5 ms·

I wonder how long will it take till the price of something like this gets to reasonable levels. The lidar and other sensors probably won't get cheap anytime soo

by yread 15y ago

I wonder how long will it take till the price of something like this gets to reasonable levels. The lidar and other sensors probably won't get cheap anytime soon. Imagine the costs of Google having to drive through all the places first, mapping them. Then the massive insurance until its proven that self-driving cars are safer (and then it will probably get expensive again after a first accident) Perhaps it would make sense for government to step in like it did with electrical cars. Edit: It seems the LIDAR they use costs 75000$. :-/ http://eole.ecam.be/claroline/backends/download.php?url=L0dvb2dsZV9jYXItc3VtbWFyeS5wZGY%3D&cidReset=true&cidReq=AN52 http://eole.ecam.be/claroline/backends/download.php?url=L0dv...

patrickk 15y ago
The cost of the hardware, sensors and mapping is expensive (initially) if you are talking about adding the hardware to a vehicle that one person or family will own. If you are talking about adding it to each vehicle in an autonomous taxi fleet, it suddenly makes a lot more sense and economies of scale kick in quickly. You are replacing a taxi drivers wages with sensors and mapping essentially. Not to mention extremely-well paid surgeons who clean up after drunk driving accidents, theatre nurses, insurance costs, cost of mechanics.....this technology has so many implications it's hard to visualise them all initially. It's going to be extremely disruptive to some industries, and a boon to others (e.g. where I live, rural pubs are in trouble. This could change all that - "get driven home at 200mph in perfect safety after a night getting smashed!" etc.)
Dn_Ab 15y ago
Some people have noted that personal ownership of a self driving car is non-optimal in terms of effective use of this tech. But you make an excellent indirect connection. Since these things would be be most effective with a lot of usage, electrical cars or some other renewable energy source would be ideal for the environment.
tocomment 15y ago
Isn't the kinnect an example of very inexpensive LIDAR? (I may be wrong)
- abailin 15y ago
  The Kinect uses infrared to see in 3D. Here's a cool video showing the infrared light field: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CFoOFZ6ifc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CFoOFZ6ifc
- Qworg 15y ago
  No. A Kinect uses structured light projection to create a discernible pattern. A Velodyne uses Time-of-Flight lasers.
rmccue 15y ago
I'm doing some work at the moment using Kinects. Obviously, the range and accuracy is much reduced, but for $100, it's not bad for the price. I'd expect that LIDARs can come down a lot in price once they stop being speciality equipment and start being used in more things.
loverobots 15y ago
Another problem is that "maps" change quite often due to road construction, detours or whatever.
- toemetoch 15y ago
  Correct, but these autonomous vehicles can (should) also forward updates to the maps server. It's the same as with MAC address/WiFi positioning. When you enable that positioning on your smartphone, it sends a list of MAC/WiFi entities with reception quality to the central server. The server looks up where you are based on that data, but at the same time updates its lists: some routers have disappeared (people moved) and some were added. Crowdsourcing at its best.
joezydeco 15y ago
Not to speak like a party-pooper, but could someone potentially mess with this LIDAR system by aiming a very bright IR beam at the device, if not a matching laser itself? Bringing down the cost of the LIDAR will be one major task, the other will be making this untouchable in the environment, IMO.
- daenz 15y ago
  > Not to speak like a party-pooper, but could someone potentially mess with this LIDAR system by aiming a very bright IR beam at the device, if not a matching laser itself? You could probably screw up the samples that would be taken from wherever your beam hits on the mirrors. But you could also shine a laser in someones eyes while they're driving and seriously impair them as well.
  - Qworg 15y ago
    You _would_ screw it up - but only that mirror. The systems are designed for safety - the car would likely stop.
    - daenz 15y ago
      But what about reflective objects? The roadway is covered with different degrees of weirdly-reflective surfaces. Surely those beams land in places where they shouldn't (on the mirrors), and surely the car doesn't stop every time.
      - xxbondsxx 15y ago
        LIDAR works _through_ reflections. It essentially paints out the surrounding area with laser pulses and then measures the time for those pulses to come back. Since lasers travel at the speed of light, this time-to-return is quite small and hence they need quite accurate clocks (which is where a lot of the expense comes in). That being said, laser range-finding works well on diffuse surfaces; this is because when diffuse surfaces reflect, they reflect the incoming light in a broad hemisphere (or cone) which sends the laser pulse out in many directions. Consequently, the surface to measure can be at a variety of angles and still be picked up by the LIDAR sensors (the sensor doesn't care about strength, only time-to-return) So in terms of "weirdly reflective" surfaces out there, almost everything is diffuse enough for LIDAR to work well. Car hoods, carbon fiber, chrome wheel covers, etc. The only exception is glass, where generally lasers travel straight through and don't return to the sensors. So LIDAR actually detects "holes" in these situations, as if other cars were driving with no windshield an all their windows down. So the only real risk would be a large plane of glass in the middle of the highway with completely normal road behind it. LIDAR would miss the glass, and the cameras would not be able to see it either. Most real drivers would fail at that too though :D
ahuibers 15y ago
40 inch flat panels used to cost $40000 in higher volumes (production quantity) than LIDARs are shipping now. Now these panels cost ~$500 (and are better).
henrikschroder 15y ago
The first to use this technology will be long-haul cargo companies, and it will happen when the technology will be cheaper than having truck drivers employed, and when the safety is good enough. I imagine a scenario where trucks will drive themselves at night, over the long distances, when few people are around, and when they get close to cities, a real truck driver will jump in and navigate to the end destination, in the day, when there's a lot of people around. And not until people are used to self-driving trucks will the tech be available for personal transportation, even though the technology will be good enough and increase safety before that. (In the same way self-flying airplanes will come to cargo transports first, and human transport much later)

by yread 15y ago

patrickk 15y ago

The cost of the hardware, sensors and mapping is expensive (initially) if you are talking about adding the hardware to a vehicle that one person or family will own. If you are talking about adding it to each vehicle in an autonomous taxi fleet, it suddenly makes a lot more sense and economies of scale kick in quickly. You are replacing a taxi drivers wages with sensors and mapping essentially. Not to mention extremely-well paid surgeons who clean up after drunk driving accidents, theatre nurses, insurance costs, cost of mechanics.....this technology has so many implications it's hard to visualise them all initially. It's going to be extremely disruptive to some industries, and a boon to others (e.g. where I live, rural pubs are in trouble. This could change all that - "get driven home at 200mph in perfect safety after a night getting smashed!" etc.)

Dn_Ab 15y ago

Some people have noted that personal ownership of a self driving car is non-optimal in terms of effective use of this tech. But you make an excellent indirect connection. Since these things would be be most effective with a lot of usage, electrical cars or some other renewable energy source would be ideal for the environment.

tocomment 15y ago

Isn't the kinnect an example of very inexpensive LIDAR? (I may be wrong)

abailin 15y ago
The Kinect uses infrared to see in 3D. Here's a cool video showing the infrared light field: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CFoOFZ6ifc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CFoOFZ6ifc
Qworg 15y ago
No. A Kinect uses structured light projection to create a discernible pattern. A Velodyne uses Time-of-Flight lasers.

rmccue 15y ago

I'm doing some work at the moment using Kinects. Obviously, the range and accuracy is much reduced, but for $100, it's not bad for the price. I'd expect that LIDARs can come down a lot in price once they stop being speciality equipment and start being used in more things.

loverobots 15y ago

Another problem is that "maps" change quite often due to road construction, detours or whatever.

toemetoch 15y ago
Correct, but these autonomous vehicles can (should) also forward updates to the maps server. It's the same as with MAC address/WiFi positioning. When you enable that positioning on your smartphone, it sends a list of MAC/WiFi entities with reception quality to the central server. The server looks up where you are based on that data, but at the same time updates its lists: some routers have disappeared (people moved) and some were added. Crowdsourcing at its best.

joezydeco 15y ago

Not to speak like a party-pooper, but could someone potentially mess with this LIDAR system by aiming a very bright IR beam at the device, if not a matching laser itself? Bringing down the cost of the LIDAR will be one major task, the other will be making this untouchable in the environment, IMO.

daenz 15y ago
> Not to speak like a party-pooper, but could someone potentially mess with this LIDAR system by aiming a very bright IR beam at the device, if not a matching laser itself? You could probably screw up the samples that would be taken from wherever your beam hits on the mirrors. But you could also shine a laser in someones eyes while they're driving and seriously impair them as well.
- Qworg 15y ago
  You _would_ screw it up - but only that mirror. The systems are designed for safety - the car would likely stop.
  - daenz 15y ago
    But what about reflective objects? The roadway is covered with different degrees of weirdly-reflective surfaces. Surely those beams land in places where they shouldn't (on the mirrors), and surely the car doesn't stop every time.
    - xxbondsxx 15y ago
      LIDAR works _through_ reflections. It essentially paints out the surrounding area with laser pulses and then measures the time for those pulses to come back. Since lasers travel at the speed of light, this time-to-return is quite small and hence they need quite accurate clocks (which is where a lot of the expense comes in). That being said, laser range-finding works well on diffuse surfaces; this is because when diffuse surfaces reflect, they reflect the incoming light in a broad hemisphere (or cone) which sends the laser pulse out in many directions. Consequently, the surface to measure can be at a variety of angles and still be picked up by the LIDAR sensors (the sensor doesn't care about strength, only time-to-return) So in terms of "weirdly reflective" surfaces out there, almost everything is diffuse enough for LIDAR to work well. Car hoods, carbon fiber, chrome wheel covers, etc. The only exception is glass, where generally lasers travel straight through and don't return to the sensors. So LIDAR actually detects "holes" in these situations, as if other cars were driving with no windshield an all their windows down. So the only real risk would be a large plane of glass in the middle of the highway with completely normal road behind it. LIDAR would miss the glass, and the cameras would not be able to see it either. Most real drivers would fail at that too though :D

ahuibers 15y ago

40 inch flat panels used to cost $40000 in higher volumes (production quantity) than LIDARs are shipping now. Now these panels cost ~$500 (and are better).

henrikschroder 15y ago

The first to use this technology will be long-haul cargo companies, and it will happen when the technology will be cheaper than having truck drivers employed, and when the safety is good enough. I imagine a scenario where trucks will drive themselves at night, over the long distances, when few people are around, and when they get close to cities, a real truck driver will jump in and navigate to the end destination, in the day, when there's a lot of people around. And not until people are used to self-driving trucks will the tech be available for personal transportation, even though the technology will be good enough and increase safety before that. (In the same way self-flying airplanes will come to cargo transports first, and human transport much later)