3 ms·

> artificially slowed to 8FPS i'm sure this is to offer relief to the nn but does this further simulate 'reality'? are our autonomous vehicles seeing at 8 fra

• alderz 10y ago
  As the average human reaction time is 0.19 seconds, I don't see 8FPS too bad for a start. More FPS is always nice, of course.
  • justifier 10y ago
    interesting comparison but it is a bit disingenuous there is more going on than just input in that reaction time figure 8fps fails to assume a reaction time of 0.125s for the same reason that the human eye's ~220fps.. now this is a mental stretch of the true underlying mechanisms but i'll make it for sake of consistency of argument(o).. fails to imply a reaction time of .00454545s i guess i assumed autonomous vehicles sensor data would be measured in hertz, but now am intrigued by what framerate the computer vision system works (o) http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
  • will_pseudonym 10y ago
    Reaction times and flicker fusion rates[0] are orthogonal. 0 ms latency at 8 FPS is different than 190 ms latency at 120 FPS. E.g. If there is an event that takes less than 125 ms, at 8 FPS there is a probability that you would miss it entirely! At 190 ms latency with 120 FPS, you would be guaranteed of seeing a 125 ms event, but processing of that information would take 190 ms longer. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold