This is very similar to the testing results we see with the 435 - the quality of the tracking is well below average and bordering on unusable.
We expected that nuitrack would be using the highest resolution tracking data - but it seems to be stuck at 640x480 - and any changes to the nuitrack.config to attempt to improve on that leads to a completely unworkable result.
FYI - have a look in some of the other threads - there is a recent conversation about the d435 using lower resolution raw settings ( there are two hidden values that can be added to the nuitrack.config to change the default raw values to 1280x720 - we have noticed some improvement with these settings under certain settings.
BUT the most significant improvement seems to come when we use a more powerful computer system. The tracking system seems to have a CPU load cap - when it hits this it seems to start reporting less reliable data.
The same can be seen when reducing the skeletal tracking bodys to one instead of two on slower systems.
I guess it really depends on your definition of “works well”.
With perfect lighting conditions and a perfect setup - a d435 can produce results as good or better than a orbbec astra. As the depth image is more stable with considerably less noise - though this may have more to do with intel’s post processing than most other things.
The d415 increases that accuracy and stability for the same scanning area by a factor of 2 - BUT its also a much narrower field of view - which may not be suited to everyone’s needs.