I absolutely have to agree. Since the past half year or so, AP 1.0 and 2.0 both ‘lean’ away from semis when we pass them. I find it comforting, though it’s almost creepily human-like (the uncanny valley of self-driving?
).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Why AP 2.0 Won't Be Here Soon, and It Won't Be What You Think It Is
- Thread starter Todd Burch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
I absolutely have to agree. Since the past half year or so, AP 1.0 and 2.0 both ‘lean’ away from semis when we pass them. I find it comforting, though it’s almost creepily human-like (the uncanny valley of self-driving?
).
Joe F
Disruption is hard.
Is there perhaps a disconnect WRT passing speed? I only recall a shift away from other vehicles a few times in the past, but only when passing speed was not too fast, where you were almost pacing the other vehicle. I don't recall ever seeing it when passing much slower traffic.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Yeah, I'm not getting any movement of shifting with AP1 during passing.
Sometimes it gets too close for comfort to the cars or trucks in the adjacent lanes.. where I have to take over.
Sometimes it gets too close for comfort to the cars or trucks in the adjacent lanes.. where I have to take over.
davidc18
Active Member
The year is almost up and still no FSD or really it seems any "advanced" autopilot features. Is there any good news on this front?
MarkS22
Member
I was one of a handful of people to "love" this original post when it came out, so I'm going to take a bit of a victory lap. My concern remains the same: We have AP2.0 hardware in cars that is getting rapidly outdated while we wait (likely years) for FSD. Is it even universally agreed that there's true feature parity with three year old AP1.0?
Assuming the software is ready within two years, that's a three year hardware gap. Look at the differences between an iPhoneX and a three year old iPhone 6. The X can do 3840x2160 4K at 60fps compared to 1920x1080. For FSD, that resolution is a dramatic difference. Geekbench single core is 4200 on the X vs 1382 on the 6 (over 3x the power). Multicore is 10100 vs 2300 on the 6 (over 4x the processing power). Graphics is 15000 vs 4200 (over 3x the speed).
These are the real world advances we're seeing in three years. Cameras with higher resolution, better dynamic range, and higher refresh rates. Camera quality is critical to Tesla's vision of FSD. CPU/GPU processing tripling. I suspect we'll see even bigger advances in the next two years with more custom hardware dedicated to FSD (Hello, Jim Keller?).
I'm just really concerned they pushed AP 2.0 (and even 2.5) out too soon before the software was ready. (I suspect this fell in their lap because of the falling out with MobileEye.) Granted, it may be a necessarily evil for shadow testing... and I'm sure we'll see some cool new features before FSD Level 5, but there's no way this is the final sensor suite and CPU system that will unlock the full potential of Level 5 at the time it's released.
Did we ever get the promised radar-assisted safety features (with whitelisting database of signs/bridges) promised for AEB on AP1.0 and 2.0? You know, the ones enable by updated firmware from Bosch?
That said, they've promised to upgrade all AP2.0 vehicles to be compatible with Level 5, so it's all good. I just hope that it includes all the latest advancements (including cameras, if necessary).
Assuming the software is ready within two years, that's a three year hardware gap. Look at the differences between an iPhoneX and a three year old iPhone 6. The X can do 3840x2160 4K at 60fps compared to 1920x1080. For FSD, that resolution is a dramatic difference. Geekbench single core is 4200 on the X vs 1382 on the 6 (over 3x the power). Multicore is 10100 vs 2300 on the 6 (over 4x the processing power). Graphics is 15000 vs 4200 (over 3x the speed).
These are the real world advances we're seeing in three years. Cameras with higher resolution, better dynamic range, and higher refresh rates. Camera quality is critical to Tesla's vision of FSD. CPU/GPU processing tripling. I suspect we'll see even bigger advances in the next two years with more custom hardware dedicated to FSD (Hello, Jim Keller?).
I'm just really concerned they pushed AP 2.0 (and even 2.5) out too soon before the software was ready. (I suspect this fell in their lap because of the falling out with MobileEye.) Granted, it may be a necessarily evil for shadow testing... and I'm sure we'll see some cool new features before FSD Level 5, but there's no way this is the final sensor suite and CPU system that will unlock the full potential of Level 5 at the time it's released.
Did we ever get the promised radar-assisted safety features (with whitelisting database of signs/bridges) promised for AEB on AP1.0 and 2.0? You know, the ones enable by updated firmware from Bosch?
That said, they've promised to upgrade all AP2.0 vehicles to be compatible with Level 5, so it's all good. I just hope that it includes all the latest advancements (including cameras, if necessary).
FSD hardware software is complimentary. The more advanced the hardware, the less advanced the software has to be. So full FSD with AP2.0 HW is possible, but would demand software that way beyond what we have today (or be practical in any foreseeable future). It is possible that the SW limit will be lower with AP2.5/3.0 HW and the time will come sooner.
As long as we are eligible for no cost hardware upgrade to enable level 5 whenever that comes, that part of the HW promise holds true.
MarkS22
Member
True. One can argue you just need a camera on a pan/tilt gimble and good enough software for Level 5. That’s really all we use. (Any of our other senses are already in the car, like knowing its speed.)
To your point, the question becomes that sweet spot between sensors and hardware and software.
RogerHScott
Active Member
If you look at the trends in robotic car research, such as the DARPA Grand Challenges, more and more of the "heavy lifting" is being done by software rather than hardware. Otoh, to run that software you need some pretty muscular raw compute power.
Similar threads
