search

OpenSimulationInterface / open-simulation-interface

A generic interface for the environmental perception of automated driving functions in virtual scenarios.
Other
271 stars 127 forks source link

Add mass/weight to MovingObject #824

Open ReinhardBiegelIntech opened 4 months ago

ReinhardBiegelIntech commented 4 months ago

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 commented 4 months ago

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 commented 4 months ago

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!

arauschert commented 4 months ago

Mass would also be relevant for StationaryObjects

ReinhardBiegelIntech commented 4 months ago

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

jdsika commented 4 months ago

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