| ▲ | small_model 4 hours ago |
| Also 'Luminar Technologies, a prominent U.S. lidar manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December 2025' LIDAR is useful in a small set of scenarios (calibration and validation) but do not bet the farm on it or make it the centre piece of your sensor suite. |
|
| ▲ | schiffern 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The same Luminar from the Mark Rober video? https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2025/03/17/youtub... |
|
| ▲ | UltraSane 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is very wrong.
LIDAR scanners have revolutionized surveying by
enabling rapid, high-precision 3D mapping of terrain and infrastructure, capturing millions of data points per second. LIDAR can penetrate dense vegetation, allowing accurate, ground-level, mapping in forested or obstructed areas. Drone mounted LIDAR has become very popular. Tripod mounted LIDAR scanners are very commonly used on construction sites. Handhels LIDAR scanners can map the inside of buildings with incredible accuracy. This is very commonly used to create digital twins of factories. |
| |
| ▲ | jcattle 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And none of this is on the order of magnitude that consumer automotive would have. The EU requires every new car to have Autonomos Emergency Braking. If LiDAR becomes cheaper than radar, this is a potential market of millions. |
|
|
| ▲ | UltraSane 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Lidar is critical for any autonomous vehicle. It turns out a very accurate 3D point cloud of the environment is very useful for self driving. Crazy, I know. |
| |
| ▲ | servo_sausage 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Useful but not at all required.
Camera + radar is sufficient for driving, and camera+ USS is fine for parking. Radar is just cheaper than the number of cameras and compute, it's also not really a strict requirement. Look at how the current cars fuck up, it's mostly navigation, context understanding, and tight manoeuvres. Lidar gives you very little in these areas | | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | All of the actually WORKING self driving systems use LIDAR. This is not a coincidence. | | |
| ▲ | servo_sausage an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I work with programs approaching L3+ from L2, with the requirement that the system works for 99% of roads (not tesla before people start fixating on that). We find that the cases where lidar really helps are in gathering training data, parking, and if focused enough some long distance precision. None of these have been instrumental in a final product; personally I suspect that many of the cars including lidar use it for data collection and edge cases more than as part of the driving perception model. | | |
| ▲ | heisenbit 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Accidents are not normal driving situations but edge cases. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Waymo is the best current autonomous driving system and Waymo uses LIDAR. This is because LIDAR is an incredibly effective sensor for accurate range data. Vision and Radar range data is much less accurate and reliable. Waymo used LIDAR in the realtime control loop. It combines LiDAR, camera, and radar data in real time to build a 3D representation of the environment, which is constantly updated. I fundamentally don't trust any level 4 system that doesn't use LIDAR |
| |
| ▲ | small_model 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Like Waymo? (https://dmnews.co.uk/waymo-robotaxi-spotted-unable-to-cross-...) 17 years after betting the farm on LIDAR the solution fails to navigate a puddle. Sorry but they bet on the wrong technology, Tesla has overtaken them with multi camera and NN solution. | | |
| ▲ | cheema33 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Tesla has overtaken them with multi camera and NN solution. Let me guess, you heard this from Elon? | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your conclusion from a single incident is a bad inference. One vehicle getting confused by a puddle (likely a sensor fusion edge case or mapping artifact, not a fundamental LIDAR failure) doesn't indict the technology. Tesla's cameras have produces vastly more failures. Waymo has driven tens of millions of autonomous miles with a serious injury/fatality rate dramatically lower than human drivers. The actual data shows the technology works. Tesla FSD still requires active driver supervision and is not legally or technically a robotaxi system. Comparing them as if they're at parity is wrong. LIDAR gives direct metric depth with no inference required. Camera-only systems must infer depth from 2D images using neural networks, which introduces failure modes LIDAR doesn't have. Radar is very valuable when LIDAR and cameras give ambiguous data. What metrics has Telsa overtaken Waymo? Deployed robotaxi revenue miles? No. Disengagement rates? No published comparable data. Safety per mile in driverless operation? No. | | |
| ▲ | small_model 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A Tesla wouldn't stop for a puddle. Also its not locked to a small geofenced area (people have driven coast to coast without a single intervention on FSD including parking spot to parking spot) when I can buy a Waymo vehicle that does this then Waymo would have caught up with Tesla. | | |
| ▲ | jamespo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Wow, so it can cope with driving on the highway. That's the easy part. | |
| ▲ | UltraSane 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your puddle example is utterly irrelevant. Tesla's are notorious for phantom breaking. Robotaxis are very much locked to tiny geofenced areas. Some even shaped like a penis because Musk is such a child. "people have driven coast to coast without a single intervention on FSD including parking spot to parking spot" I find this claim very dubious. Prove it. Teslas never drive empty for a very good reason. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
