Table 3.
RMSE comparison with current literature.
Author | Estimation Parameter | Platform | Estimator | Computation Cost | Error Max (RMSE) (deg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Qingyuan Zhu et al. [38] | Roll | Prototype Vehicle | GA | 100 ms | 1.8 (Roll) |
Pitch | BP NN | 2.1 (Pitch) | |||
Hamad Ahmed et al. [24] | Roll | Standard Vehicle | KF | 20–25 ms | 0.1 (Roll) |
Pitch | 0.13 (Pitch) | ||||
Yaw | 0.01 (Yaw) | ||||
Javier Garcia Guzman et al. [39] | Roll | Standard Vehicle | KF | 14.2 ms | 0.76 (Roll) |
Pitch | UKF | 6.76 ms | 0.63 (Pitch) | ||
Daehee Won et al. [40] | Roll | Standard Vehicle | EKF | 21.4 ms | 0.28 (Roll) |
Pitch | 0.55 (Pitch) | ||||
RobertoG.Valenti et al. [41] | Roll | Standard Vehicle | Pseudo | 1.42 μs | 1.32 (Roll) |
Pitch | Madwick | 1.19 (Pitch) | |||
Yaw | EKF | ||||
XudongWen et al. [42] | Roll | UAV | NCF | 41 ms | 1.16 (Roll) |
Pitch | DNCF | 0.50 (Pitch) | |||
Yaw | - | - | |||
Rodrigo Gonzalez et al. [43] | Roll | Standard Vehicle | KF | 0.2 s | 0.362 (Roll) |
Pitch | 0.339 (Pitch) | ||||
Yaw | 1.839 (Yaw) | ||||
Proposed scheme | Roll | Standard Vehicle | CF | 3.2 ms | 0.6738 (Roll) |
Pitch | 0.7280 (Pitch) |