Preparing for the DARPA Autonomous Vehicle Challenge 155
Little Hamster writes "Post-gazette.com has an interesting article on the DARPA funded 200-mile autonomous vehicle race across the California-Nevada desert. They interviewed teams from two of the early favourites, Carnegie Mellon University and the California Institute of Technology. The teams talked about challenges on driving at high speed over a combination of roads, rough terrain and brush-covered desert, where the robot would need to consider how fast it can make a turn, the possibility of spinning tires and the potential to become airborne when hitting bumps."
Do it the easy way (Score:2, Funny)
Now we're onto something... (Score:2, Funny)
They'd kill each other after that...
Predicting future positions of the vehicle in RT (Score:2, Insightful)
Deterministic agents (Score:3, Insightful)
This gets into game theory, i.e. choosing certain sub-optimal paths in order to reduce 'predictability'.
If you're using simulated annealing or genetic algorithms to find a path, then you will probably be pretty unpredictable already, wether or not someone else has t
Re:Deterministic agents (Score:1)
Let's just hope that "other computer" it uses isn't using mapquest,lol
Further applications (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Further applications (Score:5, Funny)
A nice thought, but in reality the passengers would just piss the time away reading Slashdot over a cell phone connection.
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
This will undoubtedly happen one day, but I think most people will be extremely reluctant.
Though practically it could probably be compared with the leap to horseless once upon a time
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
Now that I think about it though, with something as simple as parking, insurance companies will probably send out something saying that you are not insured for any accidents resulting from using this feature.
You would also have to have some way of verifying whether or not the fe
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
Then once the person is back on the surface streets it kicks back in to manual drive, perhaps. At least that might be an easier transition.
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
Do your part now [amasci.com]. You don't need to wait for automated vehicles.
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
There's still room for improvement, though.
Speaking of the "no cause at all" part - or rather, the cause not being immediately evident, I have to say that the Seattle area is one of the worst. Seattle'
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
I was taught pretty much the same in school, but it's amazing how many of us (myself included, at one point) throw all that out the window. Since finding that page on traffic wave patterns nearly t
Re:Further applications (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty sweet setup really. Too bad about the whole battery thingy.
What might surprise you though is that Ford is already not only already
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
I'm also wondering how it would fair on such as the 1 1/2 lane Vermont roads, many not even paved, let alone reflectorized, that I'm personally prone to go driving on. These roads are often even hard for a human to determine just where the real edges of the road are.
I can think of a few ways t
Re:Further applications (Score:5, Informative)
We already have all of that technology available already.
Okay, so those may not be as glamorous as a fully-robotic car, but the technology is already there. And as far as future autonomous cars go, so long as I can still buy a car that lets me manage throttle, brakes, shifting on my own for fun, I'll be happy.
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
I agree with wanting to drive for fun, though. I'll take a stickshift over an autonomous car any day.
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
Depends on how you look at it, of course. If I could afford it, I could buy a Bentley (a sedan, low center of gravity to help prevent roll-over) with traction control and hire a driver to drive me around. That seems pretty tied together to me :)
Eh? (Score:2)
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
Sir,
I do not doubt your ownership of said automobiles, since I know better of this world than to assume. Neither would I want to imply that I am maligning your character, since I do not know you personally and cannot judge, but one must admit that statistically speaking a "Slashdotter" would be exaggerating a bit to say this.
And personally, if I had a Boxster I'd be out driving that bitch!
Regards,
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
Follow the link in my profile, I think that'll do a fair job of verifying my statement ...
The Boxster is my dail
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
I certainly didn't miss that. Instead, I was replying to the original poster's assertion that this race would leave to advancements in civilian vehicles, including abilities to prevent rollover accidents. I do not doubt that he is correct, I simply wanted to rebut his point by mentioning that there are ways right now to
So what? (Score:2)
Re:Further applications (Score:1)
Re:Further applications (Score:2)
I don't want to work any more than I do
Rus
Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:1, Troll)
On the other hand, they get to blow stuff up, use expensive computers, and build really cool networks....
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:2)
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:1)
No one 'deserves' to die, that's just your opinion. To some people US soldiers 'deserve' to die. Not that I'd like that, but the people who do, think themselves just as right as you. just because you _think_ it's right to kill, doesn't _make_ it right.
Think of that next time you're having 'fun'.
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:2)
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh come on! What kind of crap is this? Perhaps you've heard of that little DARPA creation called the INTARWEB?! =P
No one wants to make nuclear war 'practical.' 90% of research is about NOT killing people, as killing a lot of people typically doesn't help win wars. This isn't the middle ages where you can hope to wipe out an entire society in a single war. What DARPA is interested in is destroying *targets* - things like launchers, tanks, fighters, satellite links, etc. Successful live tests are those that *minimize* casualties, not maximize them. We've had the technology to maximize death for decades now.
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'm sorry, but a lot of medal-wearing people do.
killing a lot of people typically doesn't help win wars.
Hiroshima, Nagazaki.
This isn't the middle ages where you can hope to wipe out an entire society in a single war.
Nah, you have to keep at it nowadays. Like, Have one president invade a country, then leave, let an embargo weaken that country, then have the son invade it again...
Dude, seriously, war is about killing people. Always has been, always will
Wrong (Score:1)
Yesterday's decentralized military communications system is today's internet. Today's robot-driven combat vehicle is tomorrow's smart car.
That's why DARPA projects are public -- we get to use the technology too. Or perhaps you'd rather we just threw the money into some secret black box projects, never to see the light of day?
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Well the Blackbird was pretty cool. In fact it was the coolest damm piece of tech so far developed.
And I for one would rather see them flying around taking pictures than a bunch of autonomous laser tanks trying to miss civilians as they take out the eye of some dumb third world conscripted grunt who happens to be wearing the uniform of the 'enemy de jour' just so joe sixpack can read the pa
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:1)
Re:Who Do You Want to Shoot Today? (Score:1)
My experiences anyway.
Sounds dangerous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds dangerous (Score:2)
Re:Sounds dangerous (Score:2)
Re:Sounds dangerous (Score:1, Informative)
When I was a kid.. (Score:1)
Re:When I was a kid.. (Score:2)
You get rid of some problems (wheel slippage etc.), but you add more.
Plus they're just so loud!
Re:When I was a kid.. (Score:1)
Screw flying cars (Score:2, Interesting)
That would be cool.
Re:Screw flying cars (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Screw flying cars (Score:2)
You can do that now...once
Re:Screw flying cars (Score:2)
Robots entertaining robots (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Robots entertaining robots (Score:2)
Before that, just have them post to Slashdot. Same effect, much more realistic milestone and nobody would notice.
Re:Robots entertaining robots (Score:1)
Just like a video game (Score:3, Interesting)
The real problem would be getting the track information in real time and telling the AI what each object is.
Then again I am sure game developers get to cut a bunch of corners because the AI knows the track perfectly because it is a part of its system.
Re:Just like a video game (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just like a video game (Score:2, Informative)
How do you determine if there is an object, or it is just mud on the camera?
How do you detect dust and filter that out?
How do you det
Re:Just like a video game (Score:3, Insightful)
Short answer: Saccades.
Longer answer: Put a motor on your camera that allows limited angular motion. Put teflon-coated plexiglass in front of the camera (probably with a wiper). Saccade. Check angular parallax.
Alternative Answer: Dual cameras.
How do you detect dust and filter that out?
Do horrible things to shadow elimination code.
How do you detect a fence - the links are generally too small to be picked up on the camer
Re:Just like a video game (Score:1)
One thing I would like to comment on, regarding the fence...Of course, you look for fence posts...but what if there is an opening somewhere in the fence, and part of the race course is to go through that opening? You slow down too much if you creep along right next to the fence, and if you are too far away you won't be able to distinguish an opening. Also, given the vibrations in the vehicle, it can be difficult for any camera, re
Re:Just like a video game (Score:2)
>60fps cameras may also be of use, especially with hardware to realtime integrate each of the shaking images. The fact that this is almost certainly going to be a day drive helps _alot_.
Focus is easy from a distance, and up close, you can actually do rangefinding based on standard autofocus techniques. Even a blurry image of a fence going by will get significantly darker as focus is correc
Re:Just like a video game (Score:2)
Re:Just like a video game (Score:1)
Something to taxi the average cellphone user (Score:2, Funny)
A Real Change (Score:5, Insightful)
The first posters here don't have a clue as to the effects and circumstances of this. The purpose is not Autonomous Kill Vehicles though it might occur. Cruise Missiles etc already do this as does the Predator to one degree or another. The purpose here is to reduce the overhead cost on the army dramatically in hauling supplies etc over long distances with or without roads. To do this you need vehicles than can bypass disabled vehicles and overcome obstacles. They need to be free of drivers who get tired and eat up supplies.
The real effect here will be civilian. The project which like it or not will happen regardless of DARPA someday soon, is going to very nearly completely alter how we live.
To illustrate: suppose you are old blind and unable to drive. (It happens to the best of us) Now you will be able to go where you want without somebody driving you. Suppose you want to go to work but don't want to own a car? Mass Transit? No! you just get on your cell phone and call for a car. It arrives shortly and takes you where you want to go and without a driver. Freight? No more Truck Drivers and the wreaks from them being too tired. No more Taxi Drivers. Close most of the Hospitals because wreaks are not filling them up. Kids will not need parents to drive them somewhere.
There is very nearly nothing more profound than this race! It will reorganize our world. The issue here is how will we adapt. This isn't an esoteric question. We had better face it now.
For the Luddites amung us, give it up. Stopping DARPA will only give the technological edge to China. They will do the work. This is a very high amplification Technology. It Amplifies People a LOT. The issue as always will be the morals of those being Amplified, and will we allow this to cause others to be lost in the "noise."
Re:A Real Change (Score:2, Interesting)
But the more I think about it the more I like the idea of having alternative transportation for those deemed "incapable" of driving a vehicle.
This way you would have to earn the right to actually control the vehicle you drive. We could test drivers like other countries do - inclement weather condition tests, obstacle tests, rea
Re:A Real Change (Score:2)
You won't have the inhuman reaction time ( I actually think human drivers should (and will) have to pay MUCH higher insurance rates than owners of bot-driven cars. But hey, if you submit to GPS tracking, a breathalizer-ignition, interior/exterior cameras, and that special driving test you mention, then you might be eligible for a 10% discount!
--
Re:A Real Change (Score:1)
The proof is in the pudding. I have a record that proves myself, do you?
My post only suggested giving alternative transporation options to people that shouldn't be driving in the first place which leaves people who like to drive (which usually means they're good at it) a more open freeway.
And hell no - I won't pa
Watershed technology advances (Score:2)
It Amplifies People a LOT. The issue as always wil
How long then, before we see... (Score:2)
Please stwate your destination.
Re:A Real Change (Score:1)
Re:A Real Change - not for a long time, methinks (Score:2)
Male or Female (Score:1, Flamebait)
Rus
EXPERIMENT: Please do not mod down (Score:4, Interesting)
Please do not mod this message down. I am currently running an experiment to see which spambots are collecting addresses from Slashdot. Please do not mod down. In fact, if you could mod this up, that would be great. I will publish the results of this experiment as soon as it is complete. hopefully the results will be usefull to all
Me too, me too. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EXPERIMENT: Please do not mod down (Score:2)
Only if they're COOL driving programs (Score:2)
-and the potential to become airborne when hitting bumps.
Robot driver - "Hot damn, bet I could get some serious height jumping off those rocks over there! Balls to the wall, baby!"
Re:Only if they're COOL driving programs (Score:2)
Speaking of which, the Mach-5 had the ability to have saw blades come out the front of it so you could drive through forrests, chopping down trees as you drive.
What I don't get is, wouldn't the tree stumps be a problem with that? What about the falling trees? Wouldn't some of them land on the Mach-5?
Re:Only if they're COOL driving programs (Score:1)
Desert... pshaw... (Score:3, Funny)
Let's see them drive that beast through Bruce County Ontario blizzard...
Re:Desert... pshaw... (Score:2)
I've been in a Bruce County blizzard. Damn scary when you only know you haven't lost the road because the brake lights appearing out of nowwhere in front of you aren't shining up out of a ditch.
A self-navigating car that uses GPS, sees by radar, maybe checks position agains magnets embedded in the road every so often and can adjust for extreme road conditions would be pretty sweet in such a situation.
Of course, that doesn't explain why idiots like us are out driving in a Bruce County blizzard.
Put your money where your mouth is (Score:1)
Turbo Boost (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leader of Team Visionary Endeavor (Score:1)
I'm not sure who did the estimation, but they're an order of magnitude high. To date we've spent somewhere around $350K, mostly to pay for student labor over the Summer.
Re:Leader of Team Visionary Endeavor (Score:2)
But they have all those free grad students...
Funny (Score:1)
Join Team Overbot - no pay, some risk, big prize (Score:4, Interesting)
I run one of the Grand Challenge teams, Team Overbot [overbot.com]. We have a vehicle (a modified six wheel drive Polaris Ranger), a shop in Redwood City, funding, equipment, and people. We're well along; the vehicle has most of its actuators and some of the sensors working, and about a third of the software is running. We're one of the five DARPA-accepted teams.
Many of us are Stanford alumni or students, but this is not a Stanford project.
Our basic technical approach is to build a rugged, reliable vehicle with conservative control strategies. Others may be faster, but we expect they'll get into trouble at high speed. Our top speed is 40MPH. The real problem with the Grand Challenge is not going fast on the easy parts; it's getting through the hard parts.
The 6WD chassis we're using is one of the most bump-tolerant platforms around. It can go over railroad ties at top speed without problems and without going airborne. The center of gravity is low. The front and mid axles have independent suspension; the rear axle is a swing arm. This simplifies low-level vehicle control. All wheels can be driven, although at higher speeds, we will switch from 6WD to 4WD.
We have five computers on board. Three are small PC/104 machines, and two are Pentium 4 machines. All run QNX (the OS for when it has to work.) All are industrial-strength ruggedized units. The actuators are all servomotors driven by industrial microcontrollers. All this hardware is off-the-shelf industrial control gear.
Sensors include LIDAR, doppler RADAR, sonars, cameras, INS, GPS, etc. Some of them are used in unusual ways. That's all I'll say about that.
The pathfinding strategy is indeed borrowed from video game technology. It's more structured than Brooks-type behavior based robotics, and it's less structured than Latoumbe-type planning. There are three layers of control; the top one we call the "back seat driver", because it has only advisory authority over the "driver".
We have road map and topo data onboard, but it's used more as a hint than as rigid guidance. We take the waypoints DARPA gives us (on a CD, at 0430 hrs the morning of the race) and load it in. There's no offline preplanning. Wouldn't help in the real world.
If nobody wins this year, which is quite likely, we'll be back next year with a faster vehicle.
Post questions and I'll answer them here.
John Nagle
Team Overbot
Re:Join Team Overbot - no pay, some risk, big priz (Score:2)
I don't know about auto-pilots but I have driven real SUVs (Land-rover) seriously off road. For a human being it isn't exactly easy and when there is no track at all to follow, 20MPH can be difficult to maintain. As a human, even with the ground clearance of a real SUV, you are very aware of the danger o
Re:Join Team Overbot - no pay, some risk, big priz (Score:2)
Personally I doubt anyone will win any time soon, the course is intentionally difficult.
Re:Join Team Overbot - no pay, some risk, big priz (Score:3, Insightful)
Going 30MPH, rather than 15MPH, over 20 miles of tough terrain, gains 60 minutes. (90 minutes vs 30 minutes).
That's why rough-terrain performance is more important than flatland performance.
The Polaris Ranger has a thick ABS plastic skid plate over the whole bottom of the vehicle.
But this isn't about the vehicle.
Re:Join Team Overbot - no pay, some risk, big priz (Score:2)
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:2)
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:1)
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:2)
Which it isn't, no matter how much you distort the facts.
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:1)
I commented on the mentality of your argument, not on any specific facts. I simply pointed out that the your statement was completely meaningless, as it can be applied by any "patriot" to his or her target of patriotism.
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:2)
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:1)
BTW, i myself did not have a kneejerk "nazis are evil" response, i said that to point out to the parent that his post had no value due to its universal applicability, and i chose to the Nazis because i know that his immediate reaction is to say that Nazis are evil, therefore perhaps causing him to understand why his post was
Re:Must be a real thrill. (Score:2)
Re:Something's weird on /. (Score:2)
I can't see it now, that i refreshed the page...but managed to get retrieve the link...apparently it's the NEXT ARTICLE
This is waht I get now:
Not subscriber, or not subscribed page
You can't see this story because it's scheduled in the future, where only subscribers can see it.
Either you are not a subscriber to Slashdot, or you have indicated you don't want Stories pages ad-free, or you have set your daily limit of ad-free pages to
not that outrageous (Score:2)
Re:Not as good as it sounds...The Drawback (Score:2)
Instead they'd have to put themselves through school as rodeo clowns.