261–270 of 349 posts
“In the near future, once these features achieve performance parity to today’s vehicles” Right... like how vision vehicles have parity with autopilot speeds and following distance? Oh wait they don't. Vision-only vehicles are still limited to a max of 85mph and 2 car minimum following distance for autosteer while radar is 90mph and 1 car following distance. Texas has 85mph highways. The two car following distance con…
> because the gap is so large I drive with a six car gap and even that was a close-call when someone had a contact about 3 cars ahead. The good part is that if the car in front of you flashes the brake lights, that seems to trigger the braking. And some of the newer cars blink hazards automatically when braking hard. My Subaru is also vision only (Eyesight), which also has the cameras too close together (in my opinio…
When they disagree, one of them is wrong. Would you rather have just the wrong sensor or both the wrong one and the good one as inputs to decide what to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to see the convincing data RE: radar - they're using the same radars as every other car that has emergency braking from the car in front of the car that's in front of you. I've not heard of many "phantom braking" sessions from these other vehicles - I may have missed something.
Allow me to take you for a drive in my Volvo V90. I turned the auto-braking feature off entirely because it spits false positives like crazy. Parked cars, signs, birds, cars travelling through roundabouts across my nose, nothing at all - they all trigger it, and the car stomps the brakes extremely hard. The 2017 VW Golf it replaced was FAR better - maybe two false positives in 5 years. The Volvo? Daily.
TM3 has never had this issue for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason why they decided to remove ultrasonics is that combining contradictory signals from cameras and ultrasonic is not straightforward. What should have the higher precedence? So they ultimately decided that cameras can do what ultrasonics can do, but even better. They won't remove ultrasonics from the delivered cars, but they will probably disable them in coming months.
The decision about what sensor to use is more easily made when one of the sensors provides no data, or clearly disturbed data. Like in case of fog, mud on a camera, pouring rain, etc. My phone often signals me that I have to clean the lenses of my camera, so I'm sure it's possible to detect unreliable sensors. Sure, you have to decide on all sorts of tipping points, and in the end that is probably expensive to develo…
As an engineer, I see little value in removing any sensors. No matter how noisy or limited they are, they bring additional information which, if processed, could improve overall accuracy. This is commonly referred to as "sensor fusion". So this is probably is purely cost-saving move. While I understand how radar could be expensive, I am not sure the saving on much cheaper ultrasound sensors is worth the loss of addit…
I've worked on 3d vision systems before and have experimented using different types of sensors in multi-sensor setups, and I'd argue that overwhelmingly it's a software problem. More sensors help, but passed a point it's extremely marginal, plus you're throwing the majority of the raw data away anyway. I do agree though - assuming processing power isn't a performance bottleneck here, more data is always better. But t…
Does anyone else think they're running out of compute power on their DL computer and trying to eliminate sensor fusion in order to preserve precious cycles for vision processing? I've long wondered if TSLA screwed up by choosing the hardware before fully solving the problem, leaving millions of vehicles incapable of performing safe FSD without HW upgrades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some pretty convincing data that they handpicked to make themselves look good and pretend they don't need a radar, a lidar and that vision only is good enough. Perpetuating a pattern of lies from Tesla, ever since they started on self driving.
You don’t need to take Tesla’s word for anything. Their latest vision stack is in the hands of ten thousand customers, some of whom regularly post their drives on YouTube.
Cars delivered today without USS will not have: "Park Assist: alerts you of surrounding objects when the vehicle is traveling This is the most basic feature that almost every car has had for years - but not your $60k Model Y. Why can't they wait to remove sensors until they've achieved feature parity with the vision only system? This seems crazy. I don't really understand the push to do everything through the cameras…
Pardon me for being out of touch, but cars park themselves now? That's pretty neat
There are multiple tells that this move, just like the removal of radar, is supply-chain and cost-driven and not actually driven by engineering. If this were a planned move, the software would already be ready to replace it. It is not. Cars without radar still aren't at parity with the car that have it, although they "fixed" this a few weeks back by simply turning off the radar on the older cars. The parking sensors…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of using car lengths as a metric of follow distance.
Because humans are not good at eye-balling distance, especially while moving. The only other point of reference is going to be the only other thing travelling on the roads at a similar speed... cars. Hence, the rough comparison of "car-lengths".