Testing self-driving systems in simulators is the new chic trend, don't you read any news?
And it makes perfect sense too - a lot more cost-efficient!
(in other news, The Matrix is real!)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
And it makes perfect sense too - a lot more cost-efficient!
(in other news, The Matrix is real!)
I've been on 2017.34 for a very long time.
Looking at firmware.teslafi.com - I think your system has a stuck update and will require a call or the service center to catch it back up.
I'm going to stay on 34 for a while
Hey, sorry to hear about your update drama...I'm like you...very "in tune" with my car's behavior... I have 17.36, and only have issues with homelink...getting my L upgrade installed this week...what's going on 17.40?? Is there something I should know??
I totally agree that simulation is extremely useful and important and can shorten development and testing cycles considerable, but it can't be your only or final testing methodology for software that has to function in the REAL world....
I bet the current EAP sw performed beautifully in simulation but their real life performance still tests a lot of driver's reflexes
With all this alpha testing we provide for free, AP3.0 is going to be fantastic I tell you!
JohnnyG
Weee!
Has anyone noticed if the first bluetooth phone call being muted and then the streaming music being muted after a bluetooth phone call issues were resolved? These issues appeared in 17.36 Firmware Issues? 2017.36 1b27c6d
I had the same issue using phone nav (Google Maps) since I use (have to use) their "connect as a phone call" option, and I've not noticed that as an issue on 17.40.1 and 17.42. I definitely think it was fixed in there.
rolson1011
2016 P90DL, Model 3 on reservation
ahkahn
Active Member
Be happy.... I owned my old Ford Fusion for 4 years and only received 1 update!
GaryREM
Member
Dborn
Confirmed
42.a88.... rolled out to my AP1 car yesterday. So far, seems stable with no issues. It apparently only added the mirror folding thing at 50km/hour.
A couple of points...
First, all software has bugs - developers work on different pieces of the software - some of the bugs are in the piece they are working on - and some of the bugs arise when components are integrated together in a release. That's why organizations that produce high quality software (at this point, that means almost anyone other than Tesla) use a combination of automated testing, internal beta testing and external beta testing (usually with some methodology to ensure all components are tested before release). And even when under severe schedule pressure, the QA and development groups will generally try to avoid shipping any software with obvious bugs.
Since we are still seeing obvious bugs and design flaws - 5 years after the Model S went into production, Tesla's development process is broken - and needs to be fixed.
Second, the fault lies primarily with Tesla management. None of the companies I've worked for (where I was responsible for major systems) would have accepted even one of the releases Tesla has made with so many bugs. It's incomprehensible that upper management would continue to accept this - especially when the software is being used in a car - and distractions caused by buggy software could risk safety.
Third, while Tesla may have had every configuration in-house for testing early on - that is no longer practical. Not only has Tesla been introducing new configuration changes on both the S & X throughout the year - over the last 5 years, they've also introduced right-hand driving, plus they have language variations for every country. Even though Tesla controls the hardware, the number of potential configurations has already grown far beyond what Tesla can test - even with simulators.
Which is why Tesla should open the beta program - and let all owners opt in or opt out (and if they do that - the "roll back to previous release" would be very helpful when encountering an unusable beta release!).
This isn't "rocket science" - methodologies for developing high quality software, on aggressive schedules is well known - and ultimately it is the upper management's responsibility when these failures continue to happen.
I keep hoping to see improvement - and waiting...
First, all software has bugs - developers work on different pieces of the software - some of the bugs are in the piece they are working on - and some of the bugs arise when components are integrated together in a release. That's why organizations that produce high quality software (at this point, that means almost anyone other than Tesla) use a combination of automated testing, internal beta testing and external beta testing (usually with some methodology to ensure all components are tested before release). And even when under severe schedule pressure, the QA and development groups will generally try to avoid shipping any software with obvious bugs.
Since we are still seeing obvious bugs and design flaws - 5 years after the Model S went into production, Tesla's development process is broken - and needs to be fixed.
Second, the fault lies primarily with Tesla management. None of the companies I've worked for (where I was responsible for major systems) would have accepted even one of the releases Tesla has made with so many bugs. It's incomprehensible that upper management would continue to accept this - especially when the software is being used in a car - and distractions caused by buggy software could risk safety.
Third, while Tesla may have had every configuration in-house for testing early on - that is no longer practical. Not only has Tesla been introducing new configuration changes on both the S & X throughout the year - over the last 5 years, they've also introduced right-hand driving, plus they have language variations for every country. Even though Tesla controls the hardware, the number of potential configurations has already grown far beyond what Tesla can test - even with simulators.
Which is why Tesla should open the beta program - and let all owners opt in or opt out (and if they do that - the "roll back to previous release" would be very helpful when encountering an unusable beta release!).
This isn't "rocket science" - methodologies for developing high quality software, on aggressive schedules is well known - and ultimately it is the upper management's responsibility when these failures continue to happen.
I keep hoping to see improvement - and waiting...
Did you take the bluepill?Testing self-driving systems in simulators is the new chic trend, don't you read any news?
And it makes perfect sense too - a lot more cost-efficient!
(in other news, The Matrix is real!)
I told the SC I didn’t want it back until it was patched/fixed. I can’t rely on a vehicle with the high probability of being stuck and unable to drive. So far so goodNot exactly sure why they even kept your car if they knew an upcoming firmware would fix it.
Finally got this one but already knew it didn’t fix Homelink. But thrilled to hear the one change vs the build downloaded about a week ago: the mirrors will stay retracted, if desired, below 30 mph. Seriously. Should be helpful if I ship my car to England and need to navigate a 1000 year old country lane or if I ever buy a home in San Francisco with a shed masquerading as a garage.
Sounds like it’s time to reassign some engineers to Model 3. But before doing that, fix Homelink — and then stop messing with it!!
Sounds like it’s time to reassign some engineers to Model 3. But before doing that, fix Homelink — and then stop messing with it!!
Last edited:
Similar threads
