Joe F
Disruption is hard.
Why would highway speeds be a concern for ultrasonics in this case, when it's the relative speed difference that's important?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Navigate on Autopilot is Useless (2018.42.3)
- Thread starter wk057
- Start date
(1) Response time -- When you are parking, everything moves very slowly. So if the ultrasonic sensors take 0.5s to notice an object (or to accurately measure its distance), no big deal. They're great as low-speed parking sensors. But ultrasonic sensors are noisy and so you need to time-averaging filters to get an accurate reading -- you need to ping the thing several times before you really know where it is, and to filter out spurious returns. (Usually you get ~10 pings per second from an ultrasonic sensor, particularly since they often can't fire all sensors at once in order to avoid cross-talk.) If everything is stationary or moving slowly this is fine. At highway speeds, you need very rapid measurement of rapidly moving objects. For blind spot monitoring, the speed differential between you and the other vehicle may be 20+ mph. Ultrasonics have no way to deal with this. They also generally struggle with the rapidly changing environment on a highway. That thing that returned a ping last time probably won't be there for the next ping. Or something else will be there instead.
(2) Increased noise from vibration, wind, engines/motors (your own and those of neighboring vehicles) at higher speeds.
(3) I am pretty sure the doppler frequency shift is also highly relevant here, and also the fact that you may not get the ping return because by the time it gets back to the sensor the sensor is in a different place. So you can overestimate or underestimate distance because of pure geometry (the 4-dimensional geometry of moving objects that is).
Humans do this rarely, and usually for good reason. It happens far too often with AP for no apparent reason -- this isn't like something that I saw AP do just once, this is something it has done to me several times on every long road trip.
One change I've noticed since the first release of NoA is it no longer turns the blinker on for no reason. Previously it would signal left or right where it thought there was a highway fork even when there is no choice of direction within the lane.
Elon needs to either inhale properly or stop altogether. NoA is FSD! He has to be viewed as intentionally misleading with that kind of gaslighting.
I wonder if the removal of the lane change confirmation for NoA will be the first “FSD” feature we get. They have to throw FSD buyers a bone at some point.
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Unless I am mistaken, based on the original description of EAP, the ability to change lanes without confirmation from the driver is the last feature on it's list. From that point on, any additional features would be FSD. At least that's how I have been looking at it.
Dan
Typical Tesla fan. deflect blame away from elon at all cost. Although elon has said repeatedly he believes NOA is FSD on highway multiply times the last couple months. Its amazing what lengths people will go with absolve Elon of any responsibility, including betraying the English language, renouncing every thing they learned in English 101.
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
So tell me, other than requiring driver confirmation of lane changes, what is it about Nav On Autopilot that isn't FSD? It initiates all driving input needed once on a limited access divided highway. How is Elon's statement false?
Dan
How about we compare that to Elon's description of FSD when he announced AP2 almost 3 years ago...
"Basic news is that all cars exiting the factory have hardware necessary for Level 5 Autonomy so that’s in terms of cameras, compute power, it’s in every car we make on the order 2,000 cars a week are shipping now with Level 5 literally meaning hardware capable of full self-driving for driver-less capability.”
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Yeah he missed that one looks like. Oh well.
Now, care to answer my question? How is Elon's comment regarding Nav On Autopilot wrong?
SAE calls FSD level 5
Elon before called FSD level 5
Elon also called FSD drivereless
The sae levels are NOT based on features.
Automated lane change (a feature) doesn't constitutes as self driving or level 5, only driver responsibility and ODD limitations dictates the levels.
Level 2 - Driver must pay attention at all times and be ready to take over without notice.
Level 3 - Car is in complete control and driver can read books, watch movies, etc. Car alerts driver with sufficient time when it needs driver to regain control.
Level 4 - Car is in complete control and the driver can fall asleep/or be absent because the car handles all fail-safes with no expectation that the driver will take over. Car is limited to operational, geographical and weather constraints.
Level 5 - Level 4 without limits.
Elon now calls NOA which require full driver attention at all times and readiness to take over without notice, FSD.
I will let you come to your own conclusion.
I know you were talking to Bladerskb, but here's my take on it:
NOA is not "highway FSD" because NOA requires hands on the wheel.
FSD, *any* flavor of FSD, has no such "hands on wheel" requirement.
Elon promised that the car could drive itself from NY to CA with no one in the car, so obviously no hands on the wheel are required.
Indeed Elon did announce AP2 as Level 5 capable which is driverless and did suggest the car could be Summoned from coast to coast to pick you up, again suggesting driverless. Tesla also announced the Tesla Network for AP2 in 2016 (details of which to be announced in 2017) which definitely sounded driverless. Tesla’s famous video also said the driver was there for legal reasons only... All this suggested Full Self-driving was driverless, just pending validation and regulatory approval...
Now it seems Elon is re-inventing the term Full Self-driving as something completely different, because a driverless car (even just a car with driver there but reading a book) will have to be able to do so much more than keep distance, hold lane or change lanes to navigate. It will have to handle potholes. It will have to handle incorrect lane markings due to construction work etc. It will have to handle stopped vehicles and abnormal objects blocking the way and so forth. And do this to a very high degree of certainty because there is no driver to fall back on.
FSD where the driver is the crutch is of course a much easier problem but that is not how AP2 used to be sold to us.
Now it seems Elon is re-inventing the term Full Self-driving as something completely different, because a driverless car (even just a car with driver there but reading a book) will have to be able to do so much more than keep distance, hold lane or change lanes to navigate. It will have to handle potholes. It will have to handle incorrect lane markings due to construction work etc. It will have to handle stopped vehicles and abnormal objects blocking the way and so forth. And do this to a very high degree of certainty because there is no driver to fall back on.
FSD where the driver is the crutch is of course a much easier problem but that is not how AP2 used to be sold to us.
CarlK
Active Member
My guess is that and hand check will no longer be required for FSD. That would be a pretty significant step in terms of confidence in the technology plus legal implications though. We'll just need to wait and see. Plus of course anything beyond "freeway on ramp to off ramp" capability will be added to FSD but not necessarily EAP in the future.
Last edited:
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Of course it requires hands on the wheel. Regulations require it at this point. Obviously Elon was referring to the functions available with the system, not the regulatory requirements.
Dan
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Again...reference to the system capability, not regulatory requirements. Yes, Elon missed on the ability of AP2. It will apparently need the AP3 upgrade. However, at the time with the information he had available he thought it would be possible with AP2. No deception intended, just his honest estimate given the information he had available at the time.
I would much rather focus on what the system CAN do at this point rather than what it CAN'T do.
Dan
