You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi, G. Kim, Thank you for your shared code about dynamic removal.
About the parameter:
downsample_voxel_size: 0.1 # user parameter but recommend to use 0.05 to make sure an enough density (this value is related to the removing resolution's expected performance)
I would like to ask, when I set it to 0.05, it works well, but when I set it to 0.1, there are a lot of FPs on the ground, resulting in hole in gound.
In my opinion, large resolution leads to the appearance or aggravation of visibility-based incidence angle ambiguity. What do you think?
Thank you for your reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, G. Kim, Thank you for your shared code about dynamic removal.
About the parameter:
I would like to ask, when I set it to 0.05, it works well, but when I set it to 0.1, there are a lot of FPs on the ground, resulting in hole in gound.
In my opinion, large resolution leads to the appearance or aggravation of visibility-based incidence angle ambiguity. What do you think?
Thank you for your reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: