Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Some issue in Data collection for Carla 0.9.10 #24

Closed
t27 opened this issue Oct 26, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Some issue in Data collection for Carla 0.9.10 #24

t27 opened this issue Oct 26, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@t27
Copy link

t27 commented Oct 26, 2020

While running the data collection code on 0.9.10 we found some issues that mostly seem like they were caused due to some breaking changes in Carla 0.9.9 -> 0.9.10

This one seems like an issue in the scenario runner import where the name of the AgentPool was changed to DataProvider,
https://github.com/bradyz/leaderboard/blob/35fb5f2d1e7d8884d20d92e492f5d49ecbae2b65/team_code/map_agent.py#L1

Over here the semantic segmentation remapping is not compatible with the larger semantic segmentation outputs in carla 0.9.10 (Old vs New)
https://github.com/bradyz/carla_project/blob/2f0c166167a8d44b8b720cdbcd5d56983fa71602/src/common.py#L4

I can submit a PR for the above changes if needed as well, I would just need some help with the new segmentation class mappings, do let me know if I can help,

Thanks!

@bradyz
Copy link
Owner

bradyz commented Oct 26, 2020

thanks for the detailed issue!

I've fixed these in the newest commit a05ab7b and the data collection should work in 0.9.10.1 now

@omerXfaruq
Copy link

Hello @t27 can you currently collect data, I have problems in data_collection here: #31
Is your problem solved, how do you currently collect data, I want to collect segmentation_data.
Thank you very much!

@t27
Copy link
Author

t27 commented Nov 25, 2020

Yeah, I was able to collect data. Although at the time i posted the issue, we chose to collect data from Carla 0.9.9 instead of 0.9.10 as we were short of time and using 0.9.9 in that version of the repository was the fastest way. Although the code is updated now and it should be working with 0.9.10 now.

I faced a similar issue as #31, I've commented there with what worked for me

@t27 t27 closed this as completed Nov 25, 2020
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants