I am having difficulties finding the modification for modifying the left turn volume for each duration of the permissive-protective phase in Vistro. I am using HCM 7 and need to verify the LOS. In doing so, I need to have the left turn volume during the permissive phase. But I need help finding a setting in Vistro to do that. Any help would be much appreciated.
I already asked PTV support team, but no success so far
Related
(Disclaimer: I'm quite new to Tosca but not to testing in general)
DESCRIPTION
I'm automating a very dynamic page in Tosca, with content that is added (or not) as you progress through a form.
I do not have a testsheet at hand and do not have time to create one so I cannot use a template and the 'conditions' (I'm using TC-Parameters and they do not seem to apply to the 'Condition' column).
I wanted to use libraries as much as possible because most of the steps are the same, and there are a LOT of possible outcomes (I have more than 100 TCs to automate) so I'm trying to have my steps as 'generic' as possible, so that if the interface is changed in the future I'll be ale to maintain most of it 'centrally'.
PROBLEM
I've added four 'ifs' in strategic points. The problem is that an unsuccessful 'if' seems to hang for 10s, no matter what I use inside: 'verify' takes 10s & 'waiton' also takes 10s (although for the latter I modified the settings to 5s so I don't understand why).
I'm actually not interested in 'verify' waiting at all. I know that the content has either to be there or not at the precise moment where I have my condition. I'd be happy with a 1s delay, that'd be more than enough time for the app to display the content.
The TCs duration varies between 1m and 1m40s (4*10s if my 4 'if' are negative). It'd be great if I could speed it up, especially because most of the 'ifs' will NOT trigger. Any ideas?
You could try checking some settings regarding how long Tosca waits for Verify/Waiton:
Settings > Engine > Waiton > Maximum Wait Duration
Settings > TBox > Synchronization > Synchronization Time out
However, I've also found using buffered values to be more efficient time-wise for some of my testing scenarios.
I solved it by adding TCPs and buffering them, in order to check them as conditions (not sure why Tosca requires the intermediate buffering step but that does the trick). Now I can configure whether my tests should expect a given follow-up item or not. It's a lot of extra configs but at least my tests are nicely modular.
I got a power consumption sensor (kWh) sending data to my TSI Gen2 environment, and it is malfunctioning in a way that it is losing its accumulated measuremente value when it is shut down. I need to create a new aggregate/variable that would "stack" the measurements , never letting it drop to zero, but always adding to the last greatest value.
I thought about creating a dataset with values from differences from right to left over a fixed timespan, if positive, and then I could create a SUM aggregation over the bucket period on top of it. I am clueless on how to do such thing based on the poor official documentation provided by Microsoft. Any Ideas?
Here are a couple of pictures illustrating my problem and What I am trying to accomplish:
You probably need to add something in the middle (before the IoT Hub/Event Hub) to save the last state of the sensor, and do the appropriate sum if if detects the device was rebooted.
So I've been messing around with Project Tango, and noticed that if I turn on a motion tracking app, and leave the device on a table(blocking all cameras), the motion tracking goes off in crazy directions and makes incredibly wrong predictions on where I'm going (I'm not even moving, but the device thinks I'm going 10 meters to the right). I'm wondering if their is some exception that can be thrown or some warning or api call I can call to stop this from happening.
if you block all the camera, there is not features camera can capture.
so motion tracking may be in two stages:
1. No moving,
2. drifting to Hawaii.
either ways may happen.
If you did block the fisheye camera, yes, this is expected.
For API, There is a way to handle it.
Please check life cycle for motiontracking concept
For example for C/C++ :
https://developers.google.com/project-tango/apis/c/c-motion-tracking
if API detected pose_data as TANGO_POSE_INVALID, the motion tracking system can be reinitialized in two ways. If config_enable_auto_recovery was set to true, the system will immediately enter the TANGO_POSE_INITIALIZING state. It will use the last valid pose as the starting point after recovery. If config_enable_auto_recovery was set to false, the system will essentially pause and always return poses as TANGO_POSE_INVALID until TangoService_resetMotionTracking() is called. Unlike auto recovery, this will also reset the starting point after recovery back to the origin.
Also you can add Handling Adverse Situations with UX-Framework to your app.
check the link:
https://developers.google.com/project-tango/ux/ux-framework-exceptions
The last solution is by write the function handle driftting by measuring velocity of pose_data and call TangoService_resetMotionTracking() and so on.
I run a filter on the intake that tries not to let obviously ridiculous pose changes through, and I believe no reported points whose texel is white nor any pose where the entire texture is in near shouting distance of black
I'm working on a game (using Game Maker: Studio Professional v1.99.355) that needs to have both user-modifiable level geometry and AI pathfinding based on platformer physics. Because of this, I need a way to dynamically figure out which platforms can be reached from which other platforms in order to build a node graph I can feed to A*.
My current approach is, more or less, this:
For each platform consider each other platform in the level.
For each of those platforms, if it is obviously unreachable (due to being higher than the maximum jump height, for example) do not form a link and move on to next platform.
If a link seems possible, place an ai_character instance on the starting platform and (within the current step event) simulate a jump attempt.
3.a Repeat this jump attempt for each possible starting position on the starting platform.
If this attempt is successful, record the data necessary to replicate it in real time and move on to the next platform.
If not, do not form a link.
Repeat for all platforms.
This approach works, more or less, and produces a link structure that when visualised looks like this:
linked platforms (Hyperlink because no rep.)
In this example the mostly-concealed pink ghost in the lower right corner is trying to reach the black and white box. The light blue rectangles are just there to highlight where recognised platforms are, the actual platforms are the rows of grey boxes. Link lines are green at the origin and red at the destination.
The huge, glaring problem with this approach is that for a level of only 17 platforms (as shown above) it takes over a second to generate the node graph. The reason for this is obvious, the yellow text in the screen centre shows us how long it took to build the graph: over 24,000(!) simulated frames, each with attendant collision checks against every block - I literally just run the character's step event in a while loop so everything it would normally do to handle platformer movement in a frame it now does 24,000 times.
This is, clearly, unacceptable. If it scales this badly at a mere 17 platforms then it'll be a joke at the hundreds I need to support. Heck, at this geometric time cost it might take years.
In an effort to speed things up, I've focused on the other important debugging number, the tests counter: 239. If I simply tried every possible combination of starting and destination platforms, I would need to run 17 * 16 = 272 tests. By figuring out various ways to predict whether a jump is impossible I have managed to lower the number of expensive tests run by a whopping 33 (12%!). However the more exceptions and special cases I add to the code the more convinced I am that the actual problem is in the jump simulation code, which brings me at long last to my question:
How would you determine, with complete reliability, whether it is possible for a character to jump from one platform to another, preferably without needing to simulate the whole jump?
My specific platform physics:
Jumps are fixed height, unless you hit a ceiling.
Horizontal movement has no acceleration or inertia.
Horizontal air control is allowed.
Further info:
I found this video, which describes a similar problem but which doesn't provide a good solution. This is literally the only resource I've found.
You could limit the amount of comparisons by only comparing nearby platforms. I would probably only check the horizontal distance between platforms, and if it is wider than the longest jump possible, then don't bother checking for a link between those two. But you might have done this since you checked for the max height of a jump.
I glanced at the video and it gave me an idea. Instead of looking at all platforms to find which jumps are impossible, what if you did the opposite? Try placing an AI character on all platforms and see which other platforms they can reach. That's certainly easier to implement if your enemies can't change direction in midair though. Oh well, brainstorming is the key to finding something.
Several ideas you could try out:
Limit the amount of comparisons you need to make by using a spatial data structure, like a quad tree. This would allow you to severely limit how many platforms you're even trying to check. This is mostly the same as what you're currently doing, but a bit more generic.
Try to pre-compute some jump trajectories ahead of time. This will not catch all use cases that you have - as you allow for full horizontal control - but might allow you to catch some common cases more quickly
Consider some kind of walkability grid instead of a link generation scheme. When geometry is modified, compute which parts of the level are walkable and which are not, with some resolution (something similar to the dimensions of your agent might be good starting point). You could also filter them with a height, so that grid tiles that are higher than your jump height, and you can't drop from a higher place on to them, are marked as unwalkable. Then, when you compute your pathfinding, as part of your pathfinding step you can compute when you start a jump, if a path is actually executable ('start a jump, I can go vertically no more than 5 tiles, and after the peak of the jump, i always fall down vertically with some speed).
i am developing a multiplayer roleplaying game, (No, its not a mmorpg. ;)
My current setup is like this.
Client tells the server "I want to move forward"/"I want to move backwards", the server then updates your entity, and informs all clients in the area about the change. The server is also updating each entity every 20ms and sending updates every 100ms to the clients, these updates contains position, velocity, rotation etc.
So far so good, however i have nothing in store for smoothing the movement between the packets on the client side, and i must say, i can not get it working. I have been reading up on prediction, interpolation, deadreackoning but its all a big mess for me.
So right now i am just doing something like "Position = Packet.Position", which causes a very stuttering movement.
So, what i want help with is, how do i get a more smooth movement? Have been looking at the XNA Prediction Sample, but i could not get it right.
Thanks //F
Read Valve's description of their multiplayer protocol. It should be instructive, and gives a very clear example on how you do the prediction/interpolation.
I'd suggest the idea from another question (see the accepted answer)
Here the client calculates its position itself as if its not a network game. Client regularly sends his current position to the server. And if client cheats or can't continue moving in the chosen direction, server just sends the client his correct position.
The same algorithm was used in Ultima Online (at least when I was playing it 10 years ago)
I solved it by running a ghost entity alongside with my main one.
The ghost will get updated every frame aswell, but whenever a packet comes in, his values are set to the values of the packet.
I then gradually tweak the real entity to where the ghost is.