3 ms·

I don't find this argument convincing at all. Just ignore the lidar in situations where lidar and vision conflict and you have the original decision. They prob

I don't find this argument convincing at all. Just ignore the lidar in situations where lidar and vision conflict and you have the original decision. They probably started without lidar due to the cost (Tesla is one of few companies actually selling cars to customers, who are sensitive to price). The price of lidar has come down, but I would guess it requires a fair amount of expensive rearchitecture to add it in now, and they haven't bitten the bullet yet.

grecy 5y ago
Elon has said many times they would use Lidar if they thought it was needed / beneficial. In fact he and the SpaceX team designed a Lidar into the Dragon spacecraft to help it dock with the ISS (which is obviously a HIGHLY sensitive operation with extremely strict rules), and he said it was perfect for that scenario. He was asked point blank if they would use Lidar as Tesla even if they were free... and he said no. In their opinion it's simply not the right approach to generate photons and read them as they come back. It's preferable to simply read the photons that are already coming in.
jrallison 5y ago
"Just ignore the lidar in situations where lidar and vision conflict and you have the original decision." Then why have lidar? If it's only purpose is to agree with vision or you just discard it, then why even have it?
- nimithryn 5y ago
  I’m arguing against the idea that conflicting sensors is an issue. Clearly you can do no worse with sensors A and B than with just sensor A. You might want to not have sensor B to lower the cost (as I suggested). Or you might want to have both sensors A and B because the provide some synergies (as gkop pointed out, better range of view, increased confidence, etc.). But it’s definitely not enough to just argue that the sensors may conflict.
- gkop 5y ago
  Hypothetically, 1. Improved confidence when both signals agree 2. Improved field and range of view
ctdonath 5y ago
Sounds like a good reason to dump LIDAR. if vision is good enough to always defer to, why bother with something contradicting?
- nimithryn 5y ago
  See my other comment. I’m making a counter argument to the specific claim that conflicting sensors is an issue. I have no idea if the added benefit of Lidar outweighs the costs, but it doesn’t seem logical that “conflicting signals” could be an issue.

grecy 5y ago

Elon has said many times they would use Lidar if they thought it was needed / beneficial. In fact he and the SpaceX team designed a Lidar into the Dragon spacecraft to help it dock with the ISS (which is obviously a HIGHLY sensitive operation with extremely strict rules), and he said it was perfect for that scenario. He was asked point blank if they would use Lidar as Tesla even if they were free... and he said no. In their opinion it's simply not the right approach to generate photons and read them as they come back. It's preferable to simply read the photons that are already coming in.

jrallison 5y ago

"Just ignore the lidar in situations where lidar and vision conflict and you have the original decision." Then why have lidar? If it's only purpose is to agree with vision or you just discard it, then why even have it?

nimithryn 5y ago
I’m arguing against the idea that conflicting sensors is an issue. Clearly you can do no worse with sensors A and B than with just sensor A. You might want to not have sensor B to lower the cost (as I suggested). Or you might want to have both sensors A and B because the provide some synergies (as gkop pointed out, better range of view, increased confidence, etc.). But it’s definitely not enough to just argue that the sensors may conflict.
gkop 5y ago
Hypothetically, 1. Improved confidence when both signals agree 2. Improved field and range of view

ctdonath 5y ago

Sounds like a good reason to dump LIDAR. if vision is good enough to always defer to, why bother with something contradicting?

nimithryn 5y ago
See my other comment. I’m making a counter argument to the specific claim that conflicting sensors is an issue. I have no idea if the added benefit of Lidar outweighs the costs, but it doesn’t seem logical that “conflicting signals” could be an issue.