Firmware 7.0

[wk057]

I think you're missing the point that many of us have been making. Limiting use to freeways is not 'removing functionality'. Use on other roads was not part of the functionality promised or provided. Tesla is removing one of the misuse possibilities, not functionality. I understand you believe they should have done it your way. -shrug- Not our decision.

And maybe you are missing that it's completely, 100% impossible to remove the functionality with a 0% false positive rate, which means that they ARE removing functionality on freeways, guaranteed. That is removing a part of the promised feature (which they actually still haven't delivered anyway as they said it would be hands free on-ramp to off-ramp, and in the vast majority of cases it simply isn't)

This ^ (like mentioned already), and an additional point.

If Tesla wanted to take the decision away from the driver on what roads the feature could be used on, they should have done this before public release. The cat's already out of the bag, so to speak.

Honestly, the way autopilot functions currently on 2.7.77 is pretty much exactly what I expected and what I believed I was paying for last year when I bought the P85D (with some minor excusable exceptions, also ignoring release delays). I have it finally, it works like I expected it to work, and it's going to stay that way. It's pretty likely I'd void my warranty to ensure it remains that way as well if it came to that. Currently it does everything I want it to do. If that changes, even a little bit, then I'm not upgrading. Consequences of not doing so be damned.

I don't expect any major improvements to autopilot from this point with the current sensors. At best there will be minor improvements to things I'm not even all that concerned about.

 

[KyP85D]

2.9.40

 

[Cyberax]

Yup. +100.

The current AP is pretty much what I expected. I'd like to see small improvements (like better handling of curves) but I'm perfectly OK with the status quo.

And I _will_ sue if Tesla decides to break it. And if we're going to go full legalese, I'll try to hold Tesla accountable for promising "ramp-to-ramp" autonomous experience, summoning and lane changes.

 

[tomas]

Yup. +100.

The current AP is pretty much what I expected. I'd like to see small improvements (like better handling of curves) but I'm perfectly OK with the status quo.

And I _will_ sue if Tesla decides to break it. And if we're going to go full legalese, I'll try to hold Tesla accountable for promising "ramp-to-ramp" autonomous experience, summoning and lane changes.

Do what you want. I just vote that you do not give us a blow-by-blow. And, if you must, please put up separate thread so I can avoid it. Dropping all your vitriol in the release threads makes it hard for everyone else to keep up with real developments.

- - - Updated - - -

2.9.40

HMMM, has anyone yet tried 0-60 with launch mode on? I wonder if this is how to get the fabled MT numbers in a P90DL?

 

[wk057]

2.9.40

First I've seen of "launch mode." I wonder if this will get P90D's down to 10.9s 1/4 miles? (Not optimistic...)

Edit: Poses a different view to this if it does... "Sure, we'll bring your car up to spec (10.9s 1/4's) but only if you give up autopilot features..."

 

[msnow]

I get ramp to ramp today. I get on the on ramp and the car veers right on the first off ramp. Feature accomplished. [emoji1]

 

[tomas]

First I've seen of "launch mode." I wonder if this will get P90D's down to 10.9 1/4 miles? (Not optimistic...)

Holy cow, we actually converged on something

 

[KyP85D]

Basically acts like a traditional line lock.

 

[bonnie]

And maybe you are missing that it's completely, 100% impossible to remove the functionality with a 0% false positive rate, which means that they ARE removing functionality on freeways, guaranteed. That is removing a part of the promised feature (which they actually still haven't delivered anyway as they said it would be hands free on-ramp to off-ramp, and in the vast majority of cases it simply isn't)

No, don't think I am missing that point.

You already have the situation with the initially deployed version that it won't always work when lines are faded or not a clear situation. I seem to recall more than a few times where AP has barked at me, ON the freeway, to 'Take over now!!!'. It isn't currently 100% under advised conditions. Why would I believe the new version would be different?

I understand the angst - when we (global 'we') perceive that something we have is being taken away, it is much more powerful than incremental gains. That's why, when my son was little, I switched from earned rewards to letting him see the full jar of rewards that he would get at the end of the week IF he picked up his clothes/brushed his teeth/etc. You should have heard the wailing that went on when he'd see something removed from the jar.... and that's what we're seeing here, imo.

No one was promised side road functionality, but everyone is reacting as if something is being taken away. Tesla should have introduced it with limited functionality & then opened it up little by little, to see how it was handled, no one would have an issue.

 

[donv]

Side roads are one thing. It surprised me when it appeared to be available on a downtown street, for instance. Taking that away is fine with me. I haven't generally had a lot of issues with the car thinking it's somewhere other than it is, although it has happened.

Furthermore, using it on roads with traffic signals is simply a bad idea-- just as bad as using cruise control in that situation, for that matter.

But two lane highways are an entirely different animal. I also frequently drive on highways which go from 4 lane/divided to 2 lane/undivided, back to 4 lane undivided, etc. No traffic signals, generally 55-65 mph speed limits. Autopilot works fine in this case.

Maybe Tesla would prefer that I drive on these roads at 45mph? That seems safe, right? Do they have rear collision avoidance?

If I'm driving along at 65 and the highway goes to two lane, does it just slow down to 45? That doesn't seem all that safe either.

 

[wk057]

Tesla should have introduced it with limited functionality & then opened it up little by little, to see how it was handled, no one would have an issue.

Agreed, as mentioned in my longer post above...

No one was promised side road functionality, but everyone is reacting as if something is being taken away.

... but they enabled it, and we have it today. This isn't your son's future rewards. How would your son react if you gave him his earnings, and then a couple of months later decided to claw back some part of them? I think that's different than removing something from the future earnings jar. (Edit: And there is at least a way for your son to get the full jar by following the rules. In the Tesla analogy of the same, Tesla is taking a reward out of the jar just assuming we're not picking up our clothes and brushing our teeth, and then not putting it back in the jar when we do... )

I can go out of my driveway and out of my development (which has no painted lines, unfortunately) and get on the first road with lines and enable auto steer within a few seconds of being on that road. A two lane undivided road with two way traffic with perfectly clear lane markings. Autopilot works perfectly on this particular road, at my chosen speed of 58 MPH, with the known exception of two curves that it won't take at 58 MPH (but will at ~35 or so, but that's too slow for this road). So I enable it, and help it through those two curves that it obviously can't handle.

So today, I have this feature. If I update to 2.9.40+, I will not. How is this not by definition taking something away?

 

[MarcG]

Just got my car back from the service center. Here are the release notes for 2.9.40 - notice the new LAUNCH MODE!!! :biggrin:

 

[bonnie]

How is this not by definition taking something away?

Because, by definition, you were not supposed to use it in that manner. The usage model was defined. You are using it outside that usage model.

Years ago, I found a way to make Pascal do some things it wasn't supposed to do (for those of you who are going 'huh?', it's a programming language, primarily used for teaching, and pretty hard to go off the rails with it). My advisor was on the committee, noted my *brilliance* in finding a way to break the boundaries, and next thing I knew we were all running a new version. I couldn't break it like before.

When Tesla observed that people were not capable of using the product in the advised manner, they plugged a gap. Just like Pascal plugged the gap I found. Nothing taken away. It wasn't supposed to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

And with that said, going to just back out of this particular conversation. I've said what I believe. Others disagree. We're not going to get anywhere & I'd hate to see this turn into another HP thread. I can't even go over there anymore ...

 

[wk057]

Because, by definition, you were not supposed to use it in that manner. The usage model was defined. You are using it outside that usage model.

Years ago, I found a way to make Pascal do some things it wasn't supposed to do (for those of you who are going 'huh?', it's a programming language, primarily used for teaching, and pretty hard to go off the rails with it). My advisor was on the committee, noted my *brilliance* in finding a way to break the boundaries, and next thing I knew we were all running a new version. I couldn't break it like before.

When Tesla observed that people were not capable of using the product in the advised manner, they plugged a gap. Just like Pascal plugged the gap I found. Nothing taken away. It wasn't supposed to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

And with that said, going to just back out of this particular conversation. I've said what I believe. Others disagree. We're not going to get anywhere & I'd hate to see this turn into another HP thread. I can't even go over there anymore ...

I'll just end with pointing out that your analogy fails again. The Pascal devs were not aware they included the avenues you utilized, and fixed the issue. Tesla was FULLY aware of when and where auto steer could and could not be disengaged with their initial public release... since it has no such restrictions at all.

"It wasn't supposed to do that" isn't an excuse in this case because they knew full well that it could be used on 2-lane roads in this case, and did a wide release of it. If "It wasn't supposed to do that," and they obviously knew full well when and where it could be enabled, then it should have been released not being able to do the things they didn't want from the start. I think we do actually agree on that. We just don't agree on what the route they're allowed to take after the fact that they didn't go this route.

I believe they shouldn't be allowed to remove features that have been released and have already been in customer's hands, especially for months. You believe otherwise. OK, we can agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[S'toon]

Because, by definition, you were not supposed to use it in that manner. The usage model was defined. You are using it outside that usage model.

Years ago, I found a way to make Pascal do some things it wasn't supposed to do (for those of you who are going 'huh?', it's a programming language, primarily used for teaching, and pretty hard to go off the rails with it). My advisor was on the committee, noted my *brilliance* in finding a way to break the boundaries, and next thing I knew we were all running a new version. I couldn't break it like before.

When Tesla observed that people were not capable of using the product in the advised manner, they plugged a gap. Just like Pascal plugged the gap I found. Nothing taken away. It wasn't supposed to do that.

- - - Updated - - -

And with that said, going to just back out of this particular conversation. I've said what I believe. Others disagree. We're not going to get anywhere & I'd hate to see this turn into another HP thread. I can't even go over there anymore ...

I think Tesla would do better if they kept in mind that there are always some idiots in the crowd, who will do things that are not what is intended with a product.

I remember in high school we accidentally created what would be called a virus in Apple Basic. We replicated it in a few floppies, but then destroyed all copies because it was way too dangerous.

 

[wk057]

I think Tesla would do better if they kept in mind that there are always some idiots in the crowd, who will do things that are not what is intended with a product.

I remember in high school we accidentally created what would be called a virus in Apple Basic. We replicated it in a few floppies, but then destroyed all copies because it was way too dangerous.

In this case I think Tesla just needs to stick to their guns about it being the driver's responsibility when operating the vehicle to operate it safely. By restricting features we can use today that tells me that they don't feel like this line is as black and white as it should be, and now they're using hindsight as an excuse to claw back functionality. Given that, if they do claw back functionality and something bad happens either as a result of (slowing when it would be stupid to do so) or in spite of their changes (an accident happens at the restricted 45 MPH because autosteer does something stupid and the driver doesn't catch it) I'm pretty sure this just helps the case of pointing the blame at autopilot, where if it were as it is today they can just fall back on, "Well, we said you shouldn't use it this way." They can't really do that anymore, or at least not in a black and white fashion, if they're the ones making the decisions on when it can be used.

 

[Cyberax]

And freeways are especially dangerous with AP - they can lull drivers into complacency. I'm already seeing people telling that they're reading books while driving on a freeway.

Will Tesla restrict speed to 45mph on freeways next?

 

[wk057]

And freeways are especially dangerous with AP - they can lull drivers into complacency. I'm already seeing people telling that they're reading books while driving on a freeway.

Will Tesla restrict speed to 45mph on freeways next?

I'll be the first to fully admit I trust AP too much on freeways at times in places I know it will work well already. But I don't see any real solutions to this either. Maybe nags, but that's silly for other reasons. Either we have the feature to use or we don't. I prefer the former.

 

[bonnie]

Yes, I know I said I was out. But this point needs to be made or I won't be able to enjoy this glass of port. And pffffyt at your critique of the analogy. Rarely is an analogy is perfect (by definition, an analogy is partially similar to what it is being compared against, for the purpose of clarity - obviously it was clear, you got my point).

"It wasn't supposed to do that" isn't an excuse in this case because they knew full well that it could be used on 2-lane roads in this case, and did a wide release of it. If "It wasn't supposed to do that," and they obviously knew full well when and where it could be enabled, then it should have been released not being able to do the things they didn't want from the start. I think we do actually agree on that. We just don't agree on what the route they're allowed to take after the fact that they didn't go this route.

I believe they shouldn't be allowed to remove features that have been released and have already been in customer's hands, especially for months. You believe otherwise. OK, we can agree to disagree, I suppose.

YOU were the one who defended your video by saying they needed to put restrictions IN and you only did it to help Tesla. Now you're arguing that restrictions shouldn't have been put in as a result of videos like yours. Okay.

If they'd done it by using the seat sensor, as you keep maintaining was the best way, then you know there would be people here screaming that functionality had been removed, because they changed the product. And let's not even go to the scenario where someone would just wrap the seatbelt around a 40#bag of dogfood and show how it could be done anyway. (And do we know that the seat sensor isn't also employed?)

[snip...] I'm pretty sure this just helps the case of pointing the blame at autopilot, where if it were as it is today they can just fall back on, "Well, we said you shouldn't use it this way." They can't really do that anymore, or at least not in a black and white fashion, if they're the ones making the decisions on when it can be used.

Again, you argued exactly FOR this after some of us had a problem with that video, saying you were only pushing Tesla into doing what should have been done to begin with. So they did it. Yay.

 

[msnow]

Just got my car back from the service center. Here are the release notes for 2.9.40 - notice the new LAUNCH MODE!!! :biggrin:

View attachment 104119

So jealous.