-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 299
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix(obstacle_cruise_planner): tune obstacle_cruise_planner for cruising front NPCs in dense urban ODD scenarios #1166
Merged
ahmeddesokyebrahim
merged 1 commit into
autowarefoundation:main
from
ahmeddesokyebrahim:autoware/launch/fix-obstacle-cruise-planner-dense-urban-odd-front-npc-cruising
Sep 30, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a TIER IV's opinion. For safety when the ego stops for the front vehicle, the distance between the ego and the front vehicle should be comparatively large like 6.0m, and we feel dangerous with 4.0m for autonomous driving.
Do you still think this value should be 4.0m?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for your comment @takayuki5168 -san.
I will try in the following to explain why we - as Dense Urban ODD Planning & Control team- think it would be ok to decrease this value.
Moderate Vehicle Speed: The maximum speed for this change is capped at 15 km/h, which is relatively low. At such speeds, the braking distance required is significantly shorter than at higher speeds.
Braking Feasibility: Under normal road conditions and with a smooth deceleration rate, a 4-meter stopping distance is more than sufficient for the vehicle to come to a full stop safely.
Efficient Perception-Reaction Time: Based on current knowledge, Autoware’s perception-reaction time is between 600-800 ms (correct us if we are wrong). Combined with the 2-second idling time used in the RSS equation, this allows ample time for the vehicle to detect, process, and execute a safe stop within the 4-meter margin.
Currently, with the 6-meter margin, the test cases applying RSS are consistently failing because Autoware is maintaining a greater distance from the vehicle ahead than necessary. This excessive gap is impacting the system's ability to function optimally in dense urban environments.
Given these factors, reducing the stopping distance from 6 meters to 4 meters is a well-supported adjustment. This allows for improved vehicle performance in dense urban environments without compromising safety.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The way we feel in the simulation and the real environment are totally different, but we, TIER IV don't have suitable evidence to set the parameter to 6, so we're fine with 4 for now.
Let me comment someday when we come across the dangerous case with the new parameter in the real environment, although internally at TIER IV we will keep 6 to avoid the additional verification.