feat: allow conditionally launch diffusion planner#1752
feat: allow conditionally launch diffusion planner#1752Owen-Liuyuxuan wants to merge 19 commits intoautowarefoundation:mainfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com>
Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com>
|
Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project! 🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode. Please ensure:
|
| /**: | ||
| ros__parameters: | ||
| plugins_path: $(find-pkg-share autoware_tensorrt_plugins)/plugins/libautoware_tensorrt_plugins.so | ||
| onnx_model_path: $(env HOME)/autoware_data/diffusion_planner/v3.0/diffusion_planner.onnx |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
memo: This comes from autowarefoundation/autoware#6710
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
@Owen-Liuyuxuan It would be great if you could also commit other RViz files |
Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com>
Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com>
|
@shmpwk @SakodaShintaro @danielsanchezaran cc: @yukkysaito
|
|
@Kotakku cc: @SakodaShintaro autowarefoundation/autoware_universe#12387 I updated parameter files and the rviz |
| <!-- planning evaluator --> | ||
| <group> | ||
| <include file="$(find-pkg-share autoware_planning_evaluator)/launch/planning_evaluator.launch.xml"> | ||
| <arg name="input/objects" value="/planning/trajectory_generator/neural_network_based_planner/diffusion_planner_node/output/predicted_objects"/> | ||
| <arg name="input/reference_trajectory" value="/planning/trajectory_generator/neural_network_based_planner/diffusion_planner_node/output/trajectory"/> | ||
| </include> | ||
| </group> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn’t we evaluate against /planning/trajectory? At this point, I think it would be fine to remove it until the validation is complete.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yukkysaito Thank you. This is the implementation from planning evaluation members, I will transfer the question.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yukkysaito
The planning evaluator is mainly evaluating /planning/trajectory and this is a different input topic
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry,
The input/reference_trajectory means which topic the /planning/trajectory compare to
In the rule-based planner, it was (here)
<arg name="input/trajectory" default="/planning/trajectory"/>
<arg name="input/reference_trajectory" default="/planning/scenario_planning/lane_driving/motion_planning/path_optimizer/trajectory"/>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yukkysaito
We need this evaluator to calculate normal planning metrics like TTC, PET, DRAC, object distance, and kinematics, etc., for data collection and Evaluator tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@xtk8532704 Thanks for the clarification. In that case, would it make sense to change this to /planning/trajectory instead? 👍
* feat: move dp as parallel to scenario planner Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com> * style(pre-commit): autofix * feat: change name to learning_based_planning Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com> * feat: fix topic connection Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com> * style(pre-commit): autofix --------- Signed-off-by: YuxuanLiuTier4Desktop <619684051@qq.com> Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
| @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ | |||
| <launch> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Owen-Liuyuxuan Is this file necessary? The same file is also being added in this PR.
#1752 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Owen-Liuyuxuan
I pasted the wrong link. This is the correct one.

https://github.com/tier4/autoware_launch/pull/1373/changes#diff-81edfeb9ed2733cfa9bac7f63803c11c3b38658b0aff31c8a9a4bd7bebf77631
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yukkysaito That tier4 PR is merged into this PR branch, which changed from
DP as parallel to planning to DP as parallel to scenario_planning


Description
Tested with old model using the current settings.

How was this PR tested?
PSim
Notes for reviewers
None.
Effects on system behavior
None.