• degrix@lemmy.hqueue.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Optical cameras alone have issues as well that can’t be handled though. It’s the combination of the two along with other things like ultrasonic sensors that makes them safe. More sensors in general are better because they reduce the computational burden and provide redundancy - even if that redundancy is to safely stop.

    Cost is certainly an issue, but on $40k+ vehicles it’s cheap enough for other EV makes to include it in the cost. Volvo for instance is using Luminars version at a cost of about $500 (https://www.wired.com/story/sleeker-lidar-moves-volvo-closer-selling-self-driving-car/).

    Image processing is expensive even with dedicated hardware and LiDAR provides enough extra information to avoid needing to make make certain calculations off of images alone (like deltas between image series to calculate distance). Those calculations are further amplified by conditions where images alone don’t provide enough information - similar to how there are conditions where the LiDAR data alone wouldn’t be sufficient.

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Image processing is expensive

      and you’re suggesting to use LIDAR which is more expensive and power hungry as a replacement for those computations?

      • degrix@lemmy.hqueue.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I meant the computations are expensive, i.e. slow to perform even with good processors. When you need to do something millions of times, anything to make that faster helps with the overall safety of the system.