4 ms·

Tesla did not add iPhone style lidar (up to 5m) because they already had 12 cheap ultrasonic sensors (up to 8m) for short range distance detection since all the

Tesla did not add iPhone style lidar (up to 5m) because they already had 12 cheap ultrasonic sensors (up to 8m) for short range distance detection since all they need to know at that range is will or won't I hit something. They are now full optical though and may have already been ignoring some sensors in software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Hardware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Autopilot#Hardware There are several reasons why they would not just add new sensors even if they are in some/all ways superior: * Tesla special cases different driving situations. This makes sense as a product company seeking to sell consumers on solutions to each situation as a feature but means they need to re-implement each situation individually when the sensors change rather than just swapping out some generic distance detector net. You can observe this from the loss of features when Tesla went full Vision over the last two years. * Adding new sensors adds new errors which leaves you to chose between ignoring danger conditions present in only one sensor as possible errors or greatly increasing safety stops etc (some of which would be genuine previously undetected dangers). Because of Tesla's engineering culture the prudent second option or a sensible middle ground would be impossible to make since they would fail from a user experience point of view at the first false stop during a demo to the big man and then be forever poisoned (imho). * Tesla has always been pursuing a full vision only solution on the reasonable assumption that if humans can do it then eventually computers will too. The only disagreement with that strategy is when exactly that will/should be.

BoorishBears 4y ago
I like how you ignored the truest reason: they don't want to pay for it, and they don't really care if the current hardware can actually solve FSD. There's no way you can argue it was done in good faith when it was an arbitrary transition where some functionality hadn't even been solved yet and was disabled if your car didn't come with ultrasonic sensors. And to add to the comical levels of disregard for buyers, the official advice for finding out if your order would have ultrasonic sensors was: "Look for the 12 sensors on your vehicle", ie you didn't know until you paid and it was a roulette wheel.
- ororroro 4y ago
  I don't think the price of a $10 sensor would trump Elon's desire to be right about vision. Price was a factor for not using the larger, longer range lidars though since that cost more than planned price of the vehicle ~10 years ago.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    > I don't think the price of a $10 sensor would trump Elon's desire to be right about vision. You don't know how manufacturing works, especially in a post-COVID world. Tesla almost certainly couldn't source the ones they were using: That mystical "chip shortage" is a general component shortage. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/12/these-chevy-models-get-limited-park-assist-availability/ https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/12/these-chevy-models-get-... - Now it's not like there are no ultrasonic sensors to be had, but they would have had to pay for tooling changes, design verification, assembly changes... easily 10s of millions of dollars for what you're brushing off as "the price of a $10 sensor" Their options were remove the sensors and be transparent about why, or throw up a smoke screen with idle gibberish about vision was definitely better despite needing to cut features that had been practically solved nearly a decade earlier. Guess which they chose. > Price was a factor for not using the larger, longer range lidars though since that cost more than planned price of the vehicle ~10 years ago. Good thing I didn't say or remotely imply that? Overall I think your type of blustering works better on people not working in the AV field.
throwbadubadu 4y ago
> Adding new sensors adds new errors which leaves you to chose between ignoring danger conditions present in only one sensor as possible errors or greatly increasing safety stops etc No, sorry that cannot be left as is.. I see your arguments but they are pulled of thin air, or is there any source that reasoning actually happened there. If fusion done right, this will never increase but decrease errors. > they would fail from a user experience point of view at the first false stop during a demo to the big man and then be forever poisoned (imho). And failing on the first situation that a second sensor set would have clearly prevented can easily be argued the same.. this is a strawman.
moremetadata 4y ago
[dead]

BoorishBears 4y ago

I like how you ignored the truest reason: they don't want to pay for it, and they don't really care if the current hardware can actually solve FSD. There's no way you can argue it was done in good faith when it was an arbitrary transition where some functionality hadn't even been solved yet and was disabled if your car didn't come with ultrasonic sensors. And to add to the comical levels of disregard for buyers, the official advice for finding out if your order would have ultrasonic sensors was: "Look for the 12 sensors on your vehicle", ie you didn't know until you paid and it was a roulette wheel.

ororroro 4y ago
I don't think the price of a $10 sensor would trump Elon's desire to be right about vision. Price was a factor for not using the larger, longer range lidars though since that cost more than planned price of the vehicle ~10 years ago.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  > I don't think the price of a $10 sensor would trump Elon's desire to be right about vision. You don't know how manufacturing works, especially in a post-COVID world. Tesla almost certainly couldn't source the ones they were using: That mystical "chip shortage" is a general component shortage. https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/12/these-chevy-models-get-limited-park-assist-availability/ https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/12/these-chevy-models-get-... - Now it's not like there are no ultrasonic sensors to be had, but they would have had to pay for tooling changes, design verification, assembly changes... easily 10s of millions of dollars for what you're brushing off as "the price of a $10 sensor" Their options were remove the sensors and be transparent about why, or throw up a smoke screen with idle gibberish about vision was definitely better despite needing to cut features that had been practically solved nearly a decade earlier. Guess which they chose. > Price was a factor for not using the larger, longer range lidars though since that cost more than planned price of the vehicle ~10 years ago. Good thing I didn't say or remotely imply that? Overall I think your type of blustering works better on people not working in the AV field.

throwbadubadu 4y ago

> Adding new sensors adds new errors which leaves you to chose between ignoring danger conditions present in only one sensor as possible errors or greatly increasing safety stops etc No, sorry that cannot be left as is.. I see your arguments but they are pulled of thin air, or is there any source that reasoning actually happened there. If fusion done right, this will never increase but decrease errors. > they would fail from a user experience point of view at the first false stop during a demo to the big man and then be forever poisoned (imho). And failing on the first situation that a second sensor set would have clearly prevented can easily be argued the same.. this is a strawman.

moremetadata 4y ago

[dead]