Table 2.
Performance comparison of three different path planning algorithms.
| Start and Finish | The Algorithm Name | Time (ms) | Number | Tir (%) | Enr (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start (109, 89) Finish (71, 88) |
A* | 1.817 | 12,988 | - | - |
| A* + turn_w | 1.699 | 12,408 | 8.145 | 4.465 | |
| A* + turn_w + W | 1.625 | 11,338 | 10.566 | 12.704 | |
| Start (109, 89) Finish (108, 33) |
A* | 4.090 | 22,322 | - | - |
| A* + turn_w | 3.687 | 21,336 | 9.853 | 4.417 | |
| A* + turn_w + W | 3.362 | 20,072 | 17.799 | 10.079 | |
| Start (109, 89) Finish (125, 126) |
A* | 2.385 | 16,007 | - | - |
| A* + turn_w | 2.168 | 15,728 | 9.098 | 1.742 | |
| A* + turn_w + W | 1.926 | 14,310 | 11.162 | 10.601 |