Grand Challenge 1, Competitors 0 456
Ivan writes "According to the DARPA Grand Challenge Status Board, 2 bots were withdrawn before the race started and the remaining 13 were all disabled. Red Team and SciAutonics II tied at 7 miles, a bit short of the 142 miles required." CNN has coverage and interviews.
Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:5, Insightful)
This benefits the public from the technology that is being created that otherwise lacked an impetus. It benefits industry by showing a host of new ideas that otherwise would have never come through the regular channels. It certainly benefits DARPA for sheer investment and public relations value. It can benefit future soldiers by reducing their risk to dangerous jobs. This also benefits the defense contractors that just got a small reminder that someone from out of nowhere could become a player - think of it as lighting a fire in their belly.
All told this was a challenge, and was never intended to be easily winnable. It certainly was advertised as being unlikely to be won this year. All told I think DARPA should hold more contests like this for other areas that have grown stagnant. For a historical perspective consider that Lindbergh crossed that Atlantic on just such a contest. A contest that inspired the X-Prize. Perhaps we should see DARPA become involved in future X-Prizes as well?
Just remember not to name the project skynet.
Re:Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:5, Insightful)
what can we learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, it is not even clear what we can learn from failure like that, which we could not learn otherwise.
Flashy things like this race do not necessarily tell us anything more about deep problems of AI. One can spend millions and millions and not get any closer to the goal.
Re:what can we learn? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that in general we shouldn't define "success" to mean "learning something", don't forget that this whole project was for research. The whole object of research is to learn things, so I can see the granparent's point.
Re:Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:2)
Re:Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:5, Interesting)
In World War II a soldier was sent to drive a truck, and if he fails... then another, and another. Today we can send such a robot. It is safe from snipers, and if it gets hit with a shell it will be simply replaced.
Machines like these can -already- be used to patrol large territories; with improvement, they will be really good at that.
Re:Congratualations to those that tried. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you tru to do something significant that no one has done before, that is a success in itself. We hear all the time about people doing trivial things, or something that has been done 100 times before, and fawn over those achievements simply because a finish line was crossed. We too often forget about the process that went to make those things happen, and that many things are much easier today than even a year ago because the process was refined by people who perhaps never bother worried about crossing a finish line.
Rough terrain's a bitch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rough terrain's a bitch (Score:5, Funny)
Not _all_ that impressive (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rough terrain's a bitch (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rough terrain's a bitch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rough terrain's a bitch (Score:3, Funny)
Hey what's this cute little robot doggie KABOOM!
Re:Rough terrain's a bitch (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think they'll use WINGS.
How's that for obvious?
Yah, flying is harder than driving. But autonomous flying over rough terrain is WAY easier than autonomous driving over rough terrain. Even autonomous landing is probaly easier than autonomous "running up a hill and jumping over a fence".
Most planes have been landed by computers for many years now. Sure it's on a smooth runaway.
Is there still a chance.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that even though they only got 7 miles into the course, thats still damn good engineering. Maybe next year they will have worked out what has gone wrong and figured out a way to flesh out an autonomous robot (Or hide a midget navigator somewhere!).
midget drivers, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
After all, you've got to remember that the world's fastest computers, the really, really big iron out there, still have about as much computational power as your average cockroach.
Not that I would condone such a thing, but, hey, if you're designing delivery systems for the US military, I think you've already lost the moral high ground.
Re:midget drivers, eh? (Score:4, Funny)
I know plenty of valley girls that can pilot a BMW at 85mph down the coast hiway while never looking out the windows or using the rear view mirrors. They steer with one knee and can't hear a sound over the 1000watt stereo. They can carry on three converstations at once, make reservations for lunch on the cell, adjust their bra and sip on a 40oz. diet Dr. Pepper...all while penciling an eyebrow thinner than a dime.
Over...under...around and thru.
How did... (Score:3, Funny)
Processing power (Score:5, Interesting)
try this at home (Score:5, Interesting)
I found myself running as fast as I could, but my mind set up an interesting pipeline. I was always looking five to eight feet in front of me and my brain feverishly tried to parse out what was a rock, what was a branch, what was a big root, what was sloped ground, what was even ground, etc. Then, that information got passed to a route-choosing part of my brain that decided where the best place was to put each foot: left, right, left, right. That information, in turn, went to my brain's motor department, which was actually in charge of balance, weight distribution, and muscle movement to actually put the feet where they were supposed to be and keep my momentum without falling.
I call this a pipeline because my eyes never left that five-to-eight foot range. When I was selecting any bit of route, I was already looking at the next bit of route and stepping on the last bit of route. I never looked at my feet, but somehow always put them where they needed to be.
I wouldn't make such an analogy anywhere other than slashdot, but I could feel that the load average on my brain was as high as it could be. I didn't have any free cycles to think about my day, or have a song in my head, or think of my next joke, as I usually do. Every ounce of my concentration was going to these automatic, practically sub-conscious processes. I know was processing as fast as I could -- any faster, and my brain would tell me, "I can't parse the terrain that fast," or "I can't decide on a route that quick."
Don't give me any credit for it, because it has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence, but I was solving an extraordinarly tough problem very quickly. In short, if I could bring my brain to the edge, I can see how tough this is for the DARPA contestants!
Re:try this at home (Score:3, Informative)
Re:try this at home (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why new drivers and people who are disorientated or distracted often have trouble driving.
For new drivers there are 2 factors working here. First is the lack of experience of WHERE to look. New drivers often keep their vision trained too close in front of the vehicle. This works for very very low speeds but once you try to go road speeds you just don't have enough time to react. Experience teaches us to lift our eyes higher and seek ahead further in order to drive effectively.
The second factor for new drivers is how to handle this new kind of input. Stuff that you don't worry about when jogging or running becomes a big problem when driving, like corners and wet roads. The increased distance also means that you have to have a different sort of thought process in order to handle the increased amount of information.
With disorientated or distracted drivers they may have the knowledge of how to handle the processing of driving stimuli but since they are at diminished capacity they are not able to do so fast enough. Drunk drivers, for example, often start slewing back and forth because their reactions are lagging behind what their senses are telling them. They turn, overturn, correct, overcorrect, and so on.
Re:try this at home (Score:3, Insightful)
The interesting thing is to try and break it down to subroutines for AI programming.
First, there is the HUGE problem that everything we do, motor-skill-wise is completely unconsious. So all these weight shiftings and speed shifts and balance issues, they are all unknown territory for us. We are put in the position of having to guess what our own minds are thinking.
Then there is the whole "threat/obstacle" recognition bit. Human beings start developing that stuff long before w
This is *great* news! (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that the first industrialised nation that develops autonomous fighting machines will take over the world (or at least have a damn good go).
Re:This is *great* news! (Score:2)
Re:This is *great* news! (Score:2)
Re:This is *great* news! (Score:3, Interesting)
Autonomous fighting machines would mean that even a nation of cheese-burger munching, channel surfing couch potatos with the reaction speed of a head of broccoli could have a go at taking over the world.
You wouldn't even need to enlist l33t gamerz to pilot them by remote control and risk the communications being jammed or having remote control operators charged with war crimes when they get too entheusiastic.
They are ideal; there would
Yeh right (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, empires today are built on economics, not military. It's bogus to even think of conquering western Europe, Japan, many of the small Asian countries, the US, Russia
You cant win a war only with technology.... (Score:3, Informative)
Cruise missiles cost millions per shot. Smart bombs 100,000s. Drones millions.
And a though with a 250$ ak74, and 50$ worth of c4 can do as much damage. Without radar warning.
Trying a full scale high-tech war would ruin any country.
An unexpected comment (Score:4, Insightful)
It means that autonomous fighting machines are still some way off.
This is a really weird sentiment to see on a technology website. I grant you that an autonomous fighting machine would be a bad thing to release on the world, but they'd still be a ways off even if some contestants passed the DARPA challenge. So many advances are necessary for an "autonomous fighting machine", that I think we can comfortably benefit from the development of robotic ATVs without worrying that they will someday rule the world.
Are you happy every time a chip design fails, because that postpones the inevitable rise of the "automous fighting machine"? Are you excited when you hear that Honda has to delay the release of ASIMO-2 because they can't get the hip-joints to work properly? Yet another set-back for the conquering strategy of the "autonomous fighting machine"!
It's also weird that someone else here thinks you're luddite comments are insightful.
Re:This is *great* news! (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict the opposite. Any industrialised nation sufficinatly advanced to create an autonomous fighting machine would have little to gain from taking over the world. With adequate robot labor, you would have no need to exploit the world. At that point, added territory is no longer a source of useful resources but only an administrative burden. Primitive peoples are difficult to civilize and govern. Sure, we might use our robot warriors to down a particulalry bloodthirsty dictator from time to time and seed a self-governing democracy, just as we have used human soldiers to do with Milosovic in ex-Yugoslavia and Hussein in Iraq. But the goal in both places is to install a democracy and get the hell out ASAP. Fighting wars with robots will not change the underlying economic calculus of occupuation. It won't make ruling over the conquered any less of a pain in the ass, or any more profitable a proposition than today.
The more technologically advanced we become, the more we substitute common substances for exoctic mineral resource imported from abroad. Why conquer Brazil for copper mines when you get zillion times the bandwidth of copper from silicon glass fiber which is make from sand ? Power lines ? Use a superconductor strands. Conquer Africa for daimonds ? Bah !We can grow them more pure, large and cheaper in a vacuum deposition chamber in a New Jersey shopping mall. Once we find an adequate subsitite for fossil fuels, or choose to rely more heavily on those which we already have such as fission, that will be one less thing which we need from the outside.
The danger of autonomous fighting machines is not that the nations which develop them would use them to take over the world. The danger is that those weapons would fall into the hands of hostile and primitie societes which do have that goal, the same theat we face today. The technologically advanced nations which invented chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons could use them to to enslave the world, but we don't do that. The expense of occupation is too high and the payoffs for us are too low. The real danger of such technology is that is falls into the hands of primitive societies in which a primal warmongering mindset dominates.
Re:This is *great* news! (Score:3, Funny)
Really ? There is no international law against using an army of robot warriors to exterminate the entire popuation of a foreign nation ? Why not ?
Well there's my legal loophole. World domination, here I come.
They tried and failed? (Score:4, Funny)
What's with all the mechanical failures? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's with all the mechanical failures? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's with all the mechanical failures? (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing that the cause of failure was engine stopping or brakes failing tells us very little. Some external to the car force caused the engine to break... it'd be more interesting to know what induced the engine to fail.
Still, might have been better to start small (Score:5, Interesting)
So perhaps step one should have been just doing a long ordinary road course, minimal obstical avoidance, just handling roads, turns, potholes, ramps and even traffic lights (where you are told they are).
That contest would provide useful civilian tech and also useful military tech in terms of a autonomous vehicles to carry cargo in a controlled area with intact roads.
Or you could also imagine autonomous vehicles which handle roads, but then get to a rough patch they can't handle. At the rough patches you station soldiers who drive/remote control the vehicles over the rough patch, but you need far fewer because they stay in one place and only do the rough patch. Let humans do what they can do and computers do the boring long-haul road drive.
Next, hold a contest for a shorter rough course with obstacles.
Finally, combine the two.
Re:Still, might have been better to start small (Score:3, Interesting)
So considering no vehicle made it past 7 miles... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So considering no vehicle made it past 7 miles. (Score:3, Funny)
You mean Berkeley?
:)A: VERY INSANE Re:So considering no vehicle made (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you weren't watching the live satellite feed when the motorcycle was demonstrated via remote control. It couldn't enter the race, but they just wanted to show it off.
It fell to the ground in literally 1 second.
Why they tried to solve a stabilization problem instead of an autonomy problem is beyond me. As I've said before, they engineered their own failing. This is different than the Red Team, where the basic hard problem of obstacle detection killed them.
I guess my prediction is going to come true... (Score:2)
Re:I guess my prediction is going to come true... (Score:3, Funny)
The value of stupid solutions (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The value of stupid solutions (Score:3, Funny)
I would have used a 500 foot wide wheel.
hm... (Score:2)
in WWI (Score:5, Informative)
it didn't take long for things to change.
Lessons? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like 1000s of geeks worldwide, I watched this with great interest. But the whole organization thing left me with a funny taste in the mouth.
It seemed as if the group that could throw the most money at the "problem" would win. Take the CMU team for example: they paid for a high-res survey of the area; had undergrads map out each and every obstacle in all of the possible paths; etc. Now, if the goal of this "grand challenge" was to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit, then it failed. Money != Entrepreneurial spirit.
Taking lessons from the RoboCup people, I would have preferred that DARPA organize it as follows:
- Create a simulator for the sensors, and design a small (virtual) course for this simulator. Let people develop algorithms using this simulator, and have a competition in this virtual simulator to select a set of (say) 30 teams.
- Provide each of these teams a platform: a humvee equipped with the sensors (actual ones from (1) above). Of course, if a team wants, it can add its own sensors.
- After some time, hold a "grand challenge".
- Analyse the approaches taken by the various teams, and (important) share the code among the teams. If a team designs a new sensor that is useful, get copies made and share with the teams for the next iteration.
- Go back to step (1) above, and repeat.
Preference could be given to schools or efforts involving students, as not only is this a great learning experience, but also it will be a great motivator.Just look at the technology gap between CMU and the rest of the entrants. It is quite an achievement that someone was able to equal CMU in performance.
There are a lot of smart hackers out there who would love to take a crack at this problem, but the lack of hardware is a serious hurdle.
Re:Lessons? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. You don't encourage people to think outside of the box by sponsoring free boxes. The same goes for providing humvees. If you limit everyone to
Re:Lessons? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true that passing a simulated test is no measure of success in the real world. But it will certainly be more prepared, and in a faster time and with less expense than an "all up" design method.
Look at the space shuttle if you want an example of "all up" gone bad. I'm not talking about the end product, I'm talking about billions that were squandered during development. The waste of time and money during the engine testing was extraordinary.
Another example is the Mark XIV torpedo. Google around, but the long and the short of it is the navy deployed a torpedo without testing it. A series of design flaws kept them from working, and their failure cost us dearly during the early parts of the war.
The Navy refused to believe there was a problem. The weapon worked 50 percent of the time for the 2 shots that were fired before the war. When they tested the torpedos properly they found numerous problems with the design of the guidance system and the detonators.
Re:Lessons? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using a black-box approach, you could simulate the output of a "perfect" laser rangefinder, LIDAR, etc. In fact, black-box approaches are great for isolating bugs and system testing.
The point I'm trying to make is: if you limit the participants only to the well-heeled, you are not going to fully "unleash the entrepreneurial spirit", as was the stated goal of the competition.
Re:Sharing (Score:3, Interesting)
An analogy would be genetic algorithms. Once you evaluate the fitness, you perform crossover. By making the code public, teams are free to pick up the best ideas from the others, and build on each others' work.
Take a look at how RoboCup soccer works. They have made great strides in the last couple of years, and a lot of that is due to the spirit of cooperation in the setup.
I wouldnt say that. (Score:3, Interesting)
While no code sharing occured (nor would've been useful, as each platform has its own unique way of doing basic tasks), discussing approaches leads often to combined approaches, fresh perspectives on ideas and then THAT leads to innovation as each time takes what they've learned and applies it to the next project. Eventually the most efficient and "best" system resu
Re:Lessons? (Score:3, Interesting)
In my suggestion, by providing interested entrants with a common platform, you take away these secondary issues, and get to focus on the primary issue: how to use the sensory data to control the vehicle so that it can get from Pt A to Pt B.
The words ring true (Score:3, Interesting)
DARPA Grand Challenge Kicks Off March 13th
Monday March 08, @10:40PM
GillBates0 writes "A quick reminder that the DARPA Grand Challenge is due to kick off March 13, the coming Saturday." He points to this "quick recap of the teams participating in the event," as well as details about the available satellite feeds. "The Atlanta-Journal Constitution is running a story about the event today. Quoting Frank Dellaert, co-director of Georgia Tech's robotics lab from the article, 'I would have trouble driving some of these roads myself. I think it's beyond the capabilities of autonomous vehicles today.' (shameless school plug). We'll see if the participants can prove him wrong."
Those words ring so true now...I never expected the contest to end on such a negative note.
More Coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised no one finished but... (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years ago I was a member of a Highschool robotics team were we build a hockey playing robot one year and a tank the next. They were RC which made is doable but it still was quite challanging.
Robots don't have self preservation instinct and usually end up destroying it self. This seems to be the case in this competition.
When driving a car your not only trying to navigate and not hit people, other cars,etc... Your also trying to not beatup your car. This is a very hard thing to program into a robot. Driving up a rocky hill isn't a simple as taking path with the least rocks in the way, usually its better to find another way around. But in programming how the hell do you tell that its unpassable. A brick wall is easy but a washed out road is hard to determin with cameras and other sensors.
As a human one would get out of their car and walk through before driving. In a race situation you would already know the course and whats passable.
Another challange is sand, its very easy to get stuck and its also hard to tell how deep or lose it is.
In miltary applications you would have detailed aerial photos or beable to take your time so this isn't a realistic test.
Details, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Details, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Team DAD's vehicle was held in DARPA-controlled pause for two hours, a mile behind CMU's failed vehicle. After the long pause, it was disabled. What's the story there?
Can't say I'm impressed (Score:3, Informative)
(In fact, the Great Egg Race was probably as tough on school kids as this race was on the engineers who competed... with the difference that the kids usually succeeded.)
The micromouse championship was also notoriously tough... and yet many succeeded there, with finishing times of under a minute to navigate a maze of unknown complexity.
These kinds of contests are generally tough because they stretch the minds. Minds don't stretch easily, without practice.
I would have thought that a good mech eng geek could have reached double or triple-digit distances without killing themselves. The problem is the culture.
did they ever test? (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble spot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The trouble spot (Score:5, Informative)
Preliminary Data from DARPA Grand Challenge
As of 11:00 a.m. PST, March 13, 2004
Vehicle 22 - Red Team - At mile 7.4. Vehicle went off course, got caught on an obstacle and rubber on the front wheels caught fire, which was quickly extinguished. Vehicle has been disabled.
Vehicle 21- SciAutonicsII - At mile 6.7. Vehicle went into an embankment and became stuck. Vehicle has been disabled, and the team is recovering it.
Vehicle 5 - Team Caltech - At mile 1.3. Vehicle went through a fence, and couldn't come back through. Vehicle has been disabled, and the team is recovering it.
Vehicle 7 - Digital Auto Drive - At mile 6.0. Vehicle was paused to allow a wrecker to get through, and, upon restarting, sensors were not able to determine the proper route. After sensors tried unsuccessfully for three hours, vehicle was disabled.
Vehicle 25 - Virginia Tech - Vehicle brakes locked up in the start area. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 23 - Axion Racing - Vehicle circled the wrong way in the start area. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 2 - Team CajunBot - Vehicle brushed a wall on its way out of the chute. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 13 - Team ENSCO - Vehicle flipped in the start area, experienced a fuel leak, and the team needed to shut off the fuel. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 4 - Team CIMAR - At mile 0.45. Vehicle ran into some wire and got totally wrapped up in it. Vehicle has been disabled.
Vehicle 10 - Palos Verdes High School Road Warriors - Vehicle has been removed from the course - it hit a wall in the start area.
Vehicle 17 - SciAutonics I - At mile 0.75. Vehicle went off the route. After sensors tried unsuccessfully for 90 minutes to reacquire the route, without any movement, vehicle was disabled.
Vehicle 20 - Team TerraMax - Got to mile 1.2. Vehicle then started backing up and after
Vehicle 15 - Team TerraHawk - Withdrew prior to start.
Vehicle 9 - The Golem Group - At mile 5.2. Vehicle stopped. Vehicle had a throttle problem while going up a hill. After trying for 50 minutes, the vehicle was disabled.
Vehicle 16 - The Blue Team - Withdrew prior to start.
Why not jump instead of roll? (Score:3, Interesting)
This would have potentially overcome many of the problems and if it were designed to be self-righting, even landing on an award contour and rolling over shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Another alternative is something that had short-term "hover" capabilities -- ie: checked the path ahead was clear for the next x-yards and then, drove that distance. If it saw something that appeared to be an obstacle it could hover over it for whatever distance was required.
Come to think of it -- why were DARPA so all-keen on using wheeled vehicles? What would be wrong with a hovercraft -- even one without a skirt so that the barbed-wire wasn't so much of an issue?
Wheels are okay, but they're certainly not the best option for uneven and unpredictable terrain -- after all, nature is an *expert* designer but you don't see any animals with wheels do you
First person (Score:5, Informative)
After registering and getting our fancy orange safety vests, we went to the starting line and were able to get some great pictures as the bots prepared to start the race. Red Team (from Carnegie Mellon) had the best qualifying time so they were first out of the gates. Their 3 million dollar hummer started off fast and was quickly out of sight. The four helicopters filming from the air were flying dangerously close to each other trying to get a good shot so it was easy to track where the vehicle was.
SciAutonics II was the next bot out of the gate, the also had a good start and proceeded out of view. About this time we heard the good news, Team Red was seven miles down the course. Soon after we got the bad news, Red Team's vehicle had died. The odds on favorite was eliminated by a mechanical failure after only 7 miles.
Several of the rest of the bots failed to get past the first turn, and the rest either withdrew or failed within a few miles. The six wheeled ENSCO lost control, ran up the embankment, and overturned. Of the 100+ teams who built bots, 25 were invited to qualify, 15 of those were allowed to race, and only 7 of those made it more than a mile.
All in all it was an excellent experience. My suggestions for next year (or for the openchallenge, etc) would be to do the race in segments like the WRC does. Divide the 200 mile race into 10 mile segments, teams get points based on their performance for the stage. If you fail a stage you're not eliminated, you just fall in the rankings. Teams are allowed an hour of maintenance between stages to fix any problems they think they can fix. This would make it both a lot more interesting, and a lot more satisfying.
New world record? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, was there a particular barrier at the 7 mile point that did in the last two robots, or was it just coinsidence that they both stumbled within a mile of each other?
New Info on the web page! (Score:3, Informative)
Preliminary Data from DARPA Grand Challenge
As of 11:00 a.m. PST, March 13, 2004
Vehicle 22 - Red Team - At mile 7.4. Vehicle went off course, got caught on an obstacle and rubber on the front wheels caught fire, which was quickly extinguished. Vehicle has been disabled.
Vehicle 21- SciAutonicsII - At mile 6.7. Vehicle went into an embankment and became stuck. Vehicle has been disabled, and the team is recovering it.
Vehicle 5 - Team Caltech - At mile 1.3. Vehicle went through a fence, and couldn't come back through. Vehicle has been disabled, and the team is recovering it.
Vehicle 7 - Digital Auto Drive - At mile 6.0. Vehicle was paused to allow a wrecker to get through, and, upon restarting, sensors were not able to determine the proper route. After sensors tried unsuccessfully for three hours, vehicle was disabled.
Vehicle 25 - Virginia Tech - Vehicle brakes locked up in the start area. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 23 - Axion Racing - Vehicle circled the wrong way in the start area. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 2 - Team CajunBot - Vehicle brushed a wall on its way out of the chute. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 13 - Team ENSCO - Vehicle flipped in the start area, experienced a fuel leak, and the team needed to shut off the fuel. Vehicle has been removed from the course.
Vehicle 4 - Team CIMAR - At mile 0.45. Vehicle ran into some wire and got totally wrapped up in it. Vehicle has been disabled.
Vehicle 10 - Palos Verdes High School Road Warriors - Vehicle has been removed from the course - it hit a wall in the start area.
Vehicle 17 - SciAutonics I - At mile 0.75. Vehicle went off the route. After sensors tried unsuccessfully for 90 minutes to reacquire the route, without any movement, vehicle was disabled.
Vehicle 20 - Team TerraMax - Got to mile 1.2. Vehicle then started backing up and after
Vehicle 15 - Team TerraHawk - Withdrew prior to start.
Vehicle 9 - The Golem Group - At mile 5.2. Vehicle stopped. Vehicle had a throttle problem while going up a hill. After trying for 50 minutes, the vehicle was disabled.
Vehicle 16 - The Blue Team - Withdrew prior to start.
On Winning (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked on a solar powered race car that was to cross the country. Our superior car won the first few days, but eventually crashed.
I learned a lot more about team work and egos than I did about technology. The technology was there, the money was there, the open-minded cooperation was not there. The car was engineered very well, the win was not engineered at all.
Re:On Winning (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't work well together the way they used to. The open source movement is not an exception. These people all work virtually and at their own schedule and desire. It's very difficult to find committed people who can see the "big picture" without having to finance their loyalty.
A good analogy can be found in the music industry. What makes a great band often has more to do with X number of guys being open-minded and ambitious AND able to work well together. They ma
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:2)
(FWIW, every vehicle had to be disabled by DARPA from remote).
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Insightful)
They all knew the rules going in, and if they didn't comply then they deserve to be shutdown (this is ignoring DARPA's rule change to include teams that didn't finsih the qualifying course).
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure it'd be much easier to take a successful rule-breaking vehicle and tweak it to follow the rules than take a vehicle that couldn't get past 7 miles and make it a winner...
In the real world (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:5, Informative)
Even with a previously traveled path and prepared track it's not uncommon for VERY well financed race teams to fail to finish in a desert race. Most desert racers consider it a win just to make it to the finish line and that's with a driver!
Look into the SCORE side of this challenge a bit more and you'll find a LOT of info about just how challenging desert racing is with drivers - let alone trying to do it autonomously.
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Informative)
Your assumption that they're crossing a barren plain is incorrect. The Mojave desert is not an easy place to drive. Quite the contrary; it's an area that dedicated off-roaders love because of the challenge of driving there. DARPA chose a test that they expected none of the entrants to be able to beat; my impression is that even making it 7 miles is an enormous accomplishment.
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might to read the facts about challenge; SciAm for example had nice article.
But basically, it's not "just 142 miles in the middle of nowhere", but 142 miles with rather tight time limit (ie. they have to race almost as fast as human drivers would drive normally); exact route they HAD to follow (with some max. deviation allowed) was only disclosed few hours before start, and definitely wasn't just a straight line, and terrain was not just barren, it's pretty rough (meaning that staying on the road or path or whaver is a must) no matter how you look at it.
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Interesting)
What did you think dune buggie were designed to handle?
Re:Really pathetic showing? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is damn good and all the competitors should be proud.
Here's what is on the course. (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a very good
Re:Testing !?!?!?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Testing !?!?!?! (Score:2)
easy answer to this. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is impossible to do. There are too many variables in the real world.
The bane of autonomous robotics is the fact you can't create an accurate world model. Sure, you can model the things you think will have the most effect, but there are literally millions of little things which by themselves may not mean much, but over time or in differing combinations can cause havoc and system disruption.
As an example, say for driving over barbed
Re:easy answer to this. (Score:3, Insightful)
If OSes were robots (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft's robot would break down frequently and require human maintenance.
IBM's would work well, but would have an obscurely-shaped fuel system that requires expensive IBM Fuel Cells(tm). The racing team would all be wearing suits.
Apple would produce a shiny, glossy, and reasonably reliable robot that scratched incredibly easily and had bits of the body break off when traveling along. The sound system would be an iPod.
Re:If OSes were robots (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'd like to see ... (Score:3, Funny)
kalman filtration (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very accurate, if you tune it properly (thats the tricky part)
This is very important for real time things because you need to begin to smoothly react to situations before they happen (ie, driving into an obstacle at high speeds).
Re:kalman filtration (Score:5, Insightful)
The beautiful thing about Kalman is that it works with partial data, that is, it can be applied recursively, "as the data are coming in". This is what makes it so suitable for realtime applications, as well as the fact that it is very robust in the face of temporary sensor failure.
Kalman is frequently used in tracking and control applications. Interestingly, Kalman filtering was also recently applied to the problem of task scheduling in the Linux kernel in the Entitlement Based Scheduler [lwn.net]. There's lots of info about Kalman filtering on the web, use Google if you want to know more.
Re:need better collision avoidance (Score:5, Insightful)
TROLL EXPOSED: COPIED FROM ALASKAN ENTRY (Score:5, Informative)
Don't mod this cut-n-paste troll up anymore.
Re:TROLL EXPOSED: COPIED FROM ALASKAN ENTRY (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Brick on the Accelerator (Score:5, Funny)
Not without refueling, of course.
You need to push hard at first. (Score:4, Insightful)
The ultimate goal of autonomous robotics is to develop a system that interacts with the real world at least as well as human, if not better.
If you start off with a simple challenge, you will get simple answers. For the next challenge, you ramp up the challenge some, and most will just modify the simple system. At some point though, you can't modify what is fundamentally flawed, and you have to throw it all away and start over.
Thats a huge waste of time and resources. If the teams recognizes the *tough* challenges from the outset, they're more likely to come up with a system that is flexible enough to handle them when the time and ability comes. Granted, you may spend more time developing that framework before you solve simple issues, but its worth it in the end.
Now the teams know what real-world issues they face. Their future systems will be much better equipped to handle them as they come along.
I suspect DARPA was well aware that this challenge could not be met. But the teams and technology are better off for it.