Achieving UTI

From SpaceElevatorWiki.com
Revision as of 09:27, 20 July 2009 by Jeko (talk | contribs) (Torcs' data structures and C#)

Intro

C# code design was depending a lot on C++ code due to compatibility constraint with Torcs plugins.

However, with time, we finally ended up rewriting almost everything but the car simulation engine (which is the big part of the simuv2 plugin)

We then removed lot of C++ code, mainly track and robots related code, then their dependencies.

The C# code can now be redesigned properly (without constraints), starting with the track interface (see Universal Track Interface).

Step 1: kill some C++

  • 1- We got rid of all C++ code not needed by simuv2.
    • 1. we disabled legacy c++ robots, which in turn allowed to remove learning, robottools, plib (almost completely).
    • 2. C# code that needed to access/modify t* struct now do it through an interface (called UTI).
    • 3. We removed as much C++ code as possible.
  • 2- Simplifying simuv2
    • simuv2 no longer manages collisions, we got rid of solid.

Progress indicator

The indicator is the number of lines of C++ compiled in libsimulator.so. Goal is 0 (one day maybe).

  • 22/06, 05:00pm. 39223 lines
  • 23/06, 03:00pm. 32984 lines (removed c++ drivers)
  • 23/06, 03:30pm. 31697 lines (removed learning)
  • 23/06, 05:00pm. 31565 lines (tried to remove robottools... but track have a dependency over it. simplifying what can be)
  • 24/06, 05:00pm. 30817 lines (removed gnulinux)
  • 24/06, 06:00pm. 30116 lines (removed simuv2 collision handling code, removed simuv2's dependency over the track format)
  • 26/06, 11:00am. 24528 lines (removed track, finished to remove robottools)
  • 26/06, 12:30pm. 21975 lines (removed most of plib. cleaning some commented lines)
  • 26/06, 07:30pm. 18289 lines (removed solid and portability)
  • 26/06, 10:00pm. 17949 lines (removed lot of raceman, cleaning)

Going further

Almost half the remaining C++ code is related to parsing XML and storing/managing GfParm (which is a list of Metadata -- or Dictionnary -- done in C++).

A quick grep approximates that SimuV2 retrieves about 103 static informations about the car from its GfParm files. If we create a structure in which we store those informations, we can then load them from C# (using far-far less code).

When all those 103 informations are loaded from C#, we can drop the txml and tgf c++ modules. Only simuv2 and math will remain (and I guess we then can't go any further except by porting simuv2 to C#).

Torcs' data structures and C#

OpenRacing is still relying on a few data structures which are defined in C++, they are used to keep synchronized simulation state between C++ and C#.

However, the C++ code is now absolutely free of informations about the track. So, concerning UTI's work, we have nothing to change on that part.

Alpha UTI

On the process to remove track from C++, I needed to add a minimal UTI interface in order to be able to run the simulation.

AlphaUTI is an extremely minimalist implementation of it. It gives a single starting position (0,0,2) and point its path to the street-1 folder so Ode and Ogre load their data from there.

We now need to transfer some intelligence from Ode/Ogre to UTI (so an UTI is not just a folder!).

Step 2: Conception

Plan

  1. Solve the problems
    1. What informations needs each modules?
      1. Ode?
      2. Ogre?
      3. Robots?
    2. How blender can define those?
    3. How UTI should present this to OpenRacing's modules, in an abstract way?
  2. Provide class specifications.
    1. For physics
    2. For graphics
    3. For robots
  3. Implement AlphaUTI and/or tools (depends where the methods goes)
    1. .OTF (pseudo collada) loader
    2. convert .OTF to OGRE
  4. Adapt
    1. Ode to use UTI
    2. Ogre to use UTI
    3. Robots to use UTI
  5. Enjoy the new track made with blender!

Basic design

UTI-Integration.png

Ode needs

Ode needs:

  • a list of meshes
    • with physical properties
    • with normals

Ogre needs

Robots needs

Blender exports

UTI's interface

AlphaUTI

Questions

Q1: Should the robot decide the features of his car?

It seems more natural to me to build a car then put a driver into the car (instead of the opposite). Maybe some AI are very specific to drive a particular car, let's forget about that first: we simplify!