Zero benefit? How about ordering a car and getting it sooner than 18 months?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla replacing ultrasonic sensors with Tesla Vision
- Thread starter diplomat33
- Start date
Cheburashka
Active Member
Agree. If people are desperate enough to pay the kind of money Tesla is asking for an inferior product then that is definitely a benefit.
Looks to me like Tesla has found a way to reduce the production cost of the vehicles a little more by eliminating sensors, installation provisions and wiring. It's a good example of value engineering. Ultimately, the consumer saves money. Even if you already have USS, you may save money by not needing to replace a faulty or damaged sensor in the future.
powertoold
Active Member
I wonder how fast the occupancy network "boots up" because sometimes, I jump in the car and start driving asap. Fsd beta usually takes 10 seconds to start rendering the visualization.
Especially now with so many similar EVs on the market and new ones being announced constantly. Why people complain about Tesla is a mystery - just go buy another car you'll enjoy.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yep, that matches the reports I read. Front radar is still there, so doesn't point to a supply problem for that particular component (which is what Tesla is using and people were suggesting there was a shortage of). Tesla doesn't use any of the shorter range radars that others use for corners (which it why it doesn't have cross traffic alert or the mirror blind spot lights), so any supply shortage of that doesn't affect Tesla.
Fair point, though I doubt anyone would confuse the prior encoded video stream with the concept of edited broadcast footage.
I think this thread subtopic started with @Boza expressing annoyance about the use of "photon count" in a discussion among the people here, who are not quite the general public. His negative reaction is really a reflection of frustration with Eon's much-discussed habit of using inflated marketing terms, the archetype being "Full Self Driving".
While "photon count" itself is less egregious, it must have prodded an already inflaned nerve. Fired off some BS-detection neurons in his Annoyance Cortex.
I get what you're saying there too, but with respect and since we're analyzing terms:
Coulombs represent electron* count i.e. charge. Amps represent current, the flow of said charge over time.
* electrons or sometimes holes or, in other contexrs, sometimes protons or the space-charge capacity in a volume of material, etc.(Just trying to "insulate" my comment against further levels of pounce, as measured by Disagree Count!)
CCDs (which I think are not used in these cameras) and CMOS Image sensors (which are) both accumulate electric charge approximately 1 for 1 as a result of the incident photons, hence the photon-count reference. I think physics textbooks would use n for the count itself, but it turns into Coulombs of charge in the pixel well, causing a proportional voltage that we consider the relevant stimulus for the CMOS transistors.
(Edit: apologies that I wrote Joules instead of Coulombs the first time I posted this, another error on my part now corrected)
Bottom line: Photon Count isn't wrong, it only feels wrong if it's used to imply something unique or innovative, as if Tesla made some kind of fundamental image-capture breakthrough. This false implication would constitute the BS that @Boza attacked. I've seen it plastered across those clickbait YouTube snapshots.
What Tesla did, which is a perfectly real and notable improvement over the prior architecture, was to remove a layer of digital video processing that helps captured images look more natural to humans, but takes time and loses some information in the process. Note that said processing layer is still there in the feed to the on-screen image display and in stored clips, but it no longer exists between the camera feed and the NN scene processor.
Last edited:
smogne41
Active Member
That is totally fine if Tesla's BS only affected new cars. The fact that they can, will, and have downgraded existing cars is why I get enraged and no longer support this company (in it's current form).
Check out the Tesla Used Car market for selling your existing car so you can get into a car you'd enjoy. Prices are hot right now, so you may not lose much of your value.
Tesla is constantly trying to save cost and streamline production…. from much less options, single glass roof, no instrument cluster, no radar, no rain sensor, half the steering wheel, now no uss, whether all of these are truly innovations and how each individual perceived is up to each one, good thing is there are more choices now, one can pick another option with different tradeoffs ….who knows, may be Tesla one day will remove side mirrors, rearview mirror, door handles inside and out, windows buttons, accelerator pedal, use airplane steering styled steering wheel … and then other manufacturers follow 
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
But that's not true at all. The Occupancy Network can provide a 3D view of obstacles, while the ultrasonic sensors only provide a line around the vehicle (as well as being totally blind to the two sides of the vehicle). I believe it was already demonstrated Tesla Vision is a lot better at self parking than using the ultrasonic sensors (for one, it doesn't need cars around it to work).
I didn't respond to similar comments that talk about Tesla Vision, but it's going to be a similar thing. It may not reach "parity" in certain metrics (for example follow distance 1 or top speed being 85 vs 90), but in others it would be better (I've seen reports that the latest versions are significantly better in terms of phantom braking than even the radar based AP).
Probably a similar thing may happen with USS where Vision Parking Assist might not reach the 1 inch depth resolution (maybe it'll be 2 inches for example), but if it can provide that same 3D visualization then it'll have some advantages (especially if Tesla can make a way for it to represent curbs in front).
Last edited:
You really gotta catch them somewhere at the intersection of the "increasing quality because they are constantly figuring out how to build the thing without misaligning every other panel" and "decreasing quality because they are finding new ways to save money"... lolTesla is constantly trying to save cost and streamline production…. from much less options, single glass roof, no instrument cluster, no radar, no rain sensor, half the steering wheel, now no uss, whether all of these are truly innovations and how each individual perceived is up to each one, good thing is there are more choices now, one can pick another option with different tradeoffs ….who knows, may be Tesla one day will remove side mirrors, rearview mirror, door handles inside and out, windows buttons, accelerator pedal, use airplane steering styled steering wheel … and then other manufacturers follow
Vision CAN park using Lines but can't park with cars close by since it then relies on the USS to determine distance. Tesla is REMOVING Auto Park (and Summon) from cars without USS. So Vision Auto Park want be better it will be MIA.
boonedocks
MS LR Blk/Blk 19”
If it takes for ever to get to parity I wonder if any of those cars will get a refund like we did on our OG HW2 cars that took forever, felt like it anyway, to get AP enabled. LOL
LorentzTorque
Member
Can't help it...You'd need a potential to get joules.
Other than that, I think you captured the sentiment well. Yeah, you can technically get away with calling it a photon count, but it's unnecessary and gimmicky in that it doesn't express any technical advantage. I can see the use of the raw feed being advantageous in the time it saves and in the lack of compression.
Cheburashka
Active Member
If that's the case for someone, then they must simply weigh the pros and cons. Stay with a car they are unhappy with, or go through the potential difficulty of selling their car and buying a car they would be happy with. Which option will bring the most joy with the least pain over time?
Thanks, yes. I had already corrected that bad mistake, if you go back and look at my edit, about 10 minutes after I posted it. I reread it and spotted it myself. I felt a little sheepish, so I acknowledged the error instead of simply replacing it. Just in case someone was already replying as I think you did. (The edit window is now closed but if you see anything else let me know!)
Similar threads
