Physics run really slow? #420
-
Hi! Thanks again for your work on I had a question about some odd behavior I've noticed: Sometimes in Ignition it seems like the robots move unrealistically slow. Have you seen this before or do you know what might be the reason for this? To demonstrate this behavior, I modified your C++ example given here using the C++ API for ScenarIO. Except this time I did it for the ANYmal robot. The simulation is simple: It spawns ANYmal 1 meter above the ground, and then integrates the simulation forward for 30 seconds (as you do for the pendulum example). The URDF and meshes come from here which I have used many times and which I am sure is correct. I put my code in a separate repository here as a minimum working example: https://github.com/nicholaspalomo/test_ignition The behavior I expect is that the robot quickly falls to the ground - certainly in less than 30 seconds. What I actually see is that the robot never even reaches the ground within the 30 seconds integrated by the simulator. I was wondering if you all had any idea what might be the reason for this seemingly unphysical behavior? Thanks again! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
Oh wow indeed the behavior is quite odd! It took me a while to figure out what's the cause. I initially thought that the problem was the anymal model. I tried disabling all the torque and joint velocity limits, switching to a pure velocity control, etc but nothing changed. Then, I tried to replace the quadruped with a simple cube, and the same behavior occurs. Something else was off. To facilitate and speed up debugging, I ported your C++ example to Python, you can find the script below. I found out that the problem occurred only when the base velocity of the model is reset. Digging more into the rabbit hole, I isolated the source of the problem to the following lines: gym-ignition/scenario/src/plugins/Physics/Physics.cc Lines 2952 to 2964 in fa14f7f In short, after the first time that from the API the Checking the history, those lines were introduced in #365, and they reflect the changes landed upstream in gazebosim/gz-sim#427. This last upstream PR targets TPE, that is their kinematics physics engine, maybe in TPE having a zero velocity command would produce the right behavior. Instead, in DART, it causes the problems we experienced here. Apparently this went under the radars in both theirs and our testing pipeline. For the moment, you can solve by just commenting out the lines where you reset the base velocity. The default is zero. I will open a PR to fix it, but since it will touch the vendored Physics system, I want to take advantage to align it with upstream. The process is a bit cumbersome, I'm not sure I'll find enough time to do it in the next few days. I'll put it in my TODO list. Thanks for providing a clear MWE! It helped a lot the process. In general, I suggest to produce a single Python file since it's easier to share, no need to create a repo with all the CMake stuff, but if you're more comfortable with C++, keep doing it also the next times 😉 example.pyMust be stored in the same folder of import time
from pathlib import Path
import numpy as np
from scenario import core as scenario_core
from scenario import gazebo as scenario_gazebo
scenario_gazebo.set_verbosity(scenario_gazebo.Verbosity_debug)
if __name__ == "__main__":
# Create the simulator
gazebo = scenario_gazebo.GazeboSimulator(step_size=0.001, rtf=1.0, steps_per_run=10)
# Get the integration time
dt = gazebo.step_size() * gazebo.steps_per_run()
# Initialize the simulator
assert gazebo.initialize()
# Get the default world
world = gazebo.get_world()
# Select the physics engine
assert world.set_physics_engine(scenario_gazebo.PhysicsEngine_dart)
# Explicitly set the gravity
assert world.set_gravity([0, 0, -10.0])
# Get the path of the build folder
build_folder_path = Path(__file__).parent.absolute() / "build"
# Insert the ground plane
assert world.insert_model(str(build_folder_path / "ground_plane.sdf"))
# Open the GUI
gazebo.gui(0)
time.sleep(3)
gazebo.run(paused=True)
# Insert a robot
model_file = "anymal.urdf"
model_name = "my_model"
if not world.insert_model(
str(build_folder_path / model_file),
scenario_core.Pose([0, 0, 1.0], [3.0, 0, 0, 0]),
model_name,
):
raise RuntimeError
# Get the robot
robot = world.get_model(model_name=model_name)
# Disable any limit set in the model file
_ = [j.set_velocity_limit(np.finfo(float).max) for j in robot.joints()]
_ = [j.set_max_generalized_force(np.finfo(float).max) for j in robot.joints()]
# Process model insertion
assert gazebo.run(paused=True)
time.sleep(5)
# Set the joint control mode
assert robot.set_joint_control_mode(
scenario_core.JointControlMode_velocity_follower_dart
)
# Configure the joint controller
assert robot.set_controller_period(gazebo.step_size())
# Initialize the robot state
assert robot.to_gazebo().reset_base_world_linear_velocity([0.0, 0, 5.0])
assert robot.to_gazebo().reset_base_world_angular_velocity([0.0, 0, 0.0])
# Simulate for 30 seconds
_ = [gazebo.run() for _ in np.arange(start=0, stop=30, step=dt)]
# Close the simulator
time.sleep(5)
gazebo.close() |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Oh wow indeed the behavior is quite odd! It took me a while to figure out what's the cause.
I initially thought that the problem was the anymal model. I tried disabling all the torque and joint velocity limits, switching to a pure velocity control, etc but nothing changed. Then, I tried to replace the quadruped with a simple cube, and the same behavior occurs. Something else was off.
To facilitate and speed up debugging, I ported your C++ example to Python, you can find the script below. I found out that the problem occurred only when the base velocity of the model is reset.
Digging more into the rabbit hole, I isolated the source of the problem to the following lines:
gym-ignition/sce…