Watching robots race cars would sure be boring.
Reminds me of watching a computer program play Monopoly against itself.
Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
11–20 of 41 posts
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#12"It’s only a matter of time before robotic cars outperform their human-driven counterparts." How much time are we talking? I don't agree with this statement in anything like the near (decades) term, particularly if we are talking actual races and not timed run events.
Really? I'd expect that robotic cars will dominate closed-course races sooner rather than later simply due to the fact that the course is known, can be mapped down to the millimeter, and can be simulated offline. AI cars don't get bored, distracted, suffer fatigue, or need the physical stamina to drive an optimal line rain or shine hundreds of times in a row.
Mapping down to the millimeter is great, but the conditions on track are continually changing. Weather (rain, sun, track surface temperature, air temperature), debris (dirt, grass, marbles, spectator thrown shoes), rubber being laid down on the track, changing condition of the driver's vehicle and other vehicles are all things that need to be contended with. Simulation helps, assuredly, and is used in human based efforts extensively, but you can't exactly just play back your simulation on a real track and expect the car to stay on course at race speed.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#13Watching robots race cars would sure be boring. Reminds me of watching a computer program play Monopoly against itself.
What about watching humans race against robot cars?
That would be something I would consider watching.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#14Watching robots race cars would sure be boring. Reminds me of watching a computer program play Monopoly against itself.
Have you ever watched humans race cars? I would watch robots race simple courses before I'd watch people, especially if different algorithms are competing. It'd be more like watching StarCraft bots compete.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#15I've gotten just north of 100 on Infineon. I wonder if Thunderhill has more straightaways.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, in some aspects, we're already there! :) Computers can run a car at the limits of its traction circle much better than humans can, even with nothing more than an accelerometer. I've done some hacking around this, and it turns out that you can go about it fairly naïvely, code-wise, and do way better than even good amateur racers. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any top F1 drivers to datalog them side b…
"Heck, if nothing else, having to cart around 150-180lbs of meat with fairly tall packaging and some weird requirements about having to see and what kind of forces you can exert on it is a bit of a drag to making the quickest possible wheeled vehicle." I think I should have gone into more detail, as I believe that the statement from the article refers to entering a computer controlled car into a race with humans. The…
ALMS does not allow broadcast telemetry. They can only pick up data once it's pulled into the pit.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I'd expect that robotic cars will dominate closed-course races sooner rather than later simply due to the fact that the course is known, can be mapped down to the millimeter, and can be simulated offline. AI cars don't get bored, distracted, suffer fatigue, or need the physical stamina to drive an optimal line rain or shine hundreds of times in a row.
Mapping down to the millimeter is great, but the conditions on track are continually changing. Weather (rain, sun, track surface temperature, air temperature), debris (dirt, grass, marbles, spectator thrown shoes), rubber being laid down on the track, changing condition of the driver's vehicle and other vehicles are all things that need to be contended with. Simulation helps, assuredly, and is used in human based eff…
That's a good point, for instance, Google's car has both on-board sensors and annotated route information. I wasn't suggesting that offline simulations be replayed, but simply that the problem space is to some extent a more perfect knowledge environment than the open road will ever be. Cheers.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#18I've gotten just north of 100 on Infineon. I wonder if Thunderhill has more straightaways.
Also depends on your car. If you are looking for a straightaway for outright speed, Big Willow lets some cars get up to about 160 or so.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#19I've gotten just north of 100 on Infineon. I wonder if Thunderhill has more straightaways.
Also depends on your car. If you are looking for a straightaway for outright speed, Big Willow lets some cars get up to about 160 or so.
In this case, an R8. Infineon doesn't have much in terms of straightaways.
Re: Stanford’s Self-Driving Car Tears It Up On Racetrack – Tops 120 MPH
#20Watching robots race cars would sure be boring. Reminds me of watching a computer program play Monopoly against itself.
if humans are safely out of the picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleBots