Skip to content

Gazebo GEMstack Integration#164

Merged
krishauser merged 190 commits intos2025from
s2025_Simulation
May 7, 2025
Merged

Gazebo GEMstack Integration#164
krishauser merged 190 commits intos2025from
s2025_Simulation

Conversation

@harishkumarbalaji
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Dockerize the GEMStack
  • Add Gem Gazebo interface to connect to the Gazebo simulator
  • Add passenger comfort metrics analysis script
  • Add a parameter to launch the main.py with the vehicle model to run the corresponding vehicle

krishauser and others added 30 commits January 27, 2025 14:32
Fix setup issues and add support for CUDA 12 users
…ncies

Update missing dependencies for GEMstack
@harishkumarbalaji harishkumarbalaji changed the title S2025 simulation Gazebo GEMstack Integration Apr 23, 2025
Copy link
Owner

@krishauser krishauser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please clean up contributions

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should not include homework files

Copy link
Collaborator

@nvikramraj nvikramraj Apr 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are using few of the homework files to test the simulation metrics and performance.
We will review and make the necessary changes.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Move calibration transforms to separate files and !include them. Is it necessary to have separate calibration files for the simulation vehicles? Wouldn’t it be better for those to match the actual vehicles?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are working on closing the Sim to Real Gap.
Could you let us know if these needs to be fixed before the merge or keep it separate for now and then merge in next request?

The other teams can ignore the gazebo yaml files and make changes to the hardware related e2 and e4 vehicle yaml files, the simulation team will review the changes make integrate accordingly.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By using the same calibration files there should be zero gap.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request has been completed and yaml files have been reverted.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is quite a kludge. It would be better to change main.py to accept a config file name.

Copy link
Collaborator

@nvikramraj nvikramraj Apr 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just to be clear on this change.
You want us to get the file path of the yaml file from system arguments and pass it to
init.py from main.py ?

Moving forward with the above may involve tinkering with GEMstack/utils/settings.py and config.py.
Would changes made to those files acceptable or do you recommend just changing main.py and current.yaml ?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You shouldn’t need to mess with config.py. Just letting settings.py override the defaults would be sufficient.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request is completed.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this part of the simulation contribution? Suggest removing it

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change will be reverted.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request has been completed and yaml files have been reverted.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again, is there any reason to have separate simulation vehicle configurations rather than just using the overall one?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are working on closing the Sim to Real Gap.
The controller performance in simulation is quite close to real now, after a bit more testing we will be converting it to a single yaml file.
We are still working on closing the gap on transformation matrix.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request has been completed and yaml files have been reverted.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this file necessary? Is it wahat the perception team wants?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This file will be used to showcase object detection using simulation with the base yolo model.
Could we rename the file to represent test code?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, please rename to be more specific.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request is completed.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this compatible with what the SW infra team wants?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is also part of homework done by SW infra team. We have included this to test performance of agent state in simulation.
Please let us know if we could rename this to test code and merge to s2025 or remove it.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It’s ok, let’s keep it

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request is completed.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this file necessary?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This file is done as part of SW Infra Team Homework to plot more info on controller cross track error and vehicle's acceleration and the trajectory that the vehicle has taken. We can remove it if you think it is related to HW and dont need in S2025 branch.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request is completed.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this file necessary?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This file will be removed

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request is completed.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this file necessary?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This file is done as part of SW Infra Team Homework to plot more info on controller cross track error and vehicle's acceleration and the trajectory that the vehicle has taken. We can remove it if you think it is related to HW and dont need in S2025 branch.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggest to remove it for now, let’s ask the control team to commit any comfort test scripts they are using

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This request is completed.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't take this file out

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This file has been added back

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Stray debugging was committed

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Removed

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented May 7, 2025

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
18 Security Hotspots

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

@krishauser
Copy link
Owner

LGTM

@krishauser krishauser merged commit 0953a35 into s2025 May 7, 2025
2 of 4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.