HumanGenome
Member
Welcome to TMC. Total anarchy, very little moderation.
This is why I prefer Reddit. I don't have to sift through a bunch of crap posts to get technical information.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Welcome to TMC. Total anarchy, very little moderation.
This is why I prefer Reddit. I don't have to sift through a bunch of crap posts to get technical information.
I see no reason this is true. Most likely, no one foresaw the failed calibration problems and didn't think a few hours without cruise control was worth the trouble of implementing and explaining the temporary basic cruise control.
Definitely not true. Likely a software oversight or unintended consequence, a.k.a. "bug".
I'd rather have a broken AP2 build than vanilla cruise. You'll be on the shortlist for the fixed version (presumably).
I think common sense is enough to assume the cameras can calibrate with a basic cruise control.
Really? Are they different software modules? Is it possible that the basic cruise control software gets overwritten by the update which provides the new TACC and limited AP2 functionality in which case there is NO cruise control functionality until calibration is complete. I think that is far more logical than thinking that they would leave the "basic cruise control" software sitting in the car when the new update was pushed....
When dealing with computer controlled automated system, a basic principal is that you don't want multiple versions of the code sitting on the machine where they might conflict with each other because the intent is that one replaces the other. Or is that not "common sense"?
theslimshadyist
Active Member
They will be different modules - any car owner buying an AP2 hardware car but doesn't buy EAP will get basic cruise - so the code must exist and be available outside EAP. If TACC is not available on an AP car it reverts to basic cruise doesn't it?. I'd agree nobody knows for absolute, but that means you don't either, we just look at different scenarios
I wonder what features non EAP owners are getting in general? You'd imagine auto headlights, wipers, basic cruise, are standard.
cdub
OG 2011 Leaf / 2023 Model Y LR
Tesla Motors and Energy • /r/teslamotors
There's sometimes some good content.
As an aside I find the educated commentary on the SpaceX one absolutely enthralling.
r/SpaceX, the premier SpaceX discussion community • /r/spacex
I'm sort of flabbergasted. Yes, the two methods cruise control conflict, but the whole intention would be to only have basic cruise control while TACC is calibrating. If your point is that it can't be done without modifying the basic cruse control software, you are most likely correct, but why would that be prohibitive? My entire point was that the effort was likely deemed unnecessary for the few hours that it normally takes TACC to calibrate, would have required user education in the form of release notes and possibly UI messages, and could possibly have caused confusion.
As far as basic principles that makes this not possible or too difficult, you will have to clarify because I've been missing those.
Last edited:
In the case, thebasic principal is "don't have two pieces of automated contro, code for the same thing which may conflict running on the same box unless you designed the code from he outset for both to be on the same box".
The reason is that the two may conflict with each other causing spurious control signals. Since the planned end-state for an EAP car is EAP/TACC software and not basic cruise control, it would, to make sense to do all,of the testing and code necessary to,have TACC software run alongside basic cruise control. To me, the basic cruise control for non-TACC cars gets overwritten by the TACC software when installed scenario makes sense. Not saying it couldn't be done the other way, but the way I'm describing keeps the control code as simple as possible and reduces need for additional testing. It would seem to me that is how Tesla would have done it given that they appear to,take the approach of putting everything in one big piece of code (I.e.m auto,headlights and windshield wipers in AP2 cars).
The reason is that the two may conflict with each other causing spurious control signals. Since the planned end-state for an EAP car is EAP/TACC software and not basic cruise control, it would, to make sense to do all,of the testing and code necessary to,have TACC software run alongside basic cruise control. To me, the basic cruise control for non-TACC cars gets overwritten by the TACC software when installed scenario makes sense. Not saying it couldn't be done the other way, but the way I'm describing keeps the control code as simple as possible and reduces need for additional testing. It would seem to me that is how Tesla would have done it given that they appear to,take the approach of putting everything in one big piece of code (I.e.m auto,headlights and windshield wipers in AP2 cars).
No, if you paid for AP you don't ever get basic CC. (Even if the radar sensor is blocked/failed.)
As far as TACC code overwriting CC code, I highly doubt that since in AP1 cars you can just enable a free AP trial without doing a firmware upgrade, so the code for both is in all of the cars and it is just a configuration option as to which is active.
This thread is so far off the rails. Just create a new thread on this particular topic. I want to discuss the first 1000 AP2 and how it is functioning and when the hell I'm going to join in on this fun. Take your faintly tangential discussion elsewhere, please.
Agreed that is a likely possibility that the EAP firmware no longer has basic cruise functionality in the code. However, that is a design decision by Tesla (to eliminate unnecessary or redundant code). It is not, however, a technical limitation in an absolute sense. That was my point.
In retrospect (had Tesla anticipated calibration failures), a better design would be a reversionary mode where failure of EAP (calibration error, camera failure, etc.) may allow fall-back to standard cruise control. Of course this would be annunciated with an alert to the effect of "EAP not available. Use caution, standard cruise control functionality only."
In retrospect (had Tesla anticipated calibration failures), a better design would be a reversionary mode where failure of EAP (calibration error, camera failure, etc.) may allow fall-back to standard cruise control. Of course this would be annunciated with an alert to the effect of "EAP not available. Use caution, standard cruise control functionality only."
While I agree with you, this is an obvious and predictable result of Tesla not finishing the development and involving all of us in the 5% baked pie.
My comments were in response to AP2 software and the people complaining they are losing basic cruise control (which the AP2 cars shipped with) when they get the new EAP update and the cameras are still updating. We all know that a lot more has been assimilated/integrated into the AP2 software than the AP1 software which had a variety of stand-alone pieces of software code.
Similar threads
