3 ms·
Radar is very useful but doesn't replace a lidar. Radars give very accurate readings of an objects distance and relative velocity but very poor angular resolut
by Symmetry 8y ago
Radar is very useful but doesn't replace a lidar. Radars give very accurate readings of an objects distance and relative velocity but very poor angular resolution. For that reason they aren't much use for avoiding stationary objects since those are hard to distinguish from the ground, signposts, etc. At least until they get so close that the radar field of view lets you rule out those things.
They are really great at figuring out whether cars are braking, though, since cars are moving with respect to the ground you can just filter the ground out and with radar you can sense the change in speed directly rather than having to figure out the speed by comparing distance over time.
EDIT: Actually, I think automotive radars don't give any directional information at all since they don't use big dishes. I'm used to working with aerospace radars but even with those I wouldn't rely on one for car navigation.
- baybal2 8y ago> Radar is very useful but doesn't replace a lidar. It does, and quite well. Without any additional processing, you easily get few cm accuracy, and sub-wavelength resolution is possible if you do. That's more than enough. Latest automotive radars use electronic beam steering – not much different from what is used in latest missiles. I'd say, companies opting for ladars for driving assists don't have good engineering expertise.
- Symmetry 8y agoThe range resolution in cm is very good but the angular resolution in radians basically doesn't exist.