anxman
Member
How do we know that the energy usage dial isn't already there? We've only seen 0mph photos so far.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 7.0 Beta Discussion
- Thread starter ThreadAbort
- Start date
Gizmotoy
Active Member
I suppose we don't for sure, but two things strongly indicate it's not:
- There's now a separate widget for that information, and there's no visual clue whatsoever that energy is on the center dial, and
- The car and AC is on and there's no consumption bar. If climate control is on, it's consuming some power that should show up.
If it actually is on the dial and we just can't see it, great. I'm happy. But I doubt that's the case based on the leaked images so far.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I would also suggest moving the entire toy car and AP location awareness features to a touchscreen panel instead of the IC.
Yeah, I know people will bristle at this, but really, that information is secondary to driving and what you can see out the windows. It's no different than looking at (or interacting with) the Nav on the touchscreen while driving. There's no need to take up valuable IC space with the toy car and lane change graphics that can be better communicated on the touchscreen. Maybe put two small indicators on the IC for blind spot warnings as an alert, but I don't need to see two toy cars in the display to convey the same information.
Yeah, I know people will bristle at this, but really, that information is secondary to driving and what you can see out the windows. It's no different than looking at (or interacting with) the Nav on the touchscreen while driving. There's no need to take up valuable IC space with the toy car and lane change graphics that can be better communicated on the touchscreen. Maybe put two small indicators on the IC for blind spot warnings as an alert, but I don't need to see two toy cars in the display to convey the same information.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
I don't know for sure. I know the non-UHF has some different controls and features than the UHF system, so I cited only what I know for sure, which is that the UHF system has that screen. If the non-UHF system does also, then my post applies to that system as well.
Yes, that's exactly what I thought. No, no other devices or cars that I know about have a feature like that, nor an interface like that. Just like no other cars I know have a practical electric-only drive system, the ability to update their software over the air, or any of a number of other Tesla-only features. No other fader and balance control system I've ever seen uses a graphic layout with intersecting lines to control it. If you have a radically new interface element, I assume you've implemented a radically new paradigm of control.
- - - Updated - - -
My thinking as I've been pondering this whole thing is very similar. I've come to the conclusion that 90% of my concerns with these screens would be alleviated with one change:
Make the display we're seeing in the leaked screenshots for when the vehicle has autopilot with lane keeping engaged and active. When autopilot with lane keeping is not active, switch the display to a more classic manual-drive interface, with an analog speedometer and power meter, similar to what we have now (updated for the flat UI if you like).
When autopilot with lane keeping is active, I'm assuming TACC would be active as well, and under that condition I don't need the power meter or need to see the rate of change of speed on the analog speedometer because autopilot/TACC will be controlling it.
Then when you disengage autopilot, go back to the analog speedometer and power meter for manual driving. This is the beauty of a software-controlled IC -- we can have appropriate displays that make the most sense for any mode we're in.
This one change would I think give everyone the best of all worlds, without having to go to more intensive programming efforts for customizable skins, fully customizable displays, etc.
Soolim
Member
That seems very wrong to me.
If the car is driving under some form of driver assist, I want the information about what the car is seeing and reacting to right in front of me.
In my opinion, that is critical information which needs to be available without delay.
The energy meter is a convenience, it isn't important.
That car in my blind spot when I am trying to merge, or the fact that the car is seeing something different than what I am is far more critical.
Until autopilot is infallible, that information, IMO takes precedence.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Agreed! But I don't think we need multiple, large, skeuomorphic car images to convey that information. Two "blind spot indicators" on the instrument cluster, dashboard, or even the A pillars (like mobile-eye does) would suffice.
In my opinion, the current analog speedometer is a waste of space. I never look at the analog speedometer. Also, I barely use 30% of it anyway. At least the scale should be dynamic (changing when you pass 100 km/t for instance).
A more space efficient display would be vertical bars. Still with dynamic scale for the speedometer. For most people, only 0-80 mph is ever used.
The round gauge with needle is very dated anyway. It's time to move on, instead of mimicing an analog device not used anymore.
A more space efficient display would be vertical bars. Still with dynamic scale for the speedometer. For most people, only 0-80 mph is ever used.
The round gauge with needle is very dated anyway. It's time to move on, instead of mimicing an analog device not used anymore.
Last edited:
And I often need to know what the weather forecast for the day is. That doesn't mean it belongs in the driver display.
I was amazed by this as well. Having a heads-up display that alerts you to the presence of cars in your blind spot and around you is indeed an enormously useful function and knowing exactly how many electrons are flowing out of or into your battery at this very second is completely unrelated to the immediate task of driving.
I certainly agree that this display is not useful for cars without the sensor suite and I don't even think we have enough information to know that it indeed will be displayed for those cars. The fact that it was displayed on a pair of cars that weren't even intended to have the software is not very persuasive on that question.
- - - Updated - - -
A binary off/on signal is far less useful than a representation that shows you the relative distance of cars that the sensors are aware of. Furthermore, we have almost no information about what information the car will convey to us in that space while driving under autopilot in addition to the relative position of other traffic. Detailed information about what the autopilot software sees and what it plans to do would seem to be the very definition of critical information to have.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
And yet, somehow people have been driving without any of these helpers for how many decades?
Also, I have perfect ability to see the relative position of all other traffic around me. It's called turning my head and looking around. I don't need a video game console in front of me to tell me the same things.
This is a common argument against innovation. My view is that while we may be able to do something, we should always be looking to do it better.
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
I 100% disagree with these assessments.
1) I have no blind spots on my vehicle at all. I have my mirrors adjusted such that I can see any car, motorcycle, or object that is on the road no matter where it is around my car. If you have blind spots on your vehicle, your mirrors can be adjusted to eliminate them.
2) If the autopilot software needs routine cross-checking from me, then it's not ready for deployment, period, end of story.
The purpose of autopilot with lane keeping is to reduce driver workload. If I have to constantly cross-check the autopilot's sensors and intentions against the other cars that are on the road, then it's actually less work to just drive manually.
No way I will trade my driving judgment and skills for a machine that I need to constantly supervise because it's less mindful of the situation than I am. Either the sensors work and we can trust them 100% or they don't.
Nothing works 100% of the time.
If you expect any companies autopilot/driver assist to be 100% accurate under all conditions you should never get a car with autopilot.
When I get this update, or any other new functionality, I test it first. I don't rely on it 100% and yes, I double check things.
If you don't want to take extra care with new functionality, you shouldn't ever get something with new functionality.
I will repeat, what the car is seeing and reacting to is far more critical that convenience information.
Give me the speed the car is traveling, alerts that affect the car's performance, and feedback about what the car is reacting to on the IC. Even the range isn't needed on the IC IMO.
Everything else is fluff and can go in the main console as far as I am concerned.
For cars without AP, sure, leave a bigger speedometer in the middle of the IC if you like. I get that, although I prefer what little we have seen of static images.
If you expect any companies autopilot/driver assist to be 100% accurate under all conditions you should never get a car with autopilot.
When I get this update, or any other new functionality, I test it first. I don't rely on it 100% and yes, I double check things.
If you don't want to take extra care with new functionality, you shouldn't ever get something with new functionality.
I will repeat, what the car is seeing and reacting to is far more critical that convenience information.
Give me the speed the car is traveling, alerts that affect the car's performance, and feedback about what the car is reacting to on the IC. Even the range isn't needed on the IC IMO.
Everything else is fluff and can go in the main console as far as I am concerned.
For cars without AP, sure, leave a bigger speedometer in the middle of the IC if you like. I get that, although I prefer what little we have seen of static images.
Lex
Member
TACC alone has reduced my distance-to-grave... playing "follow that car" in stop-and-go with steering will be a daily delight that I doubt will wear thin, but as long as humans are still about out there on the road, there will certainly be an active driver needed. In just a couple of months I've seen all sorts of people assume I'm just going to let them in, meanwhile my robot car was "in control" (current vers. has a bit of a rough edge on it).
I'm getting very comfy taking the cruise off and on again when it's barreling ahead to a stopped car or not letting someone in.
But it was nice yesterday for my car robot to get its first thank-you wave. It actually let someone in fairly respectfully all on its own.
Though it's already decent I just can't wait for steering. I would have taken a "beta" as they certainly know we're not expecting perfection.
I couldn't wait, so I just downloaded the Version 7 Torrent... just made the USB cable, and will report back (kidding)
I'm getting very comfy taking the cruise off and on again when it's barreling ahead to a stopped car or not letting someone in.
But it was nice yesterday for my car robot to get its first thank-you wave. It actually let someone in fairly respectfully all on its own.
Though it's already decent I just can't wait for steering. I would have taken a "beta" as they certainly know we're not expecting perfection.
I couldn't wait, so I just downloaded the Version 7 Torrent... just made the USB cable, and will report back (kidding)
Yes, but you don't change an existing product to match what you think a future product's consumer might want.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree, good idea.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, and thank you for doing that. Much appreciated.
Last edited:
That might be a good idea, actually...
Another pet peeve - there's actually a setting to switch between miles and kWh/percents for the display. WHY? It's so easy to display _both_.
Similar threads
