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

Backtrack cost favoring cause oscillation #114

Closed
leijurv opened this issue Sep 1, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Backtrack cost favoring cause oscillation #114

leijurv opened this issue Sep 1, 2018 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Milestone

Comments

@leijurv
Copy link
Member

leijurv commented Sep 1, 2018

It's 10% better to retrace its steps than to just say in place, so it oscillates back and forth, retracing the last segment of its path. This happens if it's for example on a highway and the goal is way down below, a GoalYLevel so it's all equal heuristic, so backtrack cost favoring is the tiebreaker.

@leijurv leijurv added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 1, 2018
@leijurv leijurv added this to the 1.0.0 milestone Sep 1, 2018
@leijurv leijurv self-assigned this Sep 1, 2018
@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Sep 1, 2018

Actually having a very difficult time reproducing this...
https://youtu.be/tqiSSsoZYLw?t=12m22s

@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Sep 1, 2018

I think I know what's happening here... through chunk caching, it realized it had to make a large backtrace and new route. However, it cutoff that backtrack at the chunk load limit. Then, the next path it calculated was right back to where it started. It didn't continue the backtrack and around because it was better to just go for the easy heuristic improvement.

I don't know any easy way to fix this =/

@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Sep 1, 2018

Maybe with the new movement cost verification lookahead in PathExecutor it might be safe to disable chunk cutoff but leave static cutoff? That would fix this...

@leijurv
Copy link
Member Author

leijurv commented Sep 2, 2018

With 462ccad (using the estimate from calculation phase) I think it's actually safe to disable load boundary cutoff. That should solve a ton of issues and recalculation woes.

@leijurv leijurv closed this as completed in f3bd50d Sep 2, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant