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: 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: 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: José J H R•
May 16, 2016
Just PID in MATLAB and not very well explained.
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: 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: Anand R•
Jan 18, 2017
Assignments should be much more clear in terms of what is expected from the students and how to approach the problem.
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: 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: 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: 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: Glenn B•
Feb 29, 2016
My feeling is that the course creator(s) did not fully prepare and scope of the course materials (i.e., lectures, supporting artifacts, assignments) required for the available time alloted to each week's topic. No syllubus or suggested reading material was available until the course started, which leaves little time to decide on the value of the course or to acquire the reading materials. The lectures glossed over topics that where only minimally supported by brief supplementary lectures provided by the teaching assistants. At the start of the course the lectures and sparse supporting material were only available in video format; not very conducive for detailed review. The student population had to beg for electronic copies of the materials, which became available around the end of the second week of the four week session. The assignments say they require 3 hours, but I would venture to say that most students have spent way more than 3 hours on the assignments just in researching solutions let alone debugging supplied software along with their portion of the assignment. In summary, the topics were interesting however the organization and supporting materials were lacking making for an unsatisfying learning experience.
교육 기관: Pushkar K•
Dec 28, 2016
[I am speaking from my personal experience about this course. I don't mean to insult anyone or criticize the method of teaching and I am not doubting the credentials of instructors. It is just what I experienced from this course that I am saying. However, I don't mean to discourage anyone from attempting this course. This review is just a summary of what I felt about the first two weeks of this course.]
I don't think this course is for the beginners at all. The teaching method did not quite please me. It appears that the instructors and TAs are simply reading the transcripts and bombarding equations on the screen. Also, the course hasn't made any reading material available, and they are not even providing the slides for the lectures (as of till DEC 2016).
I have enrolled and completed a course on mobile robotics from Georgia Tech on Coursera and they were using slides and at the same time the instructors were scribbling equations on the slides and ensuring that they maintain synchronicity with the learning and showing them how a particular equation emerges. They also had lectures which were designed to help learners attempt the quiz and special section about MATLAB and how to build robots. They also provided slides to revise what was mentioned in the lectures. They were teaching and not reading from teleprompter.
This course looked lot of theoretical and I am not sure for whom it is designed for. Also, in the discussion forum, I haven't received answer to the questions that I'm posting(since right now it's holiday season, I can exempt them from not replying).
I knew I could carry on with this irritation and still get the course certificate for which I've paid for, but then there is no point in wasting time in which the explanation is not clear. It would take me almost 20 to 30 minutes to make notes over a 5 minute long video. I would rather read a book on this subject.
I would have appreciated if they followed certain steps:
1) Make some course material which will help students read and revise information.
2) Suggest some reading/reference material to understand the concepts which are not otherwise covered in this course.
3) Use pointers(touch screen devices) to show and point out which equations are being referred to and maintain synchronicity between the information given in the slides and the one said by the instructor.
4) Supplementary lectures are extremely fast paced and please don't take derivation of an equation for granted and please do explain.
So, if you are looking forward to do this course, I suggest you go forward if you have an in-depth knowledge about vectors, matrices and calculus.
교육 기관: Matthew R•
Aug 07, 2016
The video lectures provide an introduction to quadrotor flight dynamics and path planning. The lectures are ok.
At least one of the coding assignments has a significant bug in the termination condition. The mentors will ignore any help requests that deal with the bug in their code.
The assignments involve a lot of hand tuning of PD controllers. That's a reasonable task to perform once or twice, but it rapidly becomes extremely tedious and detracts from the other materials that are being taught.
The final assignment doesn't do a particularly good job evaluating the required test condition.
If you do take the course I'd want you to know:
You should expect to modify the provided code to fix their bugs.
There are no "gotcha" quiz questions. If you are confused by getting a question wrong you might want to re-try your answer. There seems to be a bug in the way at least one quiz question is set up.
On the final assignment you can modify the simulation step where it makes things run in "real time". Removing that step makes the simulation run much more quickly and allows for faster iteration.
This is a course with a lot of potential, but unless Coursera makes an effort to improve the course I would not recommend it.
교육 기관: kavinstanes•
Mar 01, 2016
most difficult course
교육 기관: Siddhesh R•
May 17, 2018
Definitely not for beginners. I had to study Linear algebra, 3D mechanics first to understand this. Quiz questions are okay but programming assignments are too tough for people who are using matlab for first time.
교육 기관: Anurag N•
Apr 16, 2018
The last assignment was very tough. Overall I enjoyed the course.
교육 기관: Aldo C F•
Jun 27, 2017
No help, and explanation about final code. You have to research everything about yourself trying to understand it
교육 기관: Jeffrey•
Jan 16, 2016
The videos doesn't tell anything related to the test. How can I know the answers? Am I going to search them on the internet? Then what the meaning to learn this course?
교육 기관: Md A S•
Feb 19, 2016
This is a totally theoretical course. This actually does not help to build a quadcopter from the scratch. It should have been mentioned in the introduction. I am opting out. The lectures did not seem appropriate for the people without proper background. Not satisfied.
교육 기관: David C•
May 02, 2016
Very poor. Assignments consist of transcription of formulae given in lectures, and then manually searching the parameter space for solutions.
교육 기관: Francesco B•
Jan 08, 2017
since there is a lot of math involved, there should be some carefully written readings. (not only slides or phd thesis)
교육 기관: Nick J•
Jan 21, 2016
Requires MATLAB. In my view, a university should not be promoting a proprietary product. There have been other Cousera courses which used Octave, the free-software implementation of the programming language implemented by MATLAB.
I have seen no good reason why Octave should not have been used for this course.
교육 기관: Zachary H•
Feb 20, 2016
So close but yet so far ...
Course concepts are interesting and the programming assignments are fun but the presentation can be greatly improved.
(i) The course isn't self contained. Physical concepts like 'resultant moment', 'inertial and body-fixed frame' and 'torque' are used without definition. Mechanics is not listed as a prerequisite but it should be.
(ii) Lectures are very mathematical but proofs, intuition and good problem sets are all missing. Listening to a math lecture without doing challenging problems or deriving mathematical results to build intuition can be a waste of time. Check out John Cochrane's Asset Pricing 1 and 2 or Tim Roughgarden's Algo 1 and 2 for great examples of thoughtful problem sets and intuitive derivations.
(iii) Way too much powerpoint! Speed reading a static powerpoint slide overloaded with dense mathematical formulas without using pointers or animations to focus the students attention is a recipe for confusion and frustration. I find hand written derivations, even when the handwriting is a little sloppy, much easier to follow than a static page of formulas plus a sound track. Hand written derivations impose a natural pace and focal point to the content. Check out Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra, Sebastian Thrun's Artificial Intelligence for Robotics and Andrew Ng's Machine Learning for examples of good derivations of mathematically sophisticated material.
(iv) The programming assignments while fun were somewhat ad hoc and disconnected from the lecture material, specifically, the main task of every single assignment was to hand tune a pd controller. No systematic approach was ever described for performing this task.
교육 기관: QUIJOUX•
Jul 04, 2017
Les thèmes abordés par le cours sot très intéressants, malheureusement le cours manque de structure. La difficulté n'est pas progressive et les exercices en ligne demandent une patience infini (solutions totalement empiriques, essai-erreur jusqu'à obtenir une valeur satisfaisante pour résoudre la solution). Il n'y a peu ou pas de soutien en ligne de la part de l'équipe ce qui fait que beaucoup d'élèves se retrouvent bloqués au dernier devoir. Une sensation de ne pas avoir appris grand chose à la fin de ce premier cours de robotique.
The topics of this course are really interesting but it has no internal consistency. The difficulty is not progressive and the online assignements require an infinite patience (the solutions are totally empirical and require multiple try & retry with the very slow simulation). There is more or less no online support from the team (thanks to the community) what leads to a big impediment for lots of students at the last assignment (cf. the discussion). Still have the feeling I did not learn much at the end of this first course on robotics.
교육 기관: David S•
May 25, 2016
Advertised as an easy course, week 1 is simple but quickly becomes far too difficult by week 2... Too late for your refund.