Skip to content
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

motion_velocity_smoother and behavior_velocity_planner should use the same smoother algorithm #987

Open
3 of 4 tasks
TomohitoAndo opened this issue May 30, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
component:planning Route planning, decision-making, and navigation. (auto-assigned) priority:low Lower urgency, can be addressed later. status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) type:new-feature New functionalities or additions, feature requests.

Comments

@TomohitoAndo
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist

  • I've read the contribution guidelines.
  • I've searched other issues and no duplicate issues were found.
  • I've agreed with the maintainers that I can plan this task.

Description

Currently, behavior_velocity_planner uses the smoother to calculate the precise predicted velocity. But smoother algorithm type that behavior_velocity_planner uses is fixed to Analytical, so predicted velocity would be different if the motion_velocity_smoother node uses different smoother algorithm type.
So I think the same smoother_type as motion_velocity_smoother should be passed to behavior_velocity_planner.

smoother_type for motion_velocity_smoother is specified here.
https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/blob/main/launch/tier4_planning_launch/launch/scenario_planning/scenario_planning.launch.xml#L26-L27

behavior_velocity_planner creates an instance of smoother class (AnalyticalJerkConstrainedSmoother is always created)
https://github.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.universe/blob/main/planning/behavior_velocity_planner/src/node.cpp#L305-L310

Purpose

The purpose of this task is to pass the smoother_type parameter to behavior_velocity_planner, and enables motion_velocity_smoother and behavior_velocity_planner to use the same smoother algorithm.

Possible approaches

  • modify the launch file to pass the smoother_type argument to behavior_velocity_planner

Definition of done

  • Confirm motion_velocity_smoother and behavior_velocity_planner uses the same predicted velocity with all smoother type
@TomohitoAndo TomohitoAndo self-assigned this May 30, 2022
@BonoloAWF BonoloAWF added type:bug Software flaws or errors. component:planning Route planning, decision-making, and navigation. (auto-assigned) labels May 30, 2022
@xmfcx xmfcx added the priority:low Lower urgency, can be addressed later. label Jul 19, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 17, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity.

@stale stale bot added the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label Sep 17, 2022
@mitsudome-r mitsudome-r removed the type:bug Software flaws or errors. label Oct 25, 2022
@stale stale bot removed the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label Oct 25, 2022
@mitsudome-r mitsudome-r added type:new-feature New functionalities or additions, feature requests. status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) labels Oct 25, 2022
@stale stale bot removed the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label Oct 25, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Dec 24, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity.

@stale stale bot added the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label Dec 24, 2022
iwatake2222 pushed a commit to iwatake2222/autoware.universe that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component:planning Route planning, decision-making, and navigation. (auto-assigned) priority:low Lower urgency, can be addressed later. status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) type:new-feature New functionalities or additions, feature requests.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants