Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [sumo-dev] emissions whilst trying to exit from parking

Hi again,
On a first look at the other kind of emission outputs:

trip information -  I tried the following approach and it seems to behave:
  a)    added   MSDevice_Emissions::notifyIdle(SUMOTrafficObject& veh)  + (virtual method in MSMoveReminders)    which calls      myEmissions.addScaled      
  b)    added   MSVehicle::addIdleEmissions()  which iterates over the move reminders invoking notifyIdle
  c)    invoke  MSVehicle::addIdleEmissions()   from  MSVehicleTransfer::checkInsertions   when the insertion fails

Color vehicles by emission:
The current code does not recognise that the vehicle is not on the net - so a parked or stopped vehicle never has zero emissions
 - can be corrected by  changing the rellevant cases in        GUIVehicle::getColorValue    to the equivalent of:
        case 14:
            if ( isOnRoad() || isTryingToEnterNet() )
                return getCO2Emissions();
                return 0.;

     but I might be nervous about a performance impact for large simulations?

Edge/Lane emission aggregations
  I can't see a clean way to do these - the parked vehicle has lost the MSMeanData_Emissions::MSLaneMeanDataValues  MSMoveReminder
    adding this back then handling lane re-entry would be a horrible kludge.

Arguably the Edge/Lane emissions should not have the parking related emissions anyway - it feels like the correct approach would be to add a specific MSMoveReminder for parking emissions - then add it when the vehicle is parked and remove when re-entering the lane?

Any thoughts welcome!

Whilst looking at this I noted that the definition of     enum Notification     in  MSMoveReminder.h    has  NOTIFICATION_PARKING_REROUTE  appended to the enum.
 however the enum has a comment, ("All notifications below must result in the vehicle not being on the net..."), that suggests NOTIFICATION_PARKING_REROUTE  is in the wrong place? 

-------- Original Message --------
On 23 Feb 2020, 21:14, Jakob Erdmann < namdre.sumo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The approach sounds reasonable. However, it won't cover all kinds of emission outputs:


Back to the top