Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

viksnewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#51

Post by 0_____0 »

itishappy wrote: post #27
0_____0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the data coming out of the Conti radars was preprocessed to give bearing, distance, and size of an object in the FOV of the unit. I don't know if I ever saw the true raw data out of one of them, but I'm curious what it looks like.

I'd be curious if the design of the Cybertruck affects readings at all. It's got angles straight outta an F-117.

I reckon it's probably not that bad, there are big surfaces that are almost normal to what would be incoming radio energy. Stealth shapes tend to reflect energy in a completely different direction from the source.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#53

Post by twelvechairs »

brcmthrowaway wrote: post #40

Is there a lidar unit I can take home and scan my house at high resolution (than iphone)?

You can, they are just expensive (other than iphone). Maybe 8k for a handheld basic one (e.g. Trion P1), $15k for a drone attachment (e.g. DJI Zenmuse L1) - more for the ones surveyors use proper including the tripod-mount ones.

At the consumer end photogrammetry tends to just be so much cheaper that its preferred unless you really need defined accuracy at a high level of detail. Lidar tends to work currently much better in an industrial/professional context because its more accurate. Whether Lidar will make the jump to lower cost / consumer level is the big open question (and basically the same issue as for cars here)

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#54

Post by xdmr »

knifie_spoonie wrote: post #36
tgaj wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically if a human can drive a car using a pair of eyes connected to brain, it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit.

In practice humans aren't particularly safe drivers.

Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? Or is it due to distraction and/or poor judgment? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I assume distraction/judgment is a bigger factor.

I'm not a fan of the camera-only approach and think Tesla is making a mistake backing it due to path-dependence, but when we're _only_ talking about this is _broadly theoretical_ terms, I don't think they're wrong. The ideal autonomous driving agent is like a perfect monday morning quarterback who gets to look at every failure and say "see, what you should have done here was..." and it seems like it might well both have enough information and be able too see enough cases to meet some desirable standard of safety. In theory. In practice, maybe they just can't get enough accuracy or something.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#55

Post by password4321 »

fragmede wrote: post #37
itishappy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time of flight ranging is used in nature by bats and whales/dolphins.

and humans! https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-to-echolocate

2024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42160071

2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18208334

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#59

Post by Klaus23 »

fragmede wrote: post #50
asdasdsddd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the benchmarks that say Mercedes, BMW, and Honda have the best level 3 features.

Don't forget Blue Cruise from Ford.

Blue Cruise is level 2+, not 3, and does not rely on lidar.

Re: A Short Introduction to Automotive Lidar Technology

#60

Post by carbotaniuman »

tgaj wrote: post #24
quonn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It‘s not just Musk. Most automobile manufacturers have maintained that they need to find a way to do it with cheap and pretty sensors.

Theoretically if a human can drive a car using a pair of eyes connected to brain, it should be possible to do that using two cameras connected to some kind of image processing unit.

Theory isn't really all that applicable to this though - in theory nothing is stopping anyone from writing all code in assembly, but obviously that doesn't happen.

I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators.

It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that).

Post reply on HN