[p3d,planners] inconsistency of joint IDs
We really should do something for this. The source of the problem can be found in Robot constructor:
m_Joints.push_back(new Joint(this, _Robot->joints[i + 1], i, _copy));
So we have 2 convention coexisting: 1st joint a id=0 (Robot) or at id=1 (p3d).
Then, in that same class (Robot), both "conventions" are used. Hence, the confusion is propagated all over move3d-planners
In my opinion the best would be to avoid confusion by using only P3D convention (maybe in a perfect world it is a good idea to use the Robot class convention, and I understand that choice, but in our world...)