m5james
Member
I'll have to look for the setting then since my '17 X P100D doesn't show the repeaters when backing up.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bird eye view
- Thread starter DrBones911
- Start date
I believe you can switch it while in reverse, not sure if you can switch it when using the camera button. Good chance DCGOO is correct re: the cone button in the corner, I just can't remember how to turn them on because I've left them on so long.
maxiam
Member
in the same spirit, you really don't need auto pilot, you need to drive better. you don't need falcon wing doors, you can just bend over a bit more, you don't need 2.5s 0-60mph, just wait a little.
You have to have MCU2 for camera access. On MCU1 you can only see the reverse camera.
The patent is owned by Bosch or Nissan.
It's a matter of Tesla doesn't want to pay to use it.
I think it's expiring soon. And once that happens. I'm sure it'll come to our cars.
I do miss it. I loved it in my e-tron and just last week had to borrow a Sienna that had it.
It has nothing to do with a patent.
Tesla doesn't have the camera setup for a true birds-eye view. It will never come. There is no front camera at the bumper.
What Tesla delivered, instead, to FSD Beta is the vector-space birds-eye view shown earlier.
Oh it does have to do with a patent.
They can easily add cameras especially on our $100k plus cars.
It's just code stitching images together.
But why when you have to pay for licensing.
As soon as that patent expires, tesla will have it.
If Mercedes, BMW, Audi etc can do it and have their version of autopilot with their cameras, no reason Tesla can't.
This just my opinion though.
So you think all of this time Tesla has been the only singular manufacturer to not install a license plate/front bumper camera is because of a patent on the birds-eye view?
That's absolutely absurd.
Even if Tesla wanted to be the only manufacturer to not pay for some license and they had any ambitions of ever adding it you don't think they would have added a camera?
0 logic there.
No. They don't have bird eye view because they dont want to pay for the licensing. It's that simple.
If a 30k car can have it why not my 160k MX Plaid?
Think about that.
Companies make decisions all the time based on cost and what they think they'll pay for it.
I'm a software engineer and run into having to scrap ideas or come up with something because of patents.
You have to pay to play. Tesla doesn't want to.
...They don't have a front camera to provide a birds-eye view. That's why they went with vector space birds eye.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh my goodness. Think for a minute.
If they paid for the licensing then they'd have the front camera to use it for birds eye view.
They didn't so they don't need to install a front camera.
Instead they come up with their own solution. It's not that hard.
It's not hard man. But you have your opinion I got mine. No need to say anything is idiotic.
There's no logic there. What substance or backing do you have that Tesla was the only one who thought the license wasn't reasonable and they weren't going to pay for it and therefore completely abandon the idea of adding an additional camera...then maintain this position for over 10 years.
The vector space birds eye was just pushed, to Beta testers, this year. This isn't some crazy scheme where Tesla was going to do it their own way only to wait 10 years to attempt it.
The CT will have a front camera and the Semi does as well...the rest of the fleet hasn't and there are no current rumors of it.
And what substance or backing do you have?
Mine comes from the fact that 30k cars have it. Almost all manufacturers have it as an option.
I'm in the business that deals with patents and decisions are made to either pay to use it or come up with another solution that doesn't violate said patents.
And maintaining a position for 10 years you'd have to ask Elon.
You just aren't using logic. Your point that every other car has it works against you.
You've made the leap that Tesla has decided for 10 years to avoid birds eye or adding a front camera because of a patent. The burden of proof is on you.
As far as I can tell there's nothing of substance backing this, anywhere.
Ive dealt with patent issues and eveything points to it in Teslas case. Otherwise why not have a feature that almost all other manufacturers have?
But agree to disagree. I'm off to lunch in my non birds eye view plaid on beautiful Napa day.
enjoy your weekend
Dude there is no point arguing with USCBucsfan. I've worked in automotive and killed what amounts to a "surround view" option on cost alone due to the license and camera cost. So, I know for certainty your statement has general merit.
While we can't say for certainty why Tesla does what it does, Tesla's general MO is to own their own UI/UX. And they have a habit of choosing to go with their own options instead of taking something that would either be off the shelf or require a license. See Apple Carplay / Android Auto. So, if they already have USS and cameras everywhere, it doesn't make sense for Tesla's ethos to add costs/complexity/license to put in a top-down representation stitched together under someone else's patent.
Personally, I agree that a $100k+ car ought to have this top-down view regardless of license or not. Simply because buyers typically expect it, and it's a PITA to park large vehicles without it. But Tesla's approach seems to be just fine; and they sell cars even without USS now because apparently their buyers just don't care. I suck at driving, so I have a tough time parking 7-seat vehicles without this top-down view.
Also, a counterpoint to your license argument is Homelink. The technology for that module is under license and Tesla seemed ok with putting it into Model X as a standard feature or on other cars as an option. So maybe Tesla will license when there is no capable substitute in their eyes.
No point in arguing with someone who's best argument is "muh logic"? I thought that's what the Internet was made for. Wait... Do you have a life or something?
I'd like to stay out of the argument, but my logic (or whatever it is) dictates that I wouldn't pay to put a camera under the front license plate of a vehicle I was building if I wasn't also willing to pay for the license to use that camera. I suppose Tesla's willingness to remove a feature with the intent to replace it with a newer technology before said technology is ready paired with their willingness to promise features that aren't yet available and occasional ability to offer an upgrade that a legacy automaker wouldn't could be misread as a willingness to build a vehicle that can support any feasible future features regardless of whether or not said features have been promised, but that seems like an unreasonable stretch to me, especially considering counterexamples including: non-AP vehicles can't be upgraded to AP, AP1 vehicles can't be upgraded to newer AP versions, and so far it is alleged that MCU2 & AP3 can't be upgraded to MCU3 & AP4. I also feel like there are numerous instances of Tesla or Musk explicitly stating that they don't want to pay for patent licensing along with their once-if-not-still outstanding offer to share all of Tesla's patents with companies who reciprocate with their own complete patent portfolios imply that they tend do lean heavily toward not paying such license fees.
FWIW, I'm replying to you so that I'm not replying to the argument, so maybe I'm Internet-ing wrong... Not sure...
Last edited:
Lol I read your post this morning and not having coffee totally had me misrepresenting what you were saying hah. Yeah having kids wake you up at 6am shouldn’t be commingled with posting on TMC.
I just wish Tesla would have fixed this “no USS” thing before they removed the USS. Like we just got a GLS, that by my simple measuring stick of parking in my garage… the GLs is larger than the model X. The GLS also has an obnoxious hood that makes seeing things in front of it basically impossible.
But street parking and navigating tight spaces is so easy because they put sensors all over it and they have a camera on the front bumper. I know Tesla wants to save money, but man it makes parking the 2023 Model X a gigantic pain.
henderrj
Active Member
It is difficult, being attacked directly, to maintain a logical argument. So kudos for that. However, I think I'd have to see the patent to think you were correct.
I think more likely the issue is elon's personality. He wants to do things his way, and no other way. He's so convinced that software and programming is the answer to everything, that I doubt he would do something as basic and mono functional as "cameras to just see around your car for parking". They would have to have multiple purposes, particularly as having to do with full self driving.
Also, he loves to keep things as simple as possible. To use as few devices as possible. If the answer isn't simple and eloquent, he's not really interested. Somebody's going to have to come up with a real good reason to put a front bumper camera on Tesla cars before he will ever agree to it.
