As a general observation. Mobileye should have gotten better US patent attorneys because a lot of their patents specifically talk about "one camera" or "a camera." Their more recent stuff says "at least one camera" which is a lot more broad. Now, doctrine of equivalence might come into play or the spec talks about more than one camera and then it might not be as big of a deal but these nitty gritty details are why patents might seem to bar a practitioner but in reality you can practice around that particular patent if its no longer applicable. That's why patent attorneys make the big bucks.
Outperform is not the right way to look at it. They are two different ideas for autosteer, and two different technologies. One is more focused on improving safety, the other is more focused on being a driver's aid. GM is not pushing Beta systems, but they are pushing AV, V2V, Geomapping, high end software, night vision, and safety. We really need to see what is shipping for 2019 (Mar/April 2018 or Sept) if you want to discuss GM technology. Some features of the Bolt EV, Bolt AV, CT6, and Cadillac's IP, did not ship on initial release. Whatever the delays are, GM is keeping quiet. GM is not going down the same path as Tesla Motors or Audi or anybody. GM doesn't run their company by quarters, they run it by 3-5 year plans.
When Tesla provides its owner release notes for Autopilot on city streets, it also has its owner's manual available both on its website and built-in onboard 17" display as well. People tend to read Release Notes only and forgot that there's an Owner's Manual on that same 17" screen saying "hands-on feature" and "Do not use on city streets..." The wordings on Owner Manual don't change: "Do not use on city streets..." but there's how Autopilot performs on city streets. The release notes do not repeat the warning but it supplements that this version disables Autopilot on city streets. This version enables Autopilot on city streets but up to 35 MPH... Relasese Notes don't void the warnings. They only supplement what changes and in these cases it's not about the change or voiding of warnings but about the lack of city street performance that the Owner's Manual still says it has always had.
No questions that others do but I don't think anyone would like to buy that kind of set up, thus I doubt those are final configuration to hide their sensors into their cars:
Bladerskb team, you know as well as I do that a handover is a disengagement event. It is clear in the CA DMV regs I cited. Under the bladerskb handle you have cited the same regs as the relevant definition of disengagement for Level 2 and 3. The fact that multiple reviewers are reporting the Supercruise system disengages frequently and that as a result it cannot be used even on large parts of the divided highway system it is intended for shows that SuperCruise has a long way to go. Perhaps GM can make some improvements before hard data starts coming in on the percentage of time the system is disengaged. Your argument that the driver monitoring system — which is GM’s trademark feature allowing hands-free operation — is somehow not part of Supercruise is truly bizarre. GM touts that as a key feature of the Supercruise system and it is absolutely integral to its operation. You (plural) know better. The Bladerskb team should stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
Super Cruise in hands-free mode was in the testing phase prior to any geomapping support. The first press demonstration was in 2012. But Tesla was hands-free at first also IIRC.
To help you out, a L3 car never disengages. You need the read the SAE on what handover and disengagement are. 1,000 miles without disengagement is disengaging freq? or 40 miles from another reviewer?
The CTS-V's they supplied us with at Daytona were speed limited to 140 mph. But even the 2009 would hit the 175 speed limiter with authority. It felt like the car went into limp-mode; it was not subtle. The ones on the lots today (640hp) will bust 200mph pretty easy at sea level during break-in. 2 hrs with a laptop and a fully broken-in engine will go maybe 210 with no mechanical or aero changes. Oddly enough, I was faster around the Rolex 24h Daytona track in the puny ATS-V than the CTS-V. Weight has it's advantages.
@Tam I would argue sensor minituriazation and final placement are the easy worries. Nissan, for example are much further along with their four Lidar, five radar, eight camera system. It is the hardware and software inside that are the bigger questions...
According to the test drive: Nissan's ProPilot Assist definitely isn't an autopilot, but is still quite useful Nissan Propilot still does not use LIDAR because it's configured for Level 2. Tesla claims it doesn't need LIDAR but I don't think there's any car companies that would agree that at all.
My point was to show one way the hardware sensor suite is implemented. On Nissans prototype the Lidars, for example, are in the doors and the bumpers. The only extraneous sensors in that one are the roof cameras, which obviously are easy to integrate in an eventual purpose-built production car...
The actual pro-pilot SDC prototype is completely different from the pro-pilot ADAS that was released in 2016 and only uses one main camera and worked on by a few employees. the propilot 2.0 will be based on the SDC prototype Also there's Delphi who uses Lidar, Camera and Radar and looks like a regular car.
I disagree. For example, if you design a system around a rotating lidar (or multiple) mounted high on the vehicle vs ground level the door mounted lidar sensors in the Nissan vs mid mounted bumper lidar sensors in the Delphi, switching could add years of integration work. The vehicle and object signatures can be quite different (as well probabilities of occlusions). I think the ones serious about fielding a consumer ready system needs to already be thinking about sensor integration (Nissan may be one example).
What matters is how often and for how long the system is disengaged. You are of course incorrect that Level 3 systems cannot be disengaged. They shouldn't disengage in normal operation, but they can, just like Levels 4 and 5. That's why CA requires companies doing testing to file disengagement reports. Also, although you ignore it in this thread, you have in the past recognized the DMV's definition of disengagement is authoritative. You explained that that "DMV made it very clear what disengagement entails" and "we can grade [Level 2] systems today based on that same disengagement definition": As I posted upthread, the CA DMV regulations clearly includes both driver induced and system induced disengagements: "For purposes of this section, 'disengagement' means a deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous mode is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual control of the vehicle." https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (section 227.46) Either you are taking totally inconsistent positions, or the Bladerskb team members have different definitions of a disengagement. If so, perhaps you guys could have a team meeting so you can get on the same page. Semantics aside, if on the same stretch of road Supercruise does not work more often and for longer distances than AP, that is one indication that is not performing as well in the same conditions on this parameter (there are other important parameters to consider like accident and injury reduction, range of conditions that the system works, etc.) Based on the anecdotal reports so far, there is a very strong indication that this is the case at present, since multiple reviewers have reported that Supercruise was disabled for long stretches of their trips on divided highways even under pristine/easy conditions. Of course, actual data on head-to-head comparisons would be nice. And, as noted above, there are other parameters to be considered.
Not quite. CA DMV regulations are for testing autonomous cars and are based on the SAE. they are not for actual deployed Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 designated cars. CA DMV refers to immediate disengagements and there are no system induced immediate disengagement in a Level 3+ car, these are system failures. CA DMV refers to that because all self driving test car today other than maybe google waymo cars (only the ones that are specifically about to be deployed in Pheonix) are actually L2. Its because these cars are programmed to hand over control immediately to the driver in the event of a system failure, potential system failure, going out of ODD or simply uncertainty. only Waymo for example has L4 designated cars that no one can drive even if they wanted to. Here's the full documentation for SAE https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/40009763/(ITS_AD-10-08) SAE_J3016_Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems.pdf?api=v2 where? i see reviewers who were told that SC is disabled when the driver monitoring facing camera is blinded by the sun... 3m10s
This document was useful, I think people were looking for this in other threads discussing the different levels. However, I did notice in the document it says that L3 does disengage on page 20: "• Disengages an appropriate time after issuing a request to intervene • Disengages immediately upon driver request" SAE doesn't seem to use "handover" in its terminology. Rather it talks about "request to intervene", and disengagement happens after request to intervene. So SAE's document seems to match @EinSV's characterization. The "handover" is a valid disengagement event, even under L3 (and SAE covers both cases, where driver manually disengages or the system disengages after the timer expires). Probably talking about this: "When in doubt, however, the CT6 defers to analog driving. For long stretches between New York’s Cadillac House and Washington, on pristine sections of the New Jersey Turnpike, the system stubbornly declined to launch. " Cadillac Finally Has an Answer to Tesla’s Autopilot