Hello,

>>> To disable strategic laneChanging completely, you can either
- set laneChangeMode
- or set lcStrategic="-1"

If either of those options are valid, then the results I got previously for
a lane change mode of 512 should all be the same value:
+-----------------+---------+------+
| *lc_params*       | *lc_mode* | *Time* |
+-----------------+---------+------+
| Set to 1        | 512     | *241*  |
+-----------------+---------+------+
| Unset (default) | 512     | *241*  |
+-----------------+---------+------+
| Set to 0        | 512     | 172  |
+-----------------+---------+------+
| Set to 1        | 1621    | *204*  |
+-----------------+---------+------+
| Unset (default) | 1621    | *204*  |
+-----------------+---------+------+
| Set to 0        | 1621    | 218  |
+-----------------+---------+------+


So what I now understand is:

*Only* in the development version, if I set lane change mode to 512 (it
disables everything else apart from safety), now it will behave as expected
- that is, no strategic, speed gain or cooperative changes.
But if I use an older version before the changes have been implemented, I
should also set lcStrategic to -1 and lcCooperative to -1.

Please confirm. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Hriday

On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 08:34, Jakob Erdmann <[email protected]> wrote:

>  No.
> To disable strategic laneChanging completely, you can either
> - set laneChangeMode
> - or set lcStrategic="-1"
>
> because only setting lcStrategic="0" still allows changing at the end of
> the lane.
>
> b)
> lcSpeedGain="0"  still is equivalent to lcSpeedGain="0.001" in version
> 1.13.0 but disables changing for speedGain completely in the development
> version (https://github.com/eclipse/sumo/issues/10709)
>
> c)
> lcCooperative="0" prevents cooperative changing if there is any
> inconvenience. However, if you set lcSpeedGain="0" lcCooperative="0" a
> vehicle might still perform a cooperative change if the target lane affords
> higher speed. To achieve the same affect as disabled-via-lane-change-mode
> you can set lcCooperative="-1" (again, this requires the dev version)
>
> regards,
> Jakob
>
>
>
>
> Am Do., 12. Mai 2022 um 08:49 Uhr schrieb Hriday Sanghvi via sumo-user <
> [email protected]>:
>
>> Hello Jakob,
>>
>> Thank you for the update. So if I understand correctly: to completely
>> disable strategic lane changing by SUMO, I have to
>> 1. set the laneChangeMode bits 0 and 1 (for strategic lane changes) to 0
>> AND also
>> 2. set lcStrategic to -1 in my routes files for the vType
>> Because only setting relevant laneChangeMode bits and then setting
>> lcStrategic=1 may still allow strategic lane changes at the end of the lane?
>>
>> Is this also true for lcSpeedGain and lcCooperative? Since there are also
>> changes in behaviour when I isolate lcCooperative parameter (keeping
>> lcStrategic and lcSpeedGain fixed at 1), i.e.,
>> a. when I set laneChangeMode bits 2 and 3 to 0, and set lcCooperative to
>> 1,
>> vs.
>> b. when I set laneChangeMode bits 2 and 3 to 0, and set lcCooperative to
>> 0,
>>
>> I would have expected a. and b. to give me the same behaviour/time to
>> complete the simulation, since I believe laneChangeMode completely disabled
>> certain types of lane changes - but it seems that the lcParams still have
>> some effect. Please advise.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Hriday
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 at 06:36, Jakob Erdmann <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The key difference is that the laneChangeMode completely disables
>>> strategic lane changing whereas lcStrategic="0" only sets the strategic
>>> lookahead distance to the minimum possible value. Vehicles will still
>>> perform a strategic laneChange when reaching the very end of their lane.
>>> You can set lcStrategic to a negative value to disable strategic lane
>>> changing completely but this was (until now) undocumented.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Jakob
>>>
>>> Am Di., 10. Mai 2022 um 19:11 Uhr schrieb Hriday Sanghvi via sumo-user <
>>> [email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Hello again,
>>>>
>>>> I use *lc_params* to refer to the 3 parameters lcStrategic,
>>>> lcCooperative, and lcSpeedGain in the previous email, and *lc_mode *to
>>>> refer to the lane changing mode. To clarify, here are some experimental
>>>> results for each case for 100 vehicles on a 1000 m road with 2 free lanes
>>>> (NO blockages):
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | *lc_params*       | *lc_mode* | *Time* |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | Set to 1        | 512     | *241*  |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | Unset (default) | 512     | *241*  |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | Set to 0        | 512     | 172  |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | Set to 1        | 1621    | *204*  |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | Unset (default) | 1621    | *204*  |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>> | Set to 0        | 1621    | 218  |
>>>> +-----------------+---------+------+
>>>>
>>>> As seen from the table, Regardless of whether the lc_params are set to
>>>> their default value (1) explicitly, or if they are unset (default value is
>>>> used), the result (time in steps) of the simulation stays the same in both
>>>> cases of the lc_mode (512 and 1621). This is in line with my understanding.
>>>> However, when the lc_mode is set to 512, lc_params should in fact make no
>>>> difference since the behaviour controlled by these lc_params were already
>>>> deactivated - namely, do no strategic changes, do no cooperative changes
>>>> and do no speed gain changes.
>>>>
>>>> So what I gather is that there is some form of hierarchy - Which
>>>> parameter do I set to overwrite the other no matter what? Or why would
>>>> setting lc_params to 0 in the case of lc_mode = 512 make a difference?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Hriday
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 14:01, Hriday Sanghvi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> *My belief*: The lane change mode 512 is supposed to disable all
>>>>> autonomous lane-changing except for safety-gap enforcement and collision
>>>>> avoidance. So setting lcSpeedGain=0 or lcStrategic=0 should be pointless,
>>>>> since that is the same effect achieved by setting lane change mode to 512,
>>>>> since bits 0 through 6 are all set to 0 : do no strategic changes, do no
>>>>> cooperative changes, do no speed gain changes, do no right drive changes;
>>>>>
>>>>> *Discovery*: When I set *lcStrategic=0, lcCooperative=0, and
>>>>> lcSpeedGain=0*  on my vType anyway as such:
>>>>> <vType lcStrategic="0" lcCooperative="0" lcSpeedGain="0"
>>>>> carFollowModel="Krauss" color="0,1,0" id="veh" latAlignment="center"
>>>>> lcKeepRight="0" lcLookaheadLeft="1" lcOvertakeRight="1"
>>>>> lcSpeedGainRight="1" length="5" sigma="0" speedDev="0" speedFactor=
>>>>> "1.0" />
>>>>> The behaviour seems to have changed drastically.
>>>>>
>>>>> With an LC mode of 512,
>>>>> *1. Without setting the 3 lcParams*, it takes 100 vehicles *477s *to
>>>>> reach the end of a 1000m road with 2 lanes, with a small blockage from 
>>>>> (500
>>>>> - 750m) on one of the lanes.
>>>>> *2.* *Setting the 3 lcParams, *it takes the same only *262s*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Doubt:* Am I misunderstanding what autonomous lane-changing means?
>>>>> Or are the two: lcParams and lane change mode not equivalent in the way I
>>>>> have mentioned?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please advise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Hriday
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sumo-user mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sumo-user mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sumo-user mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
>>
> _______________________________________________
> sumo-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user
>
_______________________________________________
sumo-user mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this list, visit 
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/sumo-user

Reply via email to