Firmware 7.0 Beta Discussion

[ohmman]

It's valley speak for time. It annoys the hell out of me but I don't have the bandwidth to complain every time. :/

Sorry to be off topic here, but I'd argue it's more involved than "time". Bandwidth, in network terms, has to do with throughput over a specified link, which does have time in its denominator (bits per second, for instance). So the analogy is that you have a limited amount of work throughput, and you can't fit the additional task within that time slot. I don't know that it's entirely inaccurate, but maybe that's not what annoys you about it.

A more direct analogy to just "time" would be latency, which is how quickly you could get the task done. And I don't think that's what AmpedRealtor was saying.

 

[Sogorman]

A more direct analogy to just "time" would be latency

Agreed. However more often then not when people reference bandwith, bandwith = time.

 

[Soolim]

Still OT, and I am an old school guy. I understood bandwidth to be the frequency range of a signal. For example, FM radio station bandwidth of 200kHz, an audio frequency bandwidth of 20kHz, etc. Hence I did not understand the valley speak as applied to Tesla leaked v7.0.

 

[ohmman]

Still OT, and I am an old school guy. I understood bandwidth to be the frequency range of a signal. For example, FM radio station bandwidth of 200kHz, an audio frequency bandwidth of 20kHz, etc. Hence I did not understand the valley speak as applied to Tesla leaked v7.0.

For you, then, think of a narrower vs. wider bandwidth. Since I continue to put words in AmpedRealtor's mouth, I'll just say he was saying Tesla was operating on a narrow enough bandwidth that they couldn't get the project in. :wink:

 

[Max*]

Still OT, and I am an old school guy. I understood bandwidth to be the frequency range of a signal. For example, FM radio station bandwidth of 200kHz, an audio frequency bandwidth of 20kHz, etc. Hence I did not understand the valley speak as applied to Tesla leaked v7.0.

What has oldschool have to do with it? That's the typical RF/Signal Processing understanding.

 

[Soolim]

Just hedging in case I am wrong, since I usually stick to definition I know of. Someone just explained to me that bandwidth can mean many other things when used in the proper context.:wink:

 

[gizmoboy]

Sorry to be off topic here, but I'd argue it's more involved than "time". Bandwidth, in network terms, has to do with throughput over a specified link, which does have time in its denominator (bits per second, for instance). So the analogy is that you have a limited amount of work throughput, and you can't fit the additional task within that time slot. I don't know that it's entirely inaccurate, but maybe that's not what annoys you about it.

A more direct analogy to just "time" would be latency, which is how quickly you could get the task done. And I don't think that's what AmpedRealtor was saying.

Yeah, more like "capacity" in the most general sense.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

You guys are funny...

 

[ArtInCT]

You guys are funny...

 

[Todd Burch]

Relatively simple suggestion. Why not display the current (v6.2) speedometer/power/range dial by default and then transition to the AP interface only when AP is in use? Seems that would keep all camps happy.

I believe that's how it worked at the D event (but I might be wrong), and I've always speculated this has been the intended behavior all along.

Do we have irrefutable evidence that non-AP cars, or AP cars not in autopilot mode, wouldn't show the ring? Don't think so. And no, leaked beta images to accidental beta users doesn't count as irrefutable evidence.

 

[Cyberax]

Apple has clearly shown that its a winning strategy to give the consumer fewer choices and less functionality, in favor of ease of use.

That's not correct. iOS has to simplify a lot of functionality because Apple actually keeps _adding_ a lot of new features in each release. It's actually a clever way to make sure users are not overwhelmed by choices.

How many significant features has Tesla released lately?

 

[anxman]

Sorry to be off topic here, but I'd argue it's more involved than "time". Bandwidth, in network terms, has to do with throughput over a specified link, which does have time in its denominator (bits per second, for instance). So the analogy is that you have a limited amount of work throughput, and you can't fit the additional task within that time slot. I don't know that it's entirely inaccurate, but maybe that's not what annoys you about it.

A more direct analogy to just "time" would be latency, which is how quickly you could get the task done. And I don't think that's what AmpedRealtor was saying.

This explanation is accurate. This nomenclature was common at my last two employers and this is the correct explanation.

 

[Andyw2100]

Relatively simple suggestion. Why not display the current (v6.2) speedometer/power/range dial by default and then transition to the AP interface only when AP is in use? Seems that would keep all camps happy.

I believe that's how it worked at the D event (but I might be wrong), and I've always speculated this has been the intended behavior all along.

I don't believe during the presentation at the D event any display screens were shown other than the autopilot screens. In other words, I don't think there was ever a combined power meter / speedometer shown during the D event.

As for the test rides, the videos appear to demonstrate a system similar to the one pictured during the event. Unless the drivers were somehow remaining in lane keeping mode, while overriding it with launches and steering, etc., after the lane keeping section of the demo, it appears the combined speedometer / power meter was not present in that UI at all. There was only one interface shown. An example video is below.

 

[apacheguy]

Do we have irrefutable evidence that non-AP cars, or AP cars not in autopilot mode, wouldn't show the ring? Don't think so. And no, leaked beta images to accidental beta users doesn't count as irrefutable evidence.

Well, it shows at the very least that something was changed along the way. I think this is very positive as it shows Tesla is taking our concerns seriously.

 

[bradhs]

I should have not traded my P85+ until v7 actually came out. I would likely bought a P90DL instead... (Or maybe not since v7 is not yet out.)

 

[Zythryn]

Well, it shows at the very least that something was changed along the way. I think this is very positive as it shows Tesla is taking our concerns seriously.

You have no evidence of that.
It is less of a leap to assume that Tesla is taking the concerns of the beta testers seriously.

 

[Soolim]

You have no evidence of that.
It is less of a leap to assume that Tesla is taking the concerns of the beta testers seriously.

You are correct that no evidence is available, forum members should be happy to see some changes that are "positively related" to what has been posted here. We can wish for the positive, can't we?
OTOH, it is also possible that beta tester might share some opinion expressed here one way or the other.

 

[apacheguy]

You have no evidence of that.
It is less of a leap to assume that Tesla is taking the concerns of the beta testers seriously.

Dont get me wrong. I think it's very positive what we see here. On the other hand, if you have a problem with me providing feedback on an Internet forum then that's pretty immature. That's the purpose of this forum. You don't need to follow this thread if you can't handle it.

 

[ohmman]

Dont get me wrong. I think it's very positive what we see here. On the other hand, if you have a problem with me providing feedback on an Internet forum then that's pretty immature. That's the purpose of this forum. You don't need to follow this thread if you can't handle it.

If you'll allow me, I'd just like to say that I didn't read it as an attack on your statement. Only that Zythryn found it less likely that Tesla was perusing this thread than they were listening to the beta testers. Who, as Soolim says, could be influenced by what they personally are reading here. So we may be just one level removed. Or, we could be completely irrelevant. Or, Tesla could be taking our suggestions directly from this thread, though I would find that to be a poor way to manage software development.

 

[apacheguy]

If you'll allow me, I'd just like to say that I didn't read it as an attack on your statement. Only that Zythryn found it less likely that Tesla was perusing this thread than they were listening to the beta testers. Who, as Soolim says, could be influenced by what they personally are reading here. So we may be just one level removed. Or, we could be completely irrelevant. Or, Tesla could be taking our suggestions directly from this thread, though I would find that to be a poor way to manage software development.

Ok, that's a fair way of putting it. But I think it's important for Zythryn to also recognize that he has zero evidence to support his claim that beta testers drove the UI changes we are seeing now. It's a theory that should be recognized, but at the same time I don't appreciate comments that devalue the feedback we post here.