Firmware 6.2

[breser]

There is a problem when a car tries to do too much thinking when it comes to something as simple as stopping. Whether or not someone hits the accelerator or not the brakes should brake when they're hit. There is no "oh, sorry I was confused so I didn't do anything" or "But, you hit the gas first so obviously you consented to being thrown into the back of the truck".

Your comment has the behavior backwards. You hit the accelerator first and then apply the brake (with the accelerator still depressed) you get braking. You the brake first and you apply the accelerator (while the brake is still depressed) you get both. There is a perfectly valid reason for this. When sitting on a steep hill you may need to hold the brake until you are already applying forward force with the accelerator.

You may say "Ohh but the car has hill hold." Hill hold has very particular conditions that it works in. It's not perfect for every situation, sometimes you're still going to use the two pedal technique.

You may say "Ohh but why not use creep mode." Well some of us don't like it. Personally I don't think I like the way it makes the car drive.

Also both of these behaviors weren't available on the car when it was first put out.

This car almost invites itself into running into things, and goes a long ways into explaining why so many people have such trivial accidents with them. Drivers backing into things because the car ignored the shift. It couldn't shift because it was going over some speed threshold, but it also didn't shift in neutral to be safe. Going into neutral at least gives the user the few hundred of milliseconds of panic (when it doesn't go) to hit the brakes.

I'm not sure why you think putting the car into neutral would be any better. You're just replacing one unexpected behavior with another. I'm guessing you think that the car won't move much then because just like above you're only really thinking about level ground.

Give Tesla a little bit of credit here. They have put a lot more thought into the user interface than you think they have.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not surprised Tesla has this ability. Apple does. Each installation package is signed. All they have to do is revoke the cert and you can no longer install it. Doesn't matter if you've already downloaded it.

I seriously doubt that Tesla would revoke the certificate to pull back an update.

It's my understanding from various things I've heard is that the car has to be able to use the 3G connection in order to apply an update. I'd bet that the car contacts Tesla and asks permission to install the update it's already downloaded. It's my understanding that this verification can't happen over WiFi.

So stopping an update being installed is just a matter of stopping to give that permission.

 

[Andyw2100]

So this is a new one for me. I was traveling this week. While I was gone, I received a notice on my phone that an update was available. A few days later I get back to my car and the clock isn't there. There is no update available. Did Tesla rescind a version?

Looks like this may have happened to someone else too:Work on lighting lift gate appliqué begins - Page 56

 

[Bugeater]

Bresser, where did you hear that updates require 3g and WiFi won't work! I've not heard anything like that!

 

[anxman]

I also got the notification on my phone that an update was available but when I got to the car the following day, it was gone. I think it was pulled.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Your comment has the behavior backwards. You hit the accelerator first and then apply the brake (with the accelerator still depressed) you get braking. You the brake first and you apply the accelerator (while the brake is still depressed) you get both. There is a perfectly valid reason for this. When sitting on a steep hill you may need to hold the brake until you are already applying forward force with the accelerator.

You may say "Ohh but the car has hill hold." Hill hold has very particular conditions that it works in. It's not perfect for every situation, sometimes you're still going to use the two pedal technique.

You may say "Ohh but why not use creep mode." Well some of us don't like it. Personally I don't think I like the way it makes the car drive.

Also both of these behaviors weren't available on the car when it was first put out.

The person I quoted said if "If you brake while accelerating, the MS cuts acceleration and brake" which I found to be rather disturbing. This is the first thing I'll test because I find it hard to believe that it would cut braking in any situation.

I can understand their being debate between how the accelerator is handled. The situation you described is a great example of where a driver will want to start accelerating before fully letting go of the brake. Electronically you can have some pretty fine control of the throttle while the brakes are applied (assuming you can measure braking power). So I think you can still have the behavior you want (both brakes and acceleration for help with hills) while at the same time allowing the brakes to overpower the accelerator (what I want).

I can't for the life of me think of any situations where you'd want brake booster to cut power while driving.

For the Forward/Reverse what I actually want is for them to increase the MPH that it will allow you to switch. My understanding is their just trying to prevent accidental shifts at high speeds. You obviously don't want the car to switch from Forward to Reverse at 50mph. I agree with their logic at 50mph, but I'm not sure about low speed. I can understand your point if someone is switching on a hill. Where they'd be sliding back with my behavior, but I still think it's better than a rapid acceleration the wrong way.

 

[NielsHP]

> Breser, where did you hear that updates require 3g and WiFi won't work! I've not heard anything like that!

It may depend on the local rates for 3G, Tesla has to pay.

My car had not been on WiFi until I moved the access point physically (so car could see it) 2 hours ago. Within half an hour, I had the "Update is ready" message on the iPhone app (we have very good 3G coverage in the area and tecnically it should be no problem to download even a larger patch). So it is likely Tesla waited pushing the update until they saw WiFi connected (making it likely they pay for actual bandwidth usage here (Copenhagen, Denmark)).

 

[R²B]

Installing a new update now. Not sure what it is.

UPDATE - Just finished downloading.

Looks like I got some improvements to the Map App. It now clearly shows destination chargers (power output, number of outlets etc). There's a new button at the top of the Map application that toggles destination chargers ON/OFF.

It also improved Blind Spot warnings (less false alarms), improved emergency braking and improved TACC response at high speed.

 

[MarcG]

Installing a new update now. Not sure what it is.

UPDATE - Just finished downloading.

Looks like I got some improvements to the Map App. It now clearly shows destination chargers (power output, number of outlets etc). There's a new button at the top of the Map application that toggles destination chargers ON/OFF.

It also improved Blind Spot warnings (less false alarms), improved emergency braking and improved TACC response at high speed.

This is what .236 included. What version did you end up with?

 

[R²B]

This is what .236 included. What version did you end up with?

.238

 

[MarcG]

.238

Ok thanks for the quick response. So it looks like .238 is a bug fix to .236, wonder what was fixed...

It would be great if Tesla got onboard with the software industry's standards of dot versions and release notes.
That is, only increment the last dot-something (2.4.238 in this case) when there are bug fixes, and include those fixes in the release notes.
But when new features are released, as was the case in 2.4.236, increment the second-to-last dot version (2.5 instead of 2.4).
And finally, when a major version with UI changes is released, increment the first number before the dot (3.0 for example). I know they plan on going from 6.2 to 7.0 but this whole sub-version is confusing and inconsistent.

You can still have general release notes for the major versions available to read, but I really want to know what was fixed in dot-dot releases (e.g. from 2.4.236 to 2.4.238).
Oh and while I'm at it, show the release notes BEFORE the upgrade takes place

 

[HankLloydRight]

You can still have general release notes for the major versions, but I really want to know what was fixed in dot-dot releases (e.g. from 2.4.236 to 2.4.238).

That would be a PR and press nightmare for Tesla to release what bugs were fixed in dot release versions. Even the smallest, inconsequential bug would be quickly spun out of control in the press (like Seeking Alpha loves to do) with headlines proclaiming how unsafe the cars have been until this xx bug was fixed... and how many other hidden bugs exist in 100,000 cars on the road today?

Dot release notes are never going to happen!

 

[techmaven]

Ok thanks for the quick response. So it looks like .238 is a bug fix to .236, wonder what was fixed...

It would be great if Tesla got onboard with the software industry's standards of dot versions and release notes.
That is, only increment the last dot-something (2.4.238 in this case) when there are bug fixes, and include those fixes in the release notes.
But when new features are released, as was the case in 2.4.236, increment the second-to-last dot version (2.5 instead of 2.4).
And finally, when a major version with UI changes is released, increment the first dot (3.0 for example). I know they plan on going from 6.2 to 7.0 but this whole sub-version is confusing and inconsistent.

You can still have general release notes for the major versions, but I really want to know what was fixed in dot-dot releases (e.g. from 2.4.236 to 2.4.238).
Oh and while I'm at it, show the release notes BEFORE the upgrade takes place

Release notes for the software industry professionals is very different than release notes for consumers.

The vast majority of detailed release notes for the software industry is aimed at other professionals in order for them to better handle their jobs in deploying and supporting software. As you move over to the consumer side of things, release notes get less detailed. Very detailed release notes will likely serve to confuse and scare consumers more than convey useful information.

Similarly, Tesla release notes are much closer to Apple's release notes given to consumers. More detailed Apple notes are available to developers, those that have filed bug reports, or in specific tech notes. For Tesla, since there are no authorized 3rd party service centers, such communications does not need to be in the open.

As for version numbers, well, that's also confusing for consumers. It's not like there are 3rd party dependencies to deal with in the Tesla Model S ecosystem. Therefore, whether we get FireFox/Chrome like version numbers (major version number changes fast) these days for Java like version numbers (major, minor, subminor all rarely change with a patch # that changes often), it really doesn't matter. Tesla could go with a major number and a single minor number. I find Citrix Xenserver version numbers to be hilarious. They have a major, minor, and sub-minor number and still find the need to do service pack numbering. That's mainly to support out of order hot fix patch bundles, so there's a reason, but still... why bother with the sub minor number then?

Again, for Tesla, since they are managing all the hot fixes and there is no reason or capability for a consumer to pick and choose hot fixes, all builds are monotonically increasing. So really, it's a feature number plus a build number. 2.4.238 might as well be feature release version 24, build number 238. What is really inside of that... is likely extremely complex considering all the various embedded processors with their firmware and the variances between Model S hardware releases. It would be interesting to see the actual internal mapping of Model S hardware revisions.

 

[Andyw2100]

Ok thanks for the quick response. So it looks like .238 is a bug fix to .236, wonder what was fixed...

I'd be willing to bet they fixed the walk away door locking bug that you first identified and I reported to them. (I don't know if you also reported it to them, but when I did I didn't take credit for finding it.) As I posted previously, they took a real interest in that report, for good reason.

 

[caps04]

My first drive out with 236 was a little weird. Turned on Cruise and within seconds the car braked semi-hard even though there was no car infront me at all, on either side. I overrode it quickly by pressing the accelerator pedal without even realizing what had happened.. just instinctively. Then I saw the blue locked-on cruise icon and scanned around to see why there was a false lock.

The weather was clear. There were a couple of pedestrians walking towards my direction on my side of the lane (but safely off the road) and the road led to those small tunnel under an overpass though that was a considerable distance away. After reaching home, I double checked and the front radar was clean and clear. Hoping it's a one-off thing but going to keep an eye out whenever I'm in cruise. This has never happened since getting the TACC feature.

 

[MarcG]

Similarly, Tesla release notes are much closer to Apple's release notes given to consumers.

I disagree with that statement. With Apple software updates, the release notes indicate what was fixed in dot-dot versions. In the Tesla updates, we mostly learn about new features and rarely get any info about what was changed in dot-dot releases (.236 being the exception, but even that one should have been a dot release, not a dot-dot release, since new features were introduced).

However, I do agree with the point Hank made about not wanting to alarm consumers (and the media at large) regarding safety issues, so there's a fine balance in what to reveal in release notes. I still maintain that there are inconsistencies in versioning and a general lack of information, which is why we're usually left wondering what was fixed in dot-dot releases.

I'd be willing to bet they fixed the walk away door locking bug that you first identified and I reported to them. (I don't know if you also reported it to them, but when I did I didn't take credit for finding it.) As I posted previously, they took a real interest in that report, for good reason.

I would be surprised if they were able to fix it and release it that quickly, but it would be nice if that were the case. Also, I would be happy if the traction control issues reported were also fixed in .238, but I also doubt it as that one probably requires more investigation and much more testing IMHO.

 

[breser]

The person I quoted said if "If you brake while accelerating, the MS cuts acceleration and brake" which I found to be rather disturbing. This is the first thing I'll test because I find it hard to believe that it would cut braking in any situation.

You're misunderstanding them. They mean the car cuts acceleration and then applies the brake.

For the Forward/Reverse what I actually want is for them to increase the MPH that it will allow you to switch. My understanding is their just trying to prevent accidental shifts at high speeds. You obviously don't want the car to switch from Forward to Reverse at 50mph. I agree with their logic at 50mph, but I'm not sure about low speed. I can understand your point if someone is switching on a hill. Where they'd be sliding back with my behavior, but I still think it's better than a rapid acceleration the wrong way.

The only way you get rapid acceleration the wrong way is if you rapidly accelerate after changing gears. Don't do that. It's bad practice in any car.

- - - Updated - - -

Bresser, where did you hear that updates require 3g and WiFi won't work! I've not heard anything like that!

> Breser, where did you hear that updates require 3g and WiFi won't work! I've not heard anything like that!

It may depend on the local rates for 3G, Tesla has to pay.

My car had not been on WiFi until I moved the access point physically (so car could see it) 2 hours ago. Within half an hour, I had the "Update is ready" message on the iPhone app (we have very good 3G coverage in the area and tecnically it should be no problem to download even a larger patch). So it is likely Tesla waited pushing the update until they saw WiFi connected (making it likely they pay for actual bandwidth usage here (Copenhagen, Denmark)).

I'm not saying the download can only happen via 3G. I'm saying that the car has to contact Tesla for permission to apply an update it has downloaded (via WiFi or 3G or from a tech's laptop). The car always does this via 3G. I don't think bandwidth concerns come into play here because we're talking about a very tiny amount of data.

 

[clx]

Just finished installing this morning and here is what I see for the release note, not sure if it's the same as .236:

=====Edit=====
Never mind, saw someone already posted this a couple days ago...

 

[Andyw2100]

Just finished installing this morning and here is what I see for the release note, not sure if it's the same as .236:

Did you have walk away door locking enabled? If so, please test it to see if Tesla has fixed the bug in this version. Don't change any settings, don't do a reboot, and see if the walk away door locking actually works or not. (If you didn't have it set before you updated, you won't be able to test this bug.) Thanks!

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Did you have walk away door locking enabled? If so, please test it to see if Tesla has fixed the bug in this version. Don't change any settings, don't do a reboot, and see if the walk away door locking actually works or not. (If you didn't have it set before you updated, you won't be able to test this bug.) Thanks!

I got and installed .236 late on Tuesday, 05/26 and I haven't had any issues with walk-away door locking. Didn't reboot; didn't change any settings.

 

[eye.surgeon]

I installed .239 this morning. 63xxx S85 in California.

One bug I noticed fixed is the range assurance navigation mapping...2 months ago it appeared to be calculating routes via "as the crow flies" distances rather than driving distances. It was routing me to a SC that was 60 miles away straight line on a map but 150 miles away by road, as there is a mountain range in between. That is now fixed.