
교육 기관: Jaroslava S•
May 20, 2017
It's an interesting topic. However, the course materials are not very helpful for the quizzes, unfortunately :(
교육 기관: Antón R V•
Mar 15, 2016
This course successfully covers the mechanics and control topics of quadrotors. The course also points to some resources in order to extend your study on UAVs. However, there are some issues concerning the assignments which I didn't like at all:
1. Big gap in difficulty between assignments of first three weeks compared with the assignment of the fourth week.
2. The difficulty of the assignments of the first three weeks just relied on sweeping (somewhat 'smartly') a 1,2,3, or 6 dimensional parametric space. I guess that real UAVs engineers are not paid for this. In some assignment, I had to edited a file which I was not supposed to edit in order to pass it.
3. The last assignment was quite frustrating for the following reasons
3a. Really long running times to test if the parameters work fine. I would sacrifice the fancy real-time visualization to save some time. Apart from long running times, I guess that UAVs are not solving ODEs in real time on board, so I think is more interesting a more practical/real-time approach.
3b. Search in a 12-dimensional parametric space (some parameters are equal, but still you end up tunning 5,6 independent parameters, which influence each other). Come on, is this useful? I am sure that UAVs engineers don't spend their hours in this kind of crappy search. You could explain at least some existing heuristics when having so many control parameters to tune.
3c. Even though the drone trajectory seems to fit perfectly the planned trajectory, you might not pass the exercise, and you would get some clueless messages telling you the final position/velocity is not correct.
3d. The assignment guide is very unclear in some parts.
3e. A lot of typos in the formulas of the last part of the guide. I decided to completely ignore it and develop my own strategy, which turned out to be far simpler and easier to implement.
3f. The submission program tests the whole exercise regardless you passed some sections or not, which make the waiting times even longer.
교육 기관: Jiaming S•
Feb 09, 2016
The material this course provided is sufficient for a beginner in robotics. But I have to say that the material the coursed presented is not well prepared. The lectures are not well organized. Some necessary prerequisite should be at least provided as reading materials. Quizs ask some questions that is not clearly mentioned in the lecture and some are with a little ambiguity.
교육 기관: Ataliba M•
Jan 02, 2017
Very poor and a complete lack of interaction from Mentors/Tutors. Learners are left behind shooting bullets at the sky hoping to hit a star that might fall over with some hints. The course materials is consistent and very well informed but, as mentioned mentors/tutors since course began never showed up to clarify some frequent issues with Matlab codes and input data.
교육 기관: Juan A G•
Mar 01, 2016
iba bien hasta que empezó a pedir videos y grabaciones....
교육 기관: Thadeus R•
Mar 14, 2016
This course definitely requires prerequisite knowledge of calculus and matrix math. There is also very little in the way of practical application. The MatLab work is interesting but barely explained. The assignments were nearly impossible without help from other students. Understanding which equations that were shown in the lecture (not necessarily explained) were useful in completing the assignments was not apparent and there was no help from the TAs.
I don't think the assignments were irrelevant but without having a background in academic engineering the course needs to walk through similar exercises with explanations to increase understanding and ability to complete the course.
While I don't think this course was well presented and I can't say I truly learned anything I am glad I was exposed to the material and I will continue with the Specialization.
교육 기관: John T•
Mar 12, 2016
A tough score, which I have mixed feelings about as there was good stuff in here too. The course material is interesting and moves at a robust pace and I do think they have made an effort despite the fact that much of it appears lifted from one PhD student's dissertation. Realistically I would not recommend this course if you don't have a STEM Bachelor's degree and you will likely find it painful if you have been away from your degree more than three years. None of this is bad, although the material would have benefitted by being spread out by perhaps two more weeks as realistically people who have been in the workplace a long time may need more time, and have less time per week with family commitments. Unfortunately there are a number of areas that need work:
1 - Inconsistencies and errors in the material. Certain unexplained suffixes in equations and worse, changes in the suffixes without indication that they changed or what they are. I don't feel that this was particularly widespread but it did result in some loss of confidence in the course and time being wasted "interpreting"
2 - Tests throughout the course that often provide the relatively limited feedback of "correct well done" or worse I'm sorry to say, the relatively useless feedback "sorry that is not correct", without ANY explanation of why it was correct or more importantly what an incorrect answer should have been and why. I can understand that this will hopefully drive students should do more research, but if they hit a wall, realistically they're going to keep iterating on the answers until you pass and learn nothing because of the time pressure to complete by the end of the week. I wonder if there is a better mechanism that can be used here
3 - TA Support - The lack of TA support coupled with some concern about a history of errors led the students to believe that there was an error in week 3. For 10 days students went back and forth debating which one of the two equations that were supposedly doing the same thing but with missing terms were correct. NOT ONCE did a TA wake up and step in. In the end one of the students flagged the video as "inappropriate" to wake the UPenn organization up. The TA then stepped in and said (I paraphrase) "oh, we just dropped those terms because they're not so important, but we didn't mention that..." If you are not going to adequately support the students, the material had better be bullet-proof and show some linear thinking
4 - The last exam. Keep in mind if you do this course, you had better be comfortable with calculus, linear algebra, vector math/mechanics and it would be helpful to have a head start in Matlab. That said, the last question in the last exam, was an order of magnitude more challenging than everything else set and almost felt like a "shake out" question. I passed the course and had a good understanding of the material, but I suspect that the folks that did, made it through that last question in multiple random fashions. The material itself is relatively academic and the trajectory topic was definitely so. Unfortunately the one example (jerk trajectory) provided appears to have left a lot of students feeling very unsupported based on feedback I saw, and would probably benefit from having an example more fully worked through. As for the final exam, it would be highly desirable for UPenn to provide insight into how they would have solved the last part of the last question as my concern is that there is a whole contingent of people who did this course who didn't come away with as good a grounding on trajectories as they may believe they have
교육 기관: Rochelle N A•
Nov 09, 2019
The program doesn't provide enough information for the quizzes or exercises; it is incomplete, in my opinion.
It could be better if there was more information provided (context). If you are not already an engineer, this program is going to be very difficult.
교육 기관: thiago c•
Mar 16, 2018
Quizzes and assignments are not tied well to the lectures. The flow and sequence is not good. The subject is very interesting, but needs to be better organized. the last assignment requires an unreasonable amount of knowledge of Matlab. I code in other languages and I am not a big fan of Matlab which make it even harder.
교육 기관: Pranjul c•
Nov 30, 2019
The course is awesome, but not for beginners
교육 기관: yukti s•
Apr 21, 2016
Assignments for week 3 and 4 were very tough and a little guidance was provided on how to do the coding part. But since I'm interested in the course i'm re-enrolling to complete it this time.