Land Rover Demos "Transparent Hood" 172
cartechboy (2660665) writes "When we were kids, we were promised flying cars in the future, like The Jetsons. Well, now it's the future, and we don't have any flying cars. But Land Rover just unveiled some crazy new technology called the Transparent Hood system. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and yet quite complex in its implementation. Using a web of camera images and projectors, the Transparent Hood system projects the area just in front of and underneath the nose of the vehicle onto a head-up display along the lower portion of the windshield. Not only is this obviously breathtaking, but when it comes to off-roading—or parking in tight urban spaces—this could change the game. It will allow drivers to see precisely what's below them and immediately in front of them allowing precise placement of the vehicle's front wheels. The system also displays key vehicle data including speed, incline, roll angle, steering position, and drive mode. People, this is the future, and the future is now."
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Now I can see the potholes as they rattle my bones in real time. Kewl! ;-)
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason why this design is even seen as useful is because of the very poor ergonomic design of autobodies that has become popular the last few years. I have a 2002 Tacoma, I can see all four corners of the vehicle. With a glance I can tell within six inches of exactly where each corner of the vehicle is. We used to have a 1995 Corolla, and I could park it in any spot. My wife has a new Audi, and until recently I was driving a fairly new Corolla supplied by my employer. Hate parking those things, you can't see the corners of the vehicle so can only guess as to how far away I am from the next vehicle.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad for you perhaps, but the reason we have those high curved bonnets now is to protect pedestrians when you hit them. It isn't the initial contact with their legs that gives them fatal injuries, it's the blow as their head slams down against the bonnet. Previously the engine block tended to be right under the thin metal cover so their skull effectively went into that. Now there is more room for the bonnet to flex and cushion the blow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is very much application specific. Nobody needs this on their A to B car. On the other hand, vehicles that spend time off roads can make use of this to see where their wheels are. I know people who work in the woods with dump trucks and trust me when I said they could make good use of this. Obviously the camera would need regular cleaning but the benefits would out weight the inconvenience.
A friend of my grandfather actually tipped a dump truck in an open pit mine because one of the 8 wheels (yes 8 whe
Off-roading? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Per the image in the article - the cameras are mounted in the grille.
Re: (Score:2)
Off-roading? The cameras would be caked with mud and dust within 15 minutes.
And the windscreen. It's a wonder anyone goes off-roading at all, having to get out and wipe the muck off the windows every quarter of an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
How many Land Rover owners actually off-road? Im guessing a small fraction of a percent. These cars are more of a luxury vehicle than practical offroader. The transparent hood is just a marketing gimmick to get people to buy a Land Rover. The main market for these cars are yuppies and soccer moms with money. They don't have to ford rivers, climb a steep hill or drive down muddy dirt roads after a monsoon to buy groceries, make it to their hair appointment or commute to work.
Re: (Score:3)
hey don't have to ford rivers, climb a steep hill or drive down muddy dirt roads after a monsoon to buy groceries, make it to their hair appointment or commute to work.
But the cars are capable of that, and that's why they're also popular with farmers and people that live outside of cities.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Finally, I can tailgate to within 6 inches of the guy in front of me. I'll get home that much faster!
VR ! (Score:3)
Can we just go full VR with this, ala Oculus ? Just put a headset on before you get in the car.
The opportunities would be endless ! First of all, it could repaint the entire interior to look like whatever sports coupe, vintage classic or whatever your dream car is.
You could be launching virtual. very satisfactory rockets at the jackass who just blocked your turn, create imaginary, optionally naked supermodels on passenger seats and so on ?
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but how about someone who is driving with Augmented Reality , which this camera gizmo, proposed removal of side view mirrors that Tesla is championing etc effectively are ? Even rear backup cameras are effectively AR. ..
I mean going full VR is just the next logical step
Rocks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's nice, but not something you couldn't have rigged yourself and I'm pretty sure kits exist for.
I'm sure you can get a dash camera kit. And you could probably rig it yourself.
But I'm thinking the windshield HUD is probably not something you're going to build yourself. You could, I know, I know. But you won't. ;)
And if you tried, it might turn out to be non-trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
And by clicking the EgoBoost (tm) button in the app, you can give yourself the penis you always wanted, including one that never existed in the first place, while you're at it.
Shut up already (Score:2, Funny)
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "demo" is just a "virtual prototype in testing", also known as: CGI. What an innovative concept... not. Please get back to me once you really have something to show.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just visible light, either, so you can see at night and through clouds...
It's not on a HUD
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that the Land Rover has more hours in service than the F35.
Probably more hours in flight too.
Transparent bonnets (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like Amish porn
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Amish porn
Awwww yeahhhh [plainlydressed.com]
Parallax, and why stop at the hood? (Score:2)
Well this will work (well?) for one point of view, the driver presumably. The passenger will see a distorted view unless they use some sort of system that can show two different images for two (or more) different viewpoints. They could use the "micro louvers" screen filters (patented by 3M I think) or some more sophisticated system that are used on some large screen LCD TVs that provide multiple points of view (or 3D images) without glasses. It's the same problem basically.
Why stop with just the hood? W
Re:Parallax, and why stop at the hood? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on who she is and where you are parked.
"along the lower portion of the windshield" (Score:2)
The article (and video) doesn't make clear how large the "heads up display" is but considering that they say it is along the lower portion of the windshield that implies it must be pretty big (to cover the area of the "hood").
The range rover isn't a military aircraft where the H.U.D. is going to be relatively near the pilot's face and directly in front of the pilot. For the range rover it wouldn't be safe or convenient to hang a piece of glass so near an ordinary automobile driver. The H.U.D.'s purpose in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The classic meaning of heads up display is that you don't have to look down at your instruments, but keep looking out of the window. Overlaying reality. As this appears to projection onto the lower portion of the windscreen, it would qualify as heads up.
Google Glass can't do heads up. It's display is up and to one side, and can't overlay reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant. Now for proximity sensors. (Score:2)
I'd also love to have proximity sensors giving the distance from any part of my car to any obstacle. It'd make parallel parking a lot quicker if I could get a readout showing how many inches there are between my car and the vehicle behind me.
Rearview cameras can be useful, but unless you've got one like an RV mounted way up high aiming down at the back of the vehicle they won't help much in parking.
Re: (Score:3)
Nissan already offers that.
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/avm.html
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also love to have proximity sensors giving the distance from any part of my car to any obstacle. It'd make parallel parking a lot quicker if I could get a readout showing how many inches there are between my car and the vehicle behind me.
Couple Arduinos, couple ultrasonic rangefinders, couple of LED strips...
Good for Offroading... Offroading = mud (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I don't get with these camera displays is the fact that they don't seem to have wipers on the camera, with cleaning solution.
Snow/Salt/Mud/Dirt really collect and make visibility bad. If you are offroading then one puddle and your feature is useless.
That's OK! (Score:2)
No one uses a 100,000$ dollar Land Rover for offroading silly! Are you nuts?
They are used by rich soccer Moms to drop off little Bobby at practice. Those camera may prevent them from running over Jimmy when they have had one too many cocktails and get all sassy and decide to take a short cut over the neighboring pitch...
Re: (Score:2)
Per the image in the article - the cameras are mounted in the grille.
http://www.motorauthority.com/... [motorauthority.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, mud/salt/dirt can get in the grill too.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing I don't get with these camera displays is the fact that they don't seem to have wipers on the camera, with cleaning solution.
Snow/Salt/Mud/Dirt really collect and make visibility bad. If you are offroading then one puddle and your feature is useless.
... uh, we could just install wiperless glass AKA ultrasonic wipers. [gizmag.com]
Useless (Score:2)
" Not only is this obviously breathtaking, but when it comes to off-roading—or parking in tight urban spaces—this could change the game."
Not when the people using said vehicles aren't even familiar with the basics on how to handle and maneuver.
If you need assistance to parallel park in a tight urban space, you either need a smaller vehicle, or you need to call a cab or walk.
On top of that, you shouldn't have been given a license in the first place.
F35 Joint Strike Fighter (Score:2)
pretty cool (Score:2)
This is a pretty cool feature. I have seen a similar implementation in a Mercedes and a Toyota, but for backwards driving only. It would turn on the camera as soon as you shifted into reverse.
It's no coincidence that the hood was black (Score:2)
I imagine that cars with this technology would benefit from a matte black hood, making future cars look like modders with carbon fiber hoods. Next, we'll see some technology that requires a huge spoiler
How soon before standard? (Score:2)
brilliant (Score:2)
Video Game (Score:2)
Or we could ... (Score:2)
Equipment on a Land Rover isn't going to save children. That's a rich person's car. Rich people's kids don't play in the street. Poor people will continue to be run over by clapped-out F150s.
Not new. (Score:2)
We did pretty much the same thing with US Army helicopters almost twenty years ago.
Maybe not (Score:2)
Eye / Head tracking required(?) (Score:2)
"Obviously breathtaking" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.
This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...
I think the biggest legitimate criticism that came out of the rear/side camera replacement of mirrors was that you had to refocus your eyes from infinity to dashboard to infinity each time you glanced at the video display. In this case you will already be tracking your bonnet so that the required change in eye focus will be minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't even considered that issue. My problem with it is reliability, replacement cost, and glare issues from driving in daylight. My backup camera is great, except I can't see it when my car is pointed north in the morning and the sun shines onto the screen through the sunroof.
If it breaks, well a mirror face is a $30 replacement, installed.
The upside, on the other hand, is at night when people's headlghts are blinding, they would only ever be as bright as the LCD can get, and not shining a beam into my
Re: (Score:2)
Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.
This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...
I think the biggest legitimate criticism that came out of the rear/side camera replacement of mirrors was that you had to refocus your eyes from infinity to dashboard to infinity each time you glanced at the video display. In this case you will already be tracking your bonnet so that the required change in eye focus will be minimal.
The biggest criticism with rear view cameras is that when you are reversing, you're looking out of the rear window so you can't even see the dashboard, let alone the display.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late, someone already called it "just another thing to go wrong". It sure seems that these idiotic Slashdotters would rather just drive around in Model Ts. Is there some other site that covers tech news, and actually has techies commenting rather than anti-tech luddites? This site is pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that was an AC. My settings mean that they aren't generally visible to me. Nothing of value is lost.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Slashdotters would rather just drive around in Model Ts
Not so sure about that. A lot of start-ups and younger tech companies now seem to be encouraging a culture of self-righteous car-hating hippie-liberals that want to ride pedal bikes everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
No, cyclists and car-haters don't run around telling everyone how they love their 1970s or 1980s car and don't need "all this electronic shit".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's what most slashdotters think? Cool then I fit right in :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Camera...angle...
I see what you did there.
invisible hood is "beyond criticism" (Score:2)
This is not a good application of technology...
ALL OF THIS IS TO INCREASE SHOWROOM SALES
this is about hooking in soccer moms, with an eye to short term sales figures only, by dazzling them with technology they will never use
no ammount of technology can account for an **inattentive driver**
this is bunk application of tech....and to pretend otherwise is bad for our industry
Re: (Score:3)
ALL product improvements are to increase sales.
Have you actually looked at the marketing video. It has nothing to do with parking - for which it would have little benefit, and which is already addressed by other technology. This is for off-roading. Where exact placement of the wheels is a significant benefit.
the video is cool (Score:2)
I have no problem admiting that the video is cool...but this is more about design trends and the implications
first...what was depicted in the video is not "off roading"
2nd...the most "off roading" these Range Rovers will ever see is if the Soccer Mom ever accidentally backs into a flower garden
again I think the video is cool, and the general concept has many awesome applications
this *particular* application is not one of them
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a curmudgeon driving an '80s Land Rover completely devoid of computers, but I have a large and increasing amount of respect for the capabilities of new Land Rovers.
Re: (Score:3)
Just be prepared to have to constantly get out of your vehicle to clean all those different lenses, or else camera tech is useless.
Why do you think that has to be manually done? Air blast of sensors to keep them clean is common in industry, and various high end cars already have things like head light washer/wipers.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like in all those cars that currently have reversing cameras, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually. Most annoying aspect of my back-up camera is when it gets dirty, or wet. Not all the manufacturers have figured out keeping them clean automatically yet.
Re: (Score:2)
also, they haven't figured out how to keep the side windows clean. I can hardly see out of mine!
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha. If only.... Seriously though, it becomes much more of a problem than the side windows for two reasons: 1) It only takes one drop of water or one decent-sized speck of dirt/dust to cover enough of the camera to be useless. Surface area will get you. 2) You only see the camera output when you are already in the car, in reverse (in the case of the back-up camera). Windows, you stand a chance of noticing they need cleaning as you are getting in. Plus you can roll down the window if you are desperat
Re: (Score:2)
My car doesn't have one, but when I drive a car with them, I really like them. I've eve had a car with a camera issue, and here in Oregon, I drive in the rain all the time.
all the damn time. Rain rain. blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.
This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...
Just be prepared to have to constantly get out of your vehicle to clean all those different lenses, or else camera tech is useless.
I would hope there's be high-pressure water jets to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
My windshield washer fluid tank ran dry, so I quickly learned to not drive in the rain. Oh, wait, no, I did something about it.
I clean my rear view lens every time I fill the tank, and every time I walk past the back of the car and notice it's dirty. It takes about three seconds to give it a swipe of the thumb; if you're planning ahead and are afraid of dirt, you could pocket a tissue before you head out to your car.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Don't reply to AC, they're usually lying.
Re:Transparent Bonnet (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, okay. Don't get a bee in your hood...
( :-P )
Re: (Score:2)
Don't make me give you the boot..
YEAHHHHHHH!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Land Rover has been an Indian car company for 6 years now. I can remember when they were British, but really all the interesting tech in Land Rover and Jaguar has come since Tata took them over, and started trying to make modern cars. It can be a hood if it wants to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not quite....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, because having this system operational is clearly crucial to operation of the vehicle, and you won't be able to just drive without it....
I guess you prefer not having a radio in your car either, since that's "just another thing to go wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, if the system is done right.
My last car merged the radio/voice recognition/other fncy shit system with the HVAC in a single card. So if anything went horribly wrong with any of it, the car was effectively undrivable in bad weather, as you lost the ventilation.
So, yes, the radio going wrong would make the car undrivable, because of quite common design decisions (But hey, when I used the voice system, it would turn off the ventilation fans so it could hear me. Tricks like that that seem silly afte
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think radio failure will cause you to loose vent. Maybe, but in the systems I have seen that is only possible of the failure is with the HVAC.
Plus, you should be able to turn off the radio/voice and have control of vents in any case.
If you are actual correct, and not just guessing becasue they are linked, it is an engineering failure in the extreme.
EXTREME!
Re: (Score:2)
From the forums for this model, it did happen. It's not that surprising: if a chip burns out on a board, having it fail in such a way (short etc) it makes everything on the board stop working.
Fault isolation is difficult and expensive. Throwing everything together is cheap and easy. I suspect some systems like HVAC and traction control will eventually have some isolation required, but all the other stuff? I just expect the more features, the more problems. But the new-car-every-3-years crowd won't care
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's bad board design.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes it is. Bad component design in cars is shockingly common (as long as the flaws aren't evident in the first few months).
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you allow them to do an oil change at 50mph?!
Because doing one at 100mph is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More problems. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ding ding! Places like that are always looking to upsell, so when you come in for an oil change, they look for something else to sell you, such as an air filter change, a transmission oil change, brake service, etc. Sometimes they even do things like show you a worn belt or filter which isn't even from your car, claiming it is, and saying it needs to be changed.
Unfortunately, many times the monkeys at these service places don't know how to put wheels back on correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't say they, and just find a good mechanic. Where I go for my oil change, they do chack all that, but many tims they ahve told me everything is fine and no upsell at all.
And when the do, its usually for a standard upcoming service.
Re:More problems. (Score:4, Informative)
A person can most certainly do all the work they need to do on their own car. If they are willing to put in the effort.
"There's absolutely no way you are certified to perform all regulated maintenance and inspections"
You don't need to be actual certified. Only cert are needed if you want to maintain the warranty, or show people you went to some class.
" properly dispose of hazardous materials"
you just take it to a disposal place. Usually a gas station with a shop, or a part store.
" invest tens of thousands of dollars into equipment "
Do you have an example of any piece of equipment that you need to fix / maintain your own vehicle that cost "tens of thousands of dollars". or even 1000 hundred dollars.
Those tools are for company that do cars all day long. Lifts and such.
There is nothing on my car I can not replace if I were so inclined. That includes transmission and engine replacements.
I don't becasue I have a good mechanic, I value my time, and I don't enjoy it anymore.
You seem to be complete ignorant of how to take care of a vehicle; which is fine. Just stop calling other people liars based on you ignorance of the field.
"(like emissions checks or whatever the fuck else is regulated in your area)"
You can do them at home, but to gte official you go to the inspector. State may vary.
In Oregon they check it by just looking at the codes, and you can buy something to do that for under 50 bucks. OR more, depending on features, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
" The simplest and most routine example would be a smog check. "
I hae a device that tells me if it passes. If it doesn't pass It tells me what is wrong and I can fix it until it passes. THAN I can take to to get the official cert. Getting the cert is a legal qualification and not maintenance. Maintenance is what you need to do to qualify for the cert.
"Repairs can only be performed by specially (and separately) licensed shops.
In order to have a shop, you need a license, you do NOT need one to work on yo
Re: (Score:3)
You are liable to keep you car in safe working order when on public roads in every state. Just an FYI
And there is still some back ass state that doesn't require smog? Jeez.
Re: (Score:3)
That guy is a moron. Arizona has smog checks do, and so do lots of other places. My experience is with AZ; the checks are easy: you just drive up to a state-run emissions checking station, and have them do the test. If it's '96+, they just plug in an OBD-II reader and look for codes. If there are none, you're done, and you just pay the fee and drive a way with your certificate. If it's pre-96, they put it on a dyno and check the emissions directly. If you pass (not hard to do if the engine is running
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to go back to school and figure out the logic of the failure modes before commenting.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming that cars are well-engineered with fault isolation, such that one non-essential piece breaking won't have side effects that make the car undrivable. I'd like to live in the world where that was true - that would be a pleasant world.
Re: (Score:2)
Like if the rear camera in newer cars fails, and you can't drive them anymore?
It's a front facing camera, not an integral part of the drive train.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you're only right in principle. In practice my last car would become undrivable if the radio malfunctioned badly, because the HVAC, radio, and voice recognition were all on the same board, and any of it blowing up took it all down. Driving without HVAC isn't practical in common weather in many places. That kind of mistake is normal in car engineering these days.
Re:not me! (Score:4, Interesting)
as a frequent off road driver I think this would be a crappy device to have, very disorienting
You might be right as a frequent off-road driver - but as someone who occasionally drives off-road I would welcome it, as I get a really disconcerting feel when you come to the brow of a steep hill and all you can see in the windscreen is sky but you have to keep on driving until the car goes over the bump and you can see again.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside sensors are becoming much more commonplace on not-so-expensive cars. I test-drove a Mazda 3 recently (about $27K fully loaded) which had not only a rearview camera, but a blind-spot radar warning system. (I'm not sure if it had parking sonar sensors or not; I didn't get to parallel park it, and a lot of modern parking sensors hide completely behind the bumpers instead of being obvious like in earlier models.)
Rearview cameras will be mandatory in all new cars in a few years. I wouldn't be surprise