4 ms·

Since Tesla is not using Lidar and they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, i wonder about this too.

by kayoone 10y ago

timr 10y ago
"Since Tesla is not using Lidar and they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, i wonder about this too." Who says? The chattering masses on HN? Tesla has certainly deployed a lot of assisted driving systems, but then again, so have a lot of car companies. Lane-keeping and auto-braking are not new, and to date, that's all Tesla has actually shipped. People who know better have serious doubts that you can do full autonomy with only video/radar input under real-world driving conditions (like darkness). That's why most of their competitors are using LIDAR.
- nojvek 10y ago
  Lidar makes a ton of things easy. Visually extracting 3d world from cameras is a very hard and computationally intensive problem. I really hope velodyne delivers. Quanergy seems to have a nice site but seems vaporware in the sense you can't actually buy it. A $100 light weight Lidar is truly game changing for robots, self driving cars and drones.
  - TillE 10y ago
    > and computationally intensive problem Not an exact analogy, but this reminds me of ancient "software modems", which shaved off a few chips and offloaded processing to the CPU. They were cheap, but had a real impact on your computer's performance. The trouble with image processing is that it seems basically impossible to perfect with the level of certainty you'd need for 100% autonomy, whereas LIDAR gives you very straightforward data to act on. You'd still need the cameras for recognizing traffic lights and such, of course.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    > A $100 light weight Lidar is truly game changing for robots, self driving cars and drones. This is probably going to end up like the Oculus Rift; it won't be $100.00 - it will probably end up north of $500.00, possibly north of $1000.00. If it were easy, SICK or Hokuyo would have done it already. The fact that neither have can mean many things, of course, but I bet one of the big ones is that it isn't easy to pack a 3D LIDAR into a small package and make it robust and cheap. Both of those companies 2D LIDAR solutions already hit the robust portion; Hokuyo's offerings hit the small package portion (SICK's 2D systems are mostly the size of a coffeemaker - I own a couple), but neither company hits the low price mark. That could also mean that they have a niche market that's willing to pay those prices, but given the interest and want for fast 3D LIDAR for self-driving vehicles and other uses, the fact that they don't have anything out is telling. Now doing it all solid-state? Well - there are companies that have these systems as well (supposedly at least) - called "flash LIDAR"; essentially firing a laser to "flash" the scene, then using a grid-array of CCD-like high-speed elements to gather a 3D delay-time between the flash and reception. From what I've seen, for even the low-resolution modules, they make the former two companies offerings look dirt-cheap in comparison...
    - MertsA 10y ago
      $1000 is still game changing. $1000 is something that's downright cheap to throw a few of on a car if it allows for a true NHTSA level 4 self driving car.
    - kayoone 10y ago
      even north of $1000 would still be cheaper than most of the in-car navigation/entertainment systems that a lot of people order. In relation to a car, $1000 is really not a lot of money. Heck, i just replaced a mirror for 450 EUR...
dagw 10y ago
they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, They certainly claim that, but have they got the test data to back that up? All the companies that have actually demonstrated truly self driving cars under real world conditions use Lidar.
detaro 10y ago
Wasn't the given reason for one of the crashes (where the car went under a trailer) that the vision system thought the trailer was a street sign way above the road? That kind of thing is why you want Lidar.

Since Tesla is not using Lidar and they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, i wonder about this too.

by kayoone 10y ago

Since Tesla is not using Lidar and they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, i wonder about this too.

timr 10y ago

"Since Tesla is not using Lidar and they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, i wonder about this too." Who says? The chattering masses on HN? Tesla has certainly deployed a lot of assisted driving systems, but then again, so have a lot of car companies. Lane-keeping and auto-braking are not new, and to date, that's all Tesla has actually shipped. People who know better have serious doubts that you can do full autonomy with only video/radar input under real-world driving conditions (like darkness). That's why most of their competitors are using LIDAR.

nojvek 10y ago
Lidar makes a ton of things easy. Visually extracting 3d world from cameras is a very hard and computationally intensive problem. I really hope velodyne delivers. Quanergy seems to have a nice site but seems vaporware in the sense you can't actually buy it. A $100 light weight Lidar is truly game changing for robots, self driving cars and drones.
- TillE 10y ago
  > and computationally intensive problem Not an exact analogy, but this reminds me of ancient "software modems", which shaved off a few chips and offloaded processing to the CPU. They were cheap, but had a real impact on your computer's performance. The trouble with image processing is that it seems basically impossible to perfect with the level of certainty you'd need for 100% autonomy, whereas LIDAR gives you very straightforward data to act on. You'd still need the cameras for recognizing traffic lights and such, of course.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > A $100 light weight Lidar is truly game changing for robots, self driving cars and drones. This is probably going to end up like the Oculus Rift; it won't be $100.00 - it will probably end up north of $500.00, possibly north of $1000.00. If it were easy, SICK or Hokuyo would have done it already. The fact that neither have can mean many things, of course, but I bet one of the big ones is that it isn't easy to pack a 3D LIDAR into a small package and make it robust and cheap. Both of those companies 2D LIDAR solutions already hit the robust portion; Hokuyo's offerings hit the small package portion (SICK's 2D systems are mostly the size of a coffeemaker - I own a couple), but neither company hits the low price mark. That could also mean that they have a niche market that's willing to pay those prices, but given the interest and want for fast 3D LIDAR for self-driving vehicles and other uses, the fact that they don't have anything out is telling. Now doing it all solid-state? Well - there are companies that have these systems as well (supposedly at least) - called "flash LIDAR"; essentially firing a laser to "flash" the scene, then using a grid-array of CCD-like high-speed elements to gather a 3D delay-time between the flash and reception. From what I've seen, for even the low-resolution modules, they make the former two companies offerings look dirt-cheap in comparison...
  - MertsA 10y ago
    $1000 is still game changing. $1000 is something that's downright cheap to throw a few of on a car if it allows for a true NHTSA level 4 self driving car.
  - kayoone 10y ago
    even north of $1000 would still be cheaper than most of the in-car navigation/entertainment systems that a lot of people order. In relation to a car, $1000 is really not a lot of money. Heck, i just replaced a mirror for 450 EUR...

dagw 10y ago

they have one of the most advanced self-driving systems, They certainly claim that, but have they got the test data to back that up? All the companies that have actually demonstrated truly self driving cars under real world conditions use Lidar.

detaro 10y ago

Wasn't the given reason for one of the crashes (where the car went under a trailer) that the vision system thought the trailer was a street sign way above the road? That kind of thing is why you want Lidar.