3 ms·

I think you misunderstood the question you responded to. The question was in response to (edit: your own conclusion) "ultimately, camera-only will be the best s

I think you misunderstood the question you responded to. The question was in response to (edit: your own conclusion) "ultimately, camera-only will be the best system" - and was wondering why the same camera system PLUS more sensors wouldn't be better? edit: I think perhaps you didn't quite mean it that way, but it sounded like you were saying "eventually, camera-only will be superior to any other possible system, including camera + other sensors", which just seems nonsensical.

toss1 2y ago
Ah, got it now, and it's an excellent point. Mostly thinking the idea of cameras(+intelligence)-only may be best in the end just from perspective of smallest effective resources and assuming biomimicry is best. To your point, there are MANY situations where that will never be true, where the extra 3D info will absolutely make a difference. Going back to the wheel/leg and fixed/flapping wing analogues; legs and flapping wings will likely always be superior for rough terrain and tight spaces. However, legged vehicles will never be as fast as wheels can go on smoother roads, and similarly, flapping wings will never be superior to fixed-wings+power for long haul or heavy air transport. So, you're right — it's Horses For Courses — different solutions will work best in different situations.