HW4 leaked by @greentheonly - new cameras coming?

[FastLaneJB]

But camera on the roof cannot see the “dog” that crept up under the car from the adjacent car

You're right of course, it's basically supposed to be a rear view camera when you have a lot in the back blocking a normal mirror. The roof is the logical place to avoid mud from the road getting on the camera and blocking the view.

They need lower down cameras as you say, just in countries like the UK they'll end up muddy at least half of the year. You can clean them and by 5 - 10 miles in they can be covered and completely useless. That's why some brands put washer jets on but cannot keep them running all the time. They'll need a robotic Jeeve's hand that pops out of the bumpers with a cloth to keep wiping them down

 

[Bladerskb]

You said Tesla copied MobileEyes patent. Did you not?

Most patent are done for defensive reasons and they are not the only one using mobileye setup almost everyone in ADAS is.

 

[LiamPope]

Nah, SVC are surround view cameras, which are also called parking cameras.
These are pretty standard cameras that are used for bird's eye view feature and for ADAS.
You will find these cameras on any recent car, just go outside and look.
There are 2x on the side mirrors and one on the front bumper and the other on the rear.

So no dual repeater cameras or anything like that.



Not quite, Mobileye invented the trifocal camera and even have a patent for it which Tesla copied.

Same with the 8 camera setup which Tesla also copied.
Then years later in 2017/2018 Mobileye added 4x parking cameras making it 12.

Then they increased the quality of their cameras from ~1mp to 8mp and reduced the number of front cameras from 3 to 2.
Mobileye dropped the fisheye camera and kept the Main and Narrow windshield camera.

Tesla is also copying that now. While also adding the 4x parking cameras.

So its:
- 2x forward cameras (main & narrow)
- 2x rear looking repeater cameras (both sides)
- 2x forward looking camera (both sides)
- 4x parking cameras / surround view cameras (2x side mirrors, front bumper, rear)

- 1x rear facing camera (this is the only difference that Mobileye has that Tesla's new setup does not have)

Mobileye's patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150103159A1/en
Mobileye's trifocal camera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjRtGKtwOlc
Mobileye already had dozens of automakers testing out the setup and chip in 2014. One of them being Volvo.
Volvo using Mobileye's Trifocal Camera
Mobileye also sent Tesla the trifocal camera before they cloned it.
Tesla Model S test vehicle with multiple cameras spotted near San Francisco
Mobileye previous 8 camera setup
[IMAGE]
Mobileye's new 8mp binocular/dual camera

Interesting take and you could be correct. I wonder why Green didn't pick up on this meaning of SVC and went with bumpers? And why do Tesla call bumper covers SVC anyway??

Although there's only three cameras labeled SVC - F, L and R. But my guess would be the existing backup camera doubles as both parking and driving reverse facing cameras. So essentially it's just B-pillar cams moved to front fenders for better view and the dropped third fwd camera, then three more parking cameras added. Maybe there's a chance USS-less parking will actually work... with HW4 only!

Which brings me to: this also stood out to me in Green's pics - 'parkassistecutype:'. Does this mean HW4 is expecting to interface with a USS controller?? USS returning too??? I see the value is 'NONE', but just wondering under what circumstances HW4 might have something different to none here - i.e. what 'park assist ECU type' would ever be connected if not USS? If there will never be any park assist ECU (USS controller?) connected, why would this configuration field even exist?

 

[derotam]

Most patent are done for defensive reasons and they are not the only one using mobileye setup almost everyone in ADAS is.

Yeah but an undefended patent can possibly turn into an unenforceable patent.

 

[BrendonHolt]

I expect we will get to test if the March 2019 change of FSD product description during sale (after which nobody was ever promised more than L2 during the sale) will hold up in court.

On the bright side for Tesla- if it does, the # of pre-3/19 buyers they owe refunds to is:
Quite small
and
The refund would only be about 3k plus interest since that's all FSD cost back then

I wholly disagree with this comment on the grounds that it performs all forms of the litigation. It determines damages and assumes suppositions not substantiated in the briefs and oral arguments. In essence it provides a verdict without even completion of the case.

In other words, the US Court System and more strict European Legal System, gives many remedies to consumers, from your contention, refund on the feature, to full refund of the car with damages. See your position is they only owe on the feature provided. That they covered this in their purchase agreement. Litigants position would be that they were harmed on your promise and lack of delivery, as such, the whole transaction, the car, never delivered and would like full refund as never would have spent north of 100K for a vehicle that cannot deliver on it's promise, a promise that was core to the purchase of the product.

Bottom line, what we all knew all along. Elon is full of it and promising and not delivering, but selling lots of cars. The cars are great for what they are, but the additional feature of FSD was promised and will not be a deliverable.

So happy I bought my Model X 2016 with Free Super Charging, great car, changes lanes and keeps in the lanes just fine. Only 47K and all the capability of the 140K New Version.

 

[Knightshade]

I wholly disagree with this comment on the grounds that it performs all forms of the litigation. It determines damages and assumes suppositions not substantiated in the briefs and oral arguments. In essence it provides a verdict without even completion of the case.

There currently is no case for all owners.

That said- we do have the case of the early EAP buyers who sued Tesla over broken autopilot promises...and each got a couple hundred bucks back.

The idea Tesla would be compelled by any US court to rebuy years old cars over this, or have any substantial liability beyond refund of FSD price (with interest, or at best a used car diminished value claim) is.... unfounded in my humble opinion.

 

[BrendonHolt]

There currently is no case for all owners.

That said- we do have the case of the early EAP buyers who sued Tesla over broken autopilot promises...and each got a couple hundred bucks back.

The idea Tesla would be compelled by any US court to rebuy years old cars over this, or have any substantial liability beyond refund of FSD price (with interest, or at best a used car diminished value claim) is.... unfounded in my humble opinion.

Agree some value may be assessed, but any claim on our part is not a claim in court of law. The promise of FSD is real, but yes Tesla has defenses, but only time will tell, as litigants would also will have arguments.

All cases are unique. My issue is that you assume the remedy. That in and of itself is a risky proposition in the court system. Look at MS Office in Europe and it's cost due to not delivering on promise. Many cases that are TECH related that have full remedies.

 

[derotam]

There currently is no case for all owners.

That said- we do have the case of the early EAP buyers who sued Tesla over broken autopilot promises...and each got a couple hundred bucks back.

The idea Tesla would be compelled by any US court to rebuy years old cars over this, or have any substantial liability beyond refund of FSD price (with interest, or at best a used car diminished value claim) is.... unfounded in my humble opinion.

The other interesting thought would be a claim for the current value of FSD vs what someone paid for it due to it appreciating in value. I would double my money if they gave me current FSD cost!

 

[ChimpledPot]

After reading this, is everyone now ready to admit that none of the cars currently on the road are going to be capable of FSD?

This was apparently from Day 0. How are you going to have a vision system that can't see oncoming cars from the close lane without needing to creep forward 3 feet into cross-traffic?

 

[aataskin]

The cameras on the bumper are needed to recover the USS functionality, not just for FSD. Question is, will it be worth paying extra for FSD when buying a HW4 equipped car. If history is any guide, the answer is no, FSD will still be a beta which may become available _if_ and when Tesla figure out how to do it.

 

[Knightshade]

The other interesting thought would be a claim for the current value of FSD vs what someone paid for it due to it appreciating in value. I would double my money if they gave me current FSD cost!

... given the premise of the case is that FSD on the existing HW is worthless you'd get 2 times zero.

Versus getting a refund of what you paid for a worthless feature...which seems the better option of the two.

 

[Bladerskb]

The 4 cameras I quoted are called:
L-FF-Side
R-FF-Side
L-FF-Rear
R-FF-Rear

Even this i believe is wrong. I don't believe they will move the side looking cameras from its current location even though they would need to.
What I think would rather happen is that they yet again follow Mobileye's invention by moving the camera to the location that Mobileye uses for side looking cameras (A pillar/side mirror depending on OEM preferences).

If they were to move it, it most definitely would be to the side mirror. But i don't see them even moving it at this point. It would basically mean a collosial failure (which ofcourse i believe it is)

Here's a comparison between Tesla's position versus one of Mobileye's position (A pillar) that NIO copied and uses.

The other position is the side mirror position that Mobileye uses on the Zeekr models.
Note putting it where the repeater cameras are or on the side of the front bumpers could then lead to a different blind spot (because its not high enough).
The only hope Tesla has is to copy Mobileye yet again in using one of their two side camera positions. Unless they put it high/in the head lights area.

https://imgur.com/dssDV4J

 

[enemji]

Unless they put it high/in the head lights area.

The headlight seems to be the logical choice.

 

[2101Guy]

How many of us called this out YEARS ago. Meaning we KNEW...not guessed...KNEW...the existing cameras were not enough. Some of us even stated that cameras in bumpers were absolutely going to be necessary..

How is FSD ever going to work with current camera layout?

I’ve been using FSD beta which is both impressive and problematic. But the real question is - if FSD is going to use camera only (radar and ultrasonics now removed), there’s a huge blind spot between the front windshield camera and the side fender cameras. At least half of my left and right...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[stopcrazypp]

Even this i believe is wrong. I don't believe they will move the side looking cameras from its current location even though they would need to.
What I think would rather happen is that they yet again follow Mobileye's invention by moving the camera to the location that Mobileye uses for side looking cameras (A pillar/side mirror depending on OEM preferences).

If they were to move it, it most definitely would be to the side mirror. But i don't see them even moving it at this point. It would basically mean a collosial failure (which ofcourse i believe it is)

Here's a comparison between Tesla's position versus one of Mobileye's position (A pillar) that NIO copied and uses.

The other position is the side mirror position that Mobileye uses on the Zeekr models.
Note putting it where the repeater cameras are or on the side of the front bumpers could then lead to a different blind spot (because its not high enough).
The only hope Tesla has is to copy Mobileye yet again in using one of their two side camera positions. Unless they put it high/in the head lights area.

https://imgur.com/dssDV4J

Putting it in the front fender housing is the easiest to do for Tesla and it's even further forward than the A-pillar. It also matches the terminology: FF = Front Fender. From spy shots (before these labels came out), people previously speculated headlights, but I don't really buy it (I think glare will be problem).

You keep saying things like Mobileye is the source of all these decisions even in other automakers, when things like putting cameras on mirrors have been done for a while already.

 

[BigNick]

Just give me the option to pay $300 and have a Mobile Tech install a Hw3-compatible radar unit on my neutered HW3 Model 3 and I'm OK with that. Fix the phantom braking and get AP/EAP as reliable as possible.

I wouldn't want the full teardown of the car that would be required to retrofit HW4 (which might really be no better than HW3 at L4+ driving anyway.)

 

[LowlyOilBurner]

I’ll get excited about the extra cameras when people post pics of their newly delivered HW4 equipped vehicles showing the new iron. I’ll get even more excited when the software catches up to the hardware. How many “rewrites” will be needed to get the new hardware to be optimized?

 

[Bladerskb]

You keep saying things like Mobileye is the source of all these decisions even in other automakers, when things like putting cameras on mirrors have been done for a while already.

Yeah its called doing your research. You should try it sometime. Mobileye was the first company that used the 4x parking camera for ADAS.
Mobileye was the first company that put side looking cameras on side mirrors for ADAS.

These are simple facts..

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yeah its called doing your research. You should try it sometime. Mobileye was the first company that used the 4x parking camera for ADAS.
Mobileye was the first company that put side looking cameras on side mirrors for ADAS.

These are simple facts..

Sorry, I don't trust your "facts" given you tried to make similar claims about Tesla's current layout when I was able to find Tesla prototype spy shots that predate Mobileye presentations that you suggested were the inspirations for it.

It's not a major innovation to add to the ADAS stack parking camera layouts that have existed well before Mobileye, given a similar thing was done with rear cameras. As others pointed out these camera positions can be decided with different trial and error that is independent of any particular vendor. I dug back and Nvidia was already suggesting back in 2015 using 4 SVCs as part of their Drive PX package.
Model X mule(s) show signs of nVidia Tegra X1 Drive PX platform - no rear mirror!

 

[2101Guy]

I’ll get excited about the extra cameras when people post pics of their newly delivered HW4 equipped vehicles showing the new iron. I’ll get even more excited when the software catches up to the hardware. How many “rewrites” will be needed to get the new hardware to be optimized?

bUt v11 aNd sINgLeStaCk AnD dOjO wiLl fiX It aLL!