Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [sumo-user] mingap and lcassertive parameters

- changing minGap is fine
- changing lcAssertive should not be necessary since the desired gaps can be tuned via attributes of the carFollowModel
- lcAssertive is useful for lane changing with reduced safety (and possibly to compensate for overly conservative driving behavior at lane drops)
- setting tau is probably useful since it is the main parameter that determines vehicle spacing at high speed

Am Do., 10. Feb. 2022 um 08:54 Uhr schrieb mehmet nedim yavuz <mehmetnedimyvz@xxxxxxxxx>:
I would like to model human-driven vehicles and autonomous vehicles which have different autonomy levels (i.e Level-2 and Level 4 for my case). I decrease minGap value through Level 0 to Level-4 based on literature studies. For the lane-changing behaviour, lcassertive value affects vehicle distance gaps behind and in front of it.  These gaps are already determined by car following model parameters, so the gaps do not need further influence from a lane changing parameter which would either encourage or discourage AV lane changing. I am not sure that changing both of them(minGap and lcAssertive value) or  changing only car-following parameter  is true approach? Regards.
sumo-user mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top