Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Rough-terrain traversal costs are inherently direction-dependent, meaning that routes of similar geometric length may differ significantly in cost depending on their orientation relative to the terrain slope. In this paper, an A*-based planner is proposed in which the classical graph-search procedure is preserved, whereas the isotropic edge weights are substituted by a cost that varies with the direction of motion. This cost is obtained from three co-registered raster layers, namely an inflated obstacle map, an elevation map, and a terrain-multiplier map. For every admissible move, it combines the step length in 3D, the average terrain multiplier of the two cells concerned, a pitch-related component along the slope, and a roll-related component across the slope, determined from the local elevation difference. Because the cost of a move between two cells may depend on its direction, planning is performed on a directed weighted graph. Five variants of the planner were tested on six benchmark maps, and each resulting path was assessed using one common terrain-aware objective. On every map, the complete formulation attained the lowest shared cost, either alone or jointly with another variant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: