5 ms·

Sounds very interesting. After reading the press release though, I can't find any references to MEMS or why/how this is better than existing LIDAR sensors. An

Sounds very interesting. After reading the press release though, I can't find any references to MEMS or why/how this is better than existing LIDAR sensors. Any other resources OP?

the-dude 11y ago
Page 2, in diagram. No motivation though.
69_years_and 11y ago
I believe it is smaller and cheaper, not necessarily better.
- dave_sullivan 11y ago
  Cheaper LIDAR is good, but my money is on an array of super cheap cameras and better image recognition to get the additional cost of "self driving" down low. Also, cameras are lower profile than LIDAR (looks matter in cars...)
  - organsnyder 11y ago
    Doesn't help you when visibility is poor, though. Of course, humans are no better in those conditions, but a big selling point of autonomous cars is that they can (in theory) be perfectly safe even in dense fog, snow, etc.
    - cma 11y ago
      Can't infrared cameras see through fog?
  - msandford 11y ago
    LIDAR gives you single sensor depth perception though without having to go through computationally expensive stereo vision mapping. There's definitely some benefit to that if it can improve your latency (or "framerate") such that you have extra time to swerve, slow down, etc.
    - Symmetry 11y ago
      Many stereo vision systems have an ASIC or FPGA that automatically calculate the depth information from the two images, like this guy: http://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-s7 http://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-s7
      - msandford 11y ago
        Yeah, and it's only 15 fps so that means at least 60ms between decisions. 80 mph is 117 fps so 60 ms represents 7 feet. If you ran at 30 fps then that's only 3.5 feet, at 60 fps it's 1.75 feet. I'll grant you that saving 5.25 feet at 80 mph is definitely going to make a difference very rarely, but it will happen to some degree. Also there's no pricing so I suspect it's super expensive, which is not at all what the parent was suggesting "but my money is on an array of super cheap cameras and better image recognition" I suspect that LIDAR is also going to be fairly immune to glare where as vision systems are probably susceptible. Having a big depth hole open up in your mapping/planning system because of glare would likely bring the car to a screeching halt (literally) which isn't going to be good for the other cars around it.
        zardo 11y ago
        Lidar also, at least potentially, allows you to focus sampling on areas where you have less confidence in what you're seeing.
        msandford 11y ago
        I think if I was going to ride in a self-driving car I'd want it designed like a hard realtime system where it is guaranteed to sample the road at X rate or whatever. Most of the time it won't matter at all and doing something adaptive would be fine. But when the cameras go out completely (or get blinded or whatever) then you could end up with a really degenerate case where the software can't keep up with the car's motion and it freaks out and crashes (literally or figuratively). Prior to suggesting that this couldn't happen, or would be extremely unlikely to happen, please remember the results of the Toyota "unintended acceleration" investigation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643204
  - jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
    It's really useful to have multiple sensing mechanisms that have independent error behavior. I suspect when self driving cars are out there in mass, they'll use a combination of cheap cameras, lidar, etc for reliability and redundancy.
Symmetry 11y ago
Generally LIDARs work by rotating a mirror that the laser bounces off of giving you a 2D plane or cone where you can detect things. Super expensive LIDARs like the one on the Google car use a number of cones with different angles to approximate a 3D system and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Other systems like the ones you see in the DARPA challenge might rotate the plane of the LIDAR through a full circle, but that takes a while. Spinning mirrors are also somewhat delicate which can be a problem for automotive applications.
- Animats 11y ago
  Exactly. That expensive rotating Velodyne thing is a research tool, not a production auto part. Production cars need better, preferably with no big moving parts. The Pioneer MEMS device qualifies (the moving parts are at IC scale). The new Kinect is a no-moving-parts 3D LIDAR. The Advanced Scientific Concepts flash LIDAR is also a good 3D LIDAR, usable outdoors in daylight. It costs about $100K because it's hand-made by physicists in Santa Barbara for DOD and Space-X, but the technology isn't inherently expensive. The Pioneer press release doesn't say much. The usual specs are X and Y pixels, field of view, and range, none of which they give.
meragrin 11y ago
First item in Google for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_systems

Sounds very interesting. After reading the press release though, I can't find any references to MEMS or why/how this is better than existing LIDAR sensors. Any other resources OP?

the-dude 11y ago

Page 2, in diagram. No motivation though.

69_years_and 11y ago

I believe it is smaller and cheaper, not necessarily better.

dave_sullivan 11y ago
Cheaper LIDAR is good, but my money is on an array of super cheap cameras and better image recognition to get the additional cost of "self driving" down low. Also, cameras are lower profile than LIDAR (looks matter in cars...)
- organsnyder 11y ago
  Doesn't help you when visibility is poor, though. Of course, humans are no better in those conditions, but a big selling point of autonomous cars is that they can (in theory) be perfectly safe even in dense fog, snow, etc.
  - cma 11y ago
    Can't infrared cameras see through fog?
- msandford 11y ago
  LIDAR gives you single sensor depth perception though without having to go through computationally expensive stereo vision mapping. There's definitely some benefit to that if it can improve your latency (or "framerate") such that you have extra time to swerve, slow down, etc.
  - Symmetry 11y ago
    Many stereo vision systems have an ASIC or FPGA that automatically calculate the depth information from the two images, like this guy: http://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-s7 http://carnegierobotics.com/multisense-s7
    - msandford 11y ago
      Yeah, and it's only 15 fps so that means at least 60ms between decisions. 80 mph is 117 fps so 60 ms represents 7 feet. If you ran at 30 fps then that's only 3.5 feet, at 60 fps it's 1.75 feet. I'll grant you that saving 5.25 feet at 80 mph is definitely going to make a difference very rarely, but it will happen to some degree. Also there's no pricing so I suspect it's super expensive, which is not at all what the parent was suggesting "but my money is on an array of super cheap cameras and better image recognition" I suspect that LIDAR is also going to be fairly immune to glare where as vision systems are probably susceptible. Having a big depth hole open up in your mapping/planning system because of glare would likely bring the car to a screeching halt (literally) which isn't going to be good for the other cars around it.
      - zardo 11y ago
        Lidar also, at least potentially, allows you to focus sampling on areas where you have less confidence in what you're seeing.
        msandford 11y ago
        I think if I was going to ride in a self-driving car I'd want it designed like a hard realtime system where it is guaranteed to sample the road at X rate or whatever. Most of the time it won't matter at all and doing something adaptive would be fine. But when the cameras go out completely (or get blinded or whatever) then you could end up with a really degenerate case where the software can't keep up with the car's motion and it freaks out and crashes (literally or figuratively). Prior to suggesting that this couldn't happen, or would be extremely unlikely to happen, please remember the results of the Toyota "unintended acceleration" investigation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9643204
- jasonwatkinspdx 11y ago
  It's really useful to have multiple sensing mechanisms that have independent error behavior. I suspect when self driving cars are out there in mass, they'll use a combination of cheap cameras, lidar, etc for reliability and redundancy.

Symmetry 11y ago

Generally LIDARs work by rotating a mirror that the laser bounces off of giving you a 2D plane or cone where you can detect things. Super expensive LIDARs like the one on the Google car use a number of cones with different angles to approximate a 3D system and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Other systems like the ones you see in the DARPA challenge might rotate the plane of the LIDAR through a full circle, but that takes a while. Spinning mirrors are also somewhat delicate which can be a problem for automotive applications.

Animats 11y ago
Exactly. That expensive rotating Velodyne thing is a research tool, not a production auto part. Production cars need better, preferably with no big moving parts. The Pioneer MEMS device qualifies (the moving parts are at IC scale). The new Kinect is a no-moving-parts 3D LIDAR. The Advanced Scientific Concepts flash LIDAR is also a good 3D LIDAR, usable outdoors in daylight. It costs about $100K because it's hand-made by physicists in Santa Barbara for DOD and Space-X, but the technology isn't inherently expensive. The Pioneer press release doesn't say much. The usual specs are X and Y pixels, field of view, and range, none of which they give.

meragrin 11y ago

First item in Google for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_systems