14 ms·
The 5th-generation Waymo Driver
- curyous 7y agoI wonder if the extra sensors are to stop it accelerating into stationary objects like the Tesla does.
- nolok 7y agoIt is my understanding that contrary to tesla's system, waymo's tech is already fully aware of static objects to avoid. It is also my understanding that none of their cars in computer driven mode drove full speed into a wall or other static obstacle.
- SomewhatLikely 7y agoThe article specifically calls out their radar being able to detect stationary objects, which is unique for automotive radar.
- azernik 7y agoThey already had LIDAR, which can easily pick out static objects. The better radar means they have a lower-resolution fallback for poorer weather and longer ranges.
- azernik 7y agoThis is adding extra LIDARs, on top of the one they already had. Tesla had its issues because they are trying to do it on the cheap with only cameras, radar, and ultrasonics. That specific failure mode would have been prevented with the hardware that any other self-driving car developer has had for years.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cryptozeus 7y agoIs cruise and waymo doing the same thing ? Their cars also look the same.
- azernik 7y agoProbably very similar things - there are only so many useful types of sensors and good places on a car to put them.
- manigandham 7y agoWhat happens when there are many self-driving cars with all these sensors on the road together? Isn't there going to be massive interference?
- jfrd 7y agoNope. The Lidar pulses are encoded uniquely to each sensor, so one sensor can filter out an (already unlikely) direct hit from another lidar. The cameras are IR filtered and also unlikely to get hit by the lidar. Radar is pulse encoded in a similar way to lidar, although possibly more likely to lose performance if surrounded by a lot of other radar units. In general, dirt on your sensor lenses is a lot more annoying than interference from other cars.
- eigenvalue 7y agoInteresting. Do you have any good links to more information about how this works in practice? I guess it's similar to CDMA cell phones.
- lr 7y agoI look forward to the first test of 1000+ self driving vehicles going through a swerving road, multiple merge, plus toll plaza situation (like merging onto the lower deck of the GW bridge east-bound). If this technology is as good as claimed, it really should put human drivers to shame. Imagine no more traffic jams because of the needless “jockeying for position”, or the drivers who are clueless about the boundaries of their own vehicle. As someone who has been driving for over 30 years, I honestly can’t wait for the day this promise materializes. Of course, if self driving cars defer (in a predictable manner) in order to prevent collisions, I can easily see how one or two human drivers could reap havoc to their advantage. It would become a new sport.
- skizziepop 7y agoGW bridge: George Washington Bridge between New York City and New Jersey State, United States
- sp332 7y agoI think this shows the tricky bit: https://www.google.com/maps/place/George+Washington+Bridge/@40.848369,-73.9491647,1354m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1 https://www.google.com/maps/place/George+Washington+Bridge/@... Edit: of course it might be the other side... https://www.google.com/maps/place/George+Washington+Bridge/@40.8553047,-73.9722071,1761m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/place/George+Washington+Bridge/@...
- baybal2 7y agoWill look forward to it too, if we'll ever see it. Traffic control if a big part of the problem, if not a half of it. If you had 100% pedestrian free roads, with ideal road surface, and radio signalling, where a car becomes indistinguishable from a train for control purposes, then even with current state of computer science it becomes quite real. This is the route most Chinese companies are progressing on. They are not making a self-driving car, but a "self-driving road." Something akin to air traffic control system for cars. And this is only for things like public transport, garbage dumpsters, cleaning, and other public utility vehicles. The bus gets a radionavigation receiver, radar for collision avoidance backup, and receives commends over the air.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- xibalba 7y agoIn a completely autonomous intersection, do you still need stop/go signals, or could all lanes and directions move continuously?
- b34r 7y agoIf every vehicle on the road is autonomous, signals are not required. The only exception would be walking crosses but actually the cars should see you and wait for you.
- xibalba 7y agoWhen I say signals, I don't necessarily mean traffic lights. Would traffic flow continuously from every entry point to the intersection in an "interleaved" manner (setting aside the complexifier that is pedestrian traffic)? Or would there still be a "signal" (visual, over the network, or otherwise) which blocks some vehicles while others pass through? Or, perhaps, the configuration of intersections will change so significantly that this conception of an intersection will be rendered irrelevant?
- Jemm 7y agoIntelligent traffic control is more important right now. Traffic lights with computer vision to know when to change lights and when to clear an intersection with a green arrow.
- nojvek 7y agoI wonder what their latest hardware suite costs. I really just want to buy the car with sensors. Give me as the human the full output of sensors and all the objects besides me in a 360 view. That alone would reduce so many accidents. I think highway driving and stop-and-go slow traffic can be automated significantly. We are very much at that stage. I love Tesla’s model where humans are in control. Seriously Waymo, I just want to drive your cars and occasionally switch on the “auto” mode on roads that are classified auto-safe in good weather. Iterate with us.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoWould it? In other words, can humans bear a new set of sensors without feeling overloaded? (IDK - at the very least, the peripheral vision cameras could help a lot)
- GuB-42 7y agoMostly yes, with a lot of training. For that, you have to look at aviation. IFR Pilots rely on instruments to fly, these are essentially a "new set of sensors". Using the instruments properly require some intense training. You need to know what to look at and when, it is almost like music, you need to follow a rhythm and do it consciously for a while until it becomes second nature. You also need to resolve conflicts between your gut feelings and the instrument readings: your gut is wrong and the instruments are right, but your brain won't accept that easily. With planes becoming more and more complex, how to present informations to the pilot is critical. For simple planes you have a set of gauges the pilot need to check periodically. Then it started becoming too much, so a flight engineer was needed to deal with the ever increasing number of gauges. Now there are computer systems synthesizing sensor data to only show the pilot what he needs to fly the plane. Back to cars, you cannot expect every driver to be trained like an IFR-certified pilot. So showing all sorts of sensor data is going to be counter productive.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoThat's a great analogy; also, the older a car, the more gauges are on the dashboard: new cars have speed, fuel, engine oil temp, maybe RPM; my oldest car had a battery level indicator and what I think was cooling water temperature. Perhaps this is the way the cars are already going: only show a measure when outside the normal box.
- arusahni 7y agoLove how their camera shot is taken from the bike lane.
- wyxuan 7y agoWow, the tech seems to be progressing nicely. When are they going to commercialize it? They’ve already made steps to make it easier to manufacture(and thus, cheaper), which seems like one of the first off many steps to turn it into a market ready product.
- erickj 7y agoWaymo has the luxury of having a very rich uncle supporting its time to find itself. There is 0 pressure to monetize Waymo before the technology and business opportunity are at their peak value.
- lokimedes 7y agoI would like to know more about their imaging radar system. Working in an industry where they are the norm (and quite expensive as a rule) it is interesting to see the technology in consumer oriented solutions.
- baybal2 7y agoMM wave radars of non-imaging, low to medium resolution kind are off the shelf parts these days. True imaging is still a novel application.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- modeless 7y ago> will enable the scaled deployment of the Waymo Driver I've been disappointed by the lack of progress in scaling their commercial service. Hopefully this is what they've been waiting for.
- b34r 7y agoI think this is going to be the big year. Regulatory approval from a bunch of markets and the beginning of fleet deployment, with general availability around most of the US by 2022
- p1mrx 7y agoThe base model I-PACE has 15-spoke wheels, but they're "gloss sparkle silver". I wonder if it cost more or less to order them in black?
- pgodzin 7y ago> With our fifth-generation hardware, we’ve simplified the design and manufacturing process so it can be production-ready, and our latest sensors deliver more performance than ever before, at half the cost of our previous generation. Has LIDAR just gotten that much cheaper?
- ec109685 7y agoThey aren’t trying to sell their cars to the general public.
- azernik 7y agoYup - on the order of halving in price every two years for equivalent models (https://www.thedrive.com/tech/17297/velodyne-just-cut-the-price-of-its-most-popular-lidar-sensor-in-half https://www.thedrive.com/tech/17297/velodyne-just-cut-the-pr...)
- dannyw 7y agoIt's not uncommon for new prototype-level technologies to become significantly cheaper when you (i) improve processes and (ii) increase scale.
- seibelj 7y agoMaybe it's time to stop believing big announcements in self-driving cars. I really don't care anymore. You don't need a ton of glossy hype if the product works. But they keep throwing marketing at us.
- azernik 7y agoWhat big glossy hype? This is a blog post, and not a particularly-high-production-value one. Most self-driving car developers are publicized, if at all, by interested science journalists.
- raihansaputra 7y agoCaveat: I don't live in a developed nation, 3D scanning every traffic light and signs is a futile effort to enable self driving, at least in the next 5 years. 10 years is really optimistic. All the hardware and software for self-driving has come down in price, but is anyone developing assistive products / super sensing for human drivers? I for one would really like: - seeing farther than my eyes can see, warning any sudden speed changes from cars in front - automated blind spot warning/augmented side mirrors - seeing beyond corners in tight intersections Again, business model probably won't be as lucrative as having a fleet of automated cars, but I can see transport companies equipping these in their human-driven fleet to increase safety/reduce fatigue.
- mattlondon 7y agoYour wishlist is already fairly common in most modern cars now, apart from seeing around corners.
- cjhopman 7y agoA lot of modern cars have some ability to see around corners. This is mostly just used to give a warning when backing out of parking and there is crossing traffic in the lane.
- aedron 7y agoNewer cars do see around corners (relative to the driver), using the rear cameras. When backing out in my newish car, I can see up and down the road in both directions, from the cameras on the rear bumper.
- ipsum2 7y agoMany cars manufactured in the last 2-3 years have the first two features. For example, Honda Sensing: https://automobiles.honda.com/sensing https://automobiles.honda.com/sensing .
- scarejunba 7y agoAh, these may not be standard in the developing world but lots of cars have some of these features in the US. Teslas have the ground-bounce radar thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APnN2mClkmk&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APnN2mClkmk&feature=youtu.be Almost every modern car in the US will have the blind-spot warning. My 2018 Subaru does. There are lots of these. As early as 2018 models of cars you could get features that turn the wheel to keep you in lane, follow the car in front of you at a pace that's safe at a distance you desire, and break in an emergency if the car detects an imminent collision.
- jamestimmins 7y agoThis is a newbie question, but why is the lidar/radar necessary? Is it solely because computers aren't yet able to extract as much information from video as humans can from sight? Theoretically, could self driving cars use just video with enough compute resources and the right ML algorithms?
- MertsA 7y agoThere's a whole lot of challenging information that is completely natural and intuitive for a human to understand but fiendishly difficult for a ML algorithm to figure out. There's some cues that I'm sure we probably won't be able to use until we create a genuine artificial general intelligence. If you're driving and you see someone standing at a crosswalk it's intuitive just by looking at them if they're waiting for you to pass, about to walk out into the road, panhandling, etc. You can put yourself in their shoes and make a reasonable prediction as to what they are thinking about doing. On a previous HN thread there was a commenter that had a run in with a Waymo car while riding a bike. He was coming up to a 4 way stop, and yielding to the Waymo car. If he was balancing on his pedals, still stationary, the Waymo car would stop and not proceed through the intersection, apparently interpreting his pose as if he's about to proceed through the intersection itself. A human driver wouldn't have an issue with that, but you can imagine the training data would show that when a bicycle is stopped, the rider puts a foot on the ground. Generous helpings of lidar and radar to augment cameras is a crutch to help compensate for the lack of 500 million years of unsupervised learning that went into our visual cortex.
- mavhc 7y agoLidar or radar won't help you with any of those situations though
- MertsA 7y agoFor those specific cases no, but it makes a great source to identify physical objects and their placement in the world. Obviously that can be done to a sufficient degree with just stereoscopic vision, but look at all of the autopilot fatalities from Tesla. All too often vision and radar data gets misinterpreted as "That must be an object to the side of the road" right up until it crashes into it. With lidar you can be sure you're not just looking at a radar reflection or getting the perspective wrong on a camera. Almost all of the large objects that you want to make sure you never hit will show up well with lidar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Incidents Just about every one of those fatalities can be summed up as "Tesla ignores large stationary object directly ahead". Lidar would have detected all of those objects and most likely prevented every one of those accidents. I think Tesla currently has the best vision and radar only system out there, so either the state of the art doesn't quite cut it yet without lidar, or there's a ML engineer at Tesla that really really hates fire trucks.
- samplatt 7y agoThat last photo looks proto-cyberpunk af, straight-up Demolition Man/GitS. They've certainly got the looks down pat.
- majestik 7y ago5th gen and still beta.
- ccktlmazeltov 7y agoI saw one driving in SF the other day and was wondering what was up :) usually only see them around mountain view.
- baybal2 7y agoI'm still convinced that prime majority of ML, and "self driving" is plain fraud to get money out of investors, big businesses, and fat employers. The best proof is that even with billions spent, the best contenders got marginal improvement over what Mercedes had in 1990 with discreet algorithms and no neural/fuzzy logic Doesn't drive in anything, but the best conditions, and needs human intervention every 5km unless a passenger is ready to wait few minutes every time it has to pass a complex intersection the safe way. I think them finally employing a mm-wave radar this time is an evidence to them backing off to more "dumb" and sure to work solution as a last line of defence once their fancy imaging/neural algo fails. The question is: if after all they weren't able to make their neural net algorithm to best the "dumb" approach, why use that fancy "artificial vision" to start with?
- shuwusxuu2he 7y agoFull self driving is probably wishful thinking for the next decade at minimum. That said, even just getting to a point where you could use a human+tool combo to reliably shepard a second truck to a depot at the outskirts of a city would have profound logistics implications.
- trymas 7y ago> what Mercedes had in 1990 with discreet algorithms and no neural/fuzzy logic Do you have any more information about it? I could find only abstract info that the system existed: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/a-short-history-of-mercedes-benz-autonomous-driving-technology-68148.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/a-short-history-of-merced...
- mikejb 7y ago> The best proof is that even with billions spent, the best contenders got marginal improvement over what Mercedes had in 1990 with discreet algorithms and no neural/fuzzy logic Can you elaborate on that? I haven't found much on that, e.g. w.r.t. the Mercedes system handling other vehicles, pedestrians, street signs, unexpected situations (roadworks, children playing, etc.) - from what I was able to gather, the two systems aren't even remotely comparable. Edit: Mercedes was able to go on a highway, follow the lane, and keep distance to the car in front. Claiming "the best contenders got marginal improvement" is heavily biased at best - it feels like an attempt to justify an outdated opinion, rather than having facts inform it.