How to use only the planning module

[fayyazpocker]

Code of Conduct

• I have read CODE OF CONDUCT and Support Guidelines before creating this Discussion post.

Contents

I have an autonomous stack project and the lane driving scenario and parking scenario in the planning part looks promising. I want to use the planner in my stack so that i can get the required trajectory from the planning. I have my own modules relevant for another scenario like offroad for which i want to use the scenario architecture you have and build offroad scenario using that. Also i would like to use the adhoc planning simulation as well as it is also very powerful. What is the best way to do it ? I am trying to do git-sparse checkout only the planning part and relevant dependencies and try to combine with my stack. Is that a good approach or do you suggest a better way to do it ?

[maxime-clem]

If I understand correctly, you want to reuse the following from Autoware:

• simple planning simulator.
• scenario runner.
• planning component.

Each of these item needs to communicate with your stack using specific interfaces (ROS 2 topics/services). It thus requires your stack to adopt most of Autoware's interfaces, or to have some "bridge" to convert the necessary messages.

For example, for the autoware_simple_planning_simulator, you can see the list of inputs/outputs your stack would need to support: https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware_universe/main/simulator/autoware_simple_planning_simulator/#inputs-outputs-api

[fayyazpocker]

Thanks for the quick reply. I really appreciate it. Should i be able to ideally run the planning_simulator as well with only the dependency with planning module and build packages upto tier4_planning_launch as you mentioned above ? I was also wondering do you have any example of adding extra scenarios similiar to lane driving and parking ?

[maxime-clem]

Should i be able to ideally run the planning_simulator as well with only the dependency with planning module and build packages upto tier4_planning_launch as you mentioned above ?

I think you also need to build packages-up-to autoware_simple_planning_simulator.

do you have any example of adding extra scenarios similiar to lane driving and parking ?

There is no example and the current scenario_selector is not so easy to modify I think.
Especially for your case of off-road driving since I suspect you do not have a map available in that case.
Please be aware that if you are in situations where you cannot rely on a lanelet map, then many planning modules of Autoware cannot be used.
If you plan to switch between map-less driving (offroad) and map-based driving (lane driving and parking), then more work is required. You can see https://github.com/tier4/mapless_autoware for a related project.

[fayyazpocker]

Thanks for the clarification. I don’t intend to use the existing planning modules in Autoware for off-road scenarios, as I’ve developed my own planners tailored for that purpose. My primary interest lies in leveraging Autoware’s planning architecture, particularly the modular structure and the lane-based planning capabilities, to extend my system’s functionality to support on-road or structured lane-based navigation. I am also interested in using the ad-hoc planning simulation you have (https://autowarefoundation.github.io/autoware-documentation/main/tutorials/ad-hoc-simulation/planning-simulation/)

Initially, my system was focused purely on off-road traversal. For that, I follow a waypoint-based or path-following approach, and I’d like to continue using that terminology and style for off-road scenarios.

I was exploring the possibility of extending the behavior_path_planner by creating custom planner plugins for off-road planning (my existing planners) and registering them under a new scenario type, such as "offroad_traversal". This would allow me to cleanly separate lane-based and off-road behaviors within the same planning framework. Do you think the architecture design would not allow it ? or there would considerable amount of changes to incorporate that behavior ?

Additionally, I’m considering using a global path , instead of a lanelet route, as input to my planner to address for offroad scenario as there is no concept of map or lanelet route in offroad. Do you think such an approach, plugging in planners based on externally provided paths and registering them under a custom scenario, can be cleanly integrated into the behavior planner architecture?

[maxime-clem]

I do not recommend trying to reuse the behavior planning nodes for offroad driving. These nodes have too much dependencies on the map and it will be much easier to develop your features in another node.

[fayyazpocker]

Thank you for your heads up and response. I will try not to edit the existing behavior modules but instead use a different node for mapless planning and may be a navigation decision in the top layer to toggle to use autoware planner for lane based and mapless planner based on the request recieved. Thanks for the clarifications.