Too much interference? Maybe one of the reasons Tesla is trying to abandon radar?

[gearchruncher]

There will definitely be grousing on the internet because "FSD won't drive me to Tahoe in a snowstorm so I had to do it myself".

You specifically said that FSD might give up and a human had to do it themselves. This means a reasonable human was able too. Of course there are insane edge conditions where a human can't do it either and nobody expects FSD to pull that off.. That's not what we are discussing or the example you used. This is what we are discussing:

How many times has my car told me 1 or more cameras were "obstructed", read: blinded by the sun. This is easily 80% of the trips I have in the morning or evening in winter when the sun shines. And that means no AP. I even had basic cruise control totally shut off because the sun was low in front of the car. Not even non-adaptive cruise control. Nada. Nice on that 100km trip

Ironically, Elon has mentioned that Radar is one of the things that makes FSD "superhuman"- which is an indication that he expects FSD to be able to drive in situations where humans can't safely. And now they're ditching it.

No. All you know is that, if Radar can't work, the autopilot shuts off. You don't know whether it is actually used for driving or safety. You certainly have zero idea how "dependent" they are on it. It is dangerous to assert things that you don't know.

Find me a single source that indicates Tesla is not using radar actively right now. The preponderance of evidence is that they are, and people complain daily about how their car phantom brakes on the highway, which is absolutely an indication of how dependent they are on radar. They will flat out slam on the brakes based on only radar data. The fact the system will not operate at all without Radar is also an indication of that. As you say, "It is dangerous to assert things that you don't know" yet you went and said:

Given the billions of miles of data collected, you can be sure that, if Tesla removes the radar, it's because, after reviewing all of the sensor data, they are extremely sure it is not germane to the sensor fusion picture they put together. It most likely means they haven't been using it for some time already.

Hmm, seems pretty dangerous- you even say "you can be sure that" and "it's most likely" and "I guess" which is a whole lot of passive language. Meanwhile, Elon is saying these kinds of things, clearly indicating that they are not yet away from radar and on pure vision.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1380599694154362882

https://twitter.com/x/status/1373145910549483522

https://twitter.com/x/status/1370522745709158407

Pure vision is an internal research project that not even beta testers under NDA have yet for just city driving, much less the wide fleet. So who's the one making up stuff? Hold yourself to the same standard you are holding me to.

I guess, he's in 'write only' mode and doesn't read much.

A very large percentage of his Tweets are replies. Stop making up excuses for him that you have no data for.

 

[drtimhill]

Unfortunately I see nothing but downsides in the removal of radar.

How many times has my car told me 1 or more cameras were "obstructed", read: blinded by the sun. This is easily 80% of the trips I have in the morning or evening in winter when the sun shines. And that means no AP. I even had basic cruise control totally shut off because the sun was low in front of the car. Not even non-adaptive cruise control. Nada. Nice on that 100km trip.
And no, the cameras are not dirty, and no, I don't have condensation.
Or what about the phantom braking caused by shadows from trucks or bridges?
Vision alone does not work and will not work.
Please let the car at least use radar as a backup to vision, or better, as additional input.

I'm dubious that radar will solve this, and may in fact make it worse. There are three ways you could use radar with vision (not mutually exclusive):

1. To provide supplemental information. For example, the vision system sees an object, and use data from radar to fine-tune distance information, helping to place the object in the world view.
2. To provide extra safeguards. For example, to flag an object in the roadway that the vision system does not see.
3. To provide over-rides. For example, to assure the vision system that a shadow is NOT an obstruction in the road.

The problem here is that according to the word from Tesla, they are mostly seeing the radar triggering #2 as a false positive, which is why they are removing it.

And the problem with #3 is that you very rarely would do that. When two detection systems conflict, you tend to always take the more conservative of the two. So if vision says there is an obstruction, and radar says there is not, you go with vision and not radar. Why? Because it's safer than the other way around. Sure, people have complained here about the danger of phantom braking, and that's real, but the danger of NOT braking when the car should aces the potential risk of excess braking.