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

Add mass/weight to MovingObject #824

Open
ReinhardBiegelIntech opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Add mass/weight to MovingObject #824

ReinhardBiegelIntech opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
FeatureRequest Proposals which enhance the interface or add additional features.
Milestone

Comments

@ReinhardBiegelIntech
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the feature

We are using the OSI Traffic Participant for our simulation models. The traffic participant also includes the dynamics model. We'd like to add a dynamics model for handling collisions. For a basic model, we would need the information about the mass of all participants involved in a collision. As the mass is currently only available as curb_weight in HostVehicleData (via VehicleBasics), this information is currently not available to a traffic participant.

Describe the solution you would like

Add a field for the mass/weight to MovingObject to make this information available via GroundTruth/SensorView, and thus via the traffic participant interface.

Describe alternatives you have considered

Modeling the collision behavior outside of the traffic participant (in the simulation environment, where there might be potential access to all HostVehicleDatas) would be a lot more effort from implementation point of view. This is not feasible in comparison to the rather small addition suggested here.

Describe the backwards compatibility

Just adding the mass to the MovingObject wouldn't directly introduce any backwards compatibility issues. But we might have to think about how to handle the currently existing curb_weight. Keeping it would mean introducing redundancy. Removing it breaks backward compatibility. Changing the current definition (like having something like the actual weight in the HostVehicleData) would break compatibility as well. I'd assume the field is not that widely used at the moment, so I don't consider this a show stopper. Other users might have a different view on this.

@ReinhardBiegelIntech
Copy link
Contributor Author

We might be a bit late to the party, but assuming a positive outcome of this feature request we'd love to see that in 3.7.0 already ;-)

@jdsika jdsika added this to the V3.7.1 milestone Jun 27, 2024
@jdsika
Copy link
Contributor

jdsika commented Jun 27, 2024

I added a v3.7.1 as there is the plan to quickly do a patch release. There are already other small things which cannot make it into v3.7.0. Processes...
I will keep an eye on this!

@jdsika jdsika added the FeatureRequest Proposals which enhance the interface or add additional features. label Jun 27, 2024
@arauschert
Copy link

Mass would also be relevant for StationaryObjects

@ReinhardBiegelIntech
Copy link
Contributor Author

I thought about that as well, but came to the conclusion that a StationaryObject would have an infinite mass anyway ;-)

@jdsika
Copy link
Contributor

jdsika commented Jun 28, 2024

We are reaching the philosophical area again of "what is really stationary" :D

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
FeatureRequest Proposals which enhance the interface or add additional features.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants