feat: add new vehicle model

[yuki-takagi-66]

Description

This PR is sync PR to the universe side PR: autowarefoundation/autoware.universe#7651

Abstract

The vehicle model has been updated due to the need to simulate hill-slip behavior.
It is necessary to pass acceleration and gradient separately to the vehicle model.

Background

see universe side PR: autowarefoundation/autoware.universe#7651

Details

References

Destructive Changes

Known Limitations

[github-actions]

This PR edits vehicle model that is copied from simple_planning_simulator. Please consider making changes to the original code to avoid confusion or consult developers (@hakuturu583, @yamacir-kit and @HansRobo ).

[dmoszynski]

@yuki-takagi-66

Vector X order

I noticed that the reason of negative scenarios in these Evaluator results is in EgoEntitySimulation::overwrite() method.

• The order of the set values was incorrect, in the new model index 5 is PEDAL_ACCX, and index 6 is ACCX.
• Therefore, I developed a fix that is in this commit (included in this PR).
• However, I'm wondering why ACCX is not on index 5 as in the other models (see table below), and why PEDAL_ACCX is not added as index 6? I suspect that the X vector for each model should be consistent. This consistency so far has provided the benefit of using [[fallthrough]]; in this code.
• The change of order in the new model causes inconsistency - thus the mentioned fix is required.
• Could you let me know if this change of order is intentional? 🙇

SimModelDelaySteerAcc	SimModelDelaySteerAccGeared	SimModelDelaySteerMapAccGeared	SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard	SimModelDelaySteerVel

Source code difference

I believe that the code of vehicle models (simple_planning_simulator) added to scenario_simulator_v2 should be possibly identical to the one from autoware.universe.

• I noticed a difference in the source code between ss2/sim_model_delay_steer_acc_geared_wo_fall_guard and autoware/sim_model_delay_steer_acc_geared_wo_fall_guard.

• More precisely, in the version for scenario_simulator_v2 one conditional block is missing (left side of the screenshot):

• I would also like to ask if this difference in the source code is intentional? 🙇

[yuki-takagi-66]

@dmoszynski
Thank you

About Vector X order
For the conventional models, ACCX denotes both pedal_position and current acceleration.
However, to handle rolling back on slope, we have to separate these values.
Hence I add the element PEDAL_ACCX
In other words, element ACCX has different meaning for the each vehicle models

There is no reason about the order itself. I re-add ACCX after the first PR is merged.
autowarefoundation/autoware.universe#8607

I think we have a option to exchange ACCX and PEDAL_ACCX, but i feel this do not solve the issue.

About source code difference
Thank you so much.
It is not intentional difference. we should identify scenario_sim with simple_planning_simlator

[dmoszynski]

@yuki-takagi-66 cc @yamacir-kit
The reported issue with Evaluator results has been fixed and I believe that you can resume working on this PR.

In details

In autoware.universe the PR that changes the order to the expected one has been merged, so:

• I unified the code of the new SimModelDelaySteerAccGearedWoFallGuard between scenario_simulator_v2 and autoware.universe (commit) -

  • The header files between simple_planning_simulator (autoware.universe) and simple_sensor_simulator (scenario_simulator_v2) are now the same,

  • as well as the source files between simple_planning_simulator (autoware.universe) and simple_sensor_simulator (scenario_simulator_v2) are now the same.

  • By unification, I also mean that I’ve fixed the source code difference mentioned in this comment and added passing the “steer_bias” parameter here.

• I’ve reversed my recent changes that solved the issue of the wrong order - because they are no longer needed (commit).

  • The common use of [[fallthrough]] is back, thanks to the fact that the order is correct now.

• I’ve conducted local tests using 3 negative scenarios from these Evaluator results in which the issue occurred, all works well, and results Passed.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
6 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
23.7% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud