I mean, it kinda is since the reason those things are on the Caddy camera is so it can do that job.
Those things are on the Caddy because those engineers decided on that approach. LIDAR units are on the WayMo cars because WayMo decided on that approach. Lockheed put 4 engines on the JetStar because they decided on that approach.
Engineers and designers make decisions every day on how to approach problems; some use extra hardware, some use extra computation, some use the least costly approach, some use the least failure-prone approach, etc. ad infinitum. Just because GM made one set of choices doesn't mean that's the only approach.
Not really... there's no cameras that can see below the front hood for example, so if making a tight turn into it there's already invisible (to the camera) space right in front of you now.
More importantly- the most common use of the overhead 360 feature I've see is leaving a space- and since the car has no idea what's in the surrounding too-low-to-see areas while parked it can't show those to you.
During the approach one or more cameras were likely able to see that area for a period. Likely enough to model what it later cannot see. Also true of vehicles that arrive while our vehicle is still.
Hey- here's some guesses about what we think you MIGHT have around you to make driving decisions based on...good luck!
If you want to hypothesize the duck that sneaks in and then nests under the front bumper blind spot while I'm parked, then I kinda doubt I could see the duck on the tiny display anyway -- if I didn't see it while walking up, the duck is getting squished. I'm okay with that.
Meanwhile, the curb is staying exactly where it was as I rolled up, and I'm okay with a portion of it being interpolated.
Not at the speed/distance it would actually be useful though- no.
If a car is coming across in the rear at 2 mph you'll already visually notice before it's an issue.
If one is shooting through the lot at 20 mph the camera will never catch it in time to usefully warn you... that's why virtually every other car with this feature uses rear radar to do it. Which is hardware the Tesla lacks.
It's also why auto-park backs into spots- so that you exit them forward... where radar does exist (and so do more cameras) and even human visibility is vastly better than backing out.
Agree to mildly disagree. I'm not convinced any system using any technology is providing useful warning against a 20mph cross-traffic threat -- at 20mph even the radar-based systems aren't giving enough warning for human reaction times. (It's possible an automatic braking system could help at that speed and those ranges -- but warning the meatbag would be too late.)
You mention "visually notice"; I thought the point was that it's a blind situation? Assuming the adjacent vehicle blocking the view is the same length as the 3, the rear cam can see at least 10-15 feet further than the driver can. Is that the 150 feet that Bosch claims for its top-of-the-line package? No, but it's not chopped liver, and it's enough for a useful warning at typical parking lot speeds.
It is clearly
not why auto-park backs into spots, however. For one thing, the radar Tesla is using is utterly useless for cross-traffic warning. The ARS 4-B radar module has two beam shapes: 45deg and 9deg, and the maximum range of 150ft is only available using the 9deg beam. Useless for side view. Unless one of us was in the room when the design decision was being made that auto-park would back in, we can't say why it was made -- but it wasn't for a hypothetical future use of the front radar for cross-traffic.
(On that tangent, for a camera based cross-traffic warning, it would be better to nose-in; the rear camera has a slightly wider FOV than even the front wide camera.)
(If you ask me, auto-park backs in because that is the One True Way -- but I don't really know any more than you do.)
