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
