# Self driving is vapor ware



## pgtb (6 mo ago)

Drove Telsa x 6700 miles in last 3 weeks in trip from East coast to Yosemite and return. Car drives great on the open road and the navigation system and charging station location feature was seamless. The "self driving" is a disappointment, unsafe, erratic, and should be banned. The car slows and stops when not needed creating a hazard, is unable to navigate construction areas, and is constantly sending messages and making sounds which are a nuisance. Don't waste your money.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

That sounds a bit like you're trying to take a nap while the car is driving, and you're getting annoyed at the alerts waking you up. It's supposed to do that to make sure you're paying attention. But you're also right, the feature named "Full Self Driving" is not that at all able to do that right now.


----------



## pgtb (6 mo ago)

I do not mind the alerts that ask for more hand pressure. I object to the sounds that occur every time you turn it on or off.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

pgtb said:


> I do not mind the alerts that ask for more hand pressure. I object to the sounds that occur every time you turn it on or off.


Have you tried Joe Mode?


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

Another happy customer!!


----------



## Maxpilot (Oct 7, 2020)

I agree with the OP. FSD is unusable and requires more attention than when I taught my 15 year old how to drive. A class action lawsuit needs to be started over the cost of FSD. It won't be a completed product for many years to come. I feel duped that I payed for it.


----------



## skygraff (Jun 2, 2017)

I never expected FSD (which we don’t yet have for highway driving, by the way) to be anything more than a driver assist feature slightly more robust than the old Enhanced Autopilot. On the other hand, I hadn’t expected a regression but such is the course of software and alternate forks of development; 1 step forward and 2 steps back (with apologies to Paula Abdul).

Elon has made some poor guesstimates but I don’t think any were legally actionable promises. The price is definitely outrageous but that could also be said for the many products (both hardware and software) and your decision to purchase is your decision. Maybe you fell for the line that the price would only increase but so would the value and decided to buy now (FOMO) or maybe you believed Level 5 was just around the corner along with regulatory changes that would allow you to nap while being transported and have your car make money on the network while you worked. Regardless, your call.

For me, the biggest annoyance I have with the whole software package is the fact that I can’t customize the level of automation I want. Sometimes, I’d love to have the car keep us in the lane while I handle the acceleration in stop and go traffic (since it can’t be trusted to flow but, instead, races and slams on brakes). On the open highway, I’m fine with its ability to steer (with my torque) and maintain speed but phantom braking due to glitches in TACC (and poor speed limit reading/map data) make me long for dumb cruise control.

So, yeah, some annoying alerts that piss off passengers and unfamiliar drivers, dangerous behavior that could spark road rage from those around you, and, so far, a low individual ROI, kinda suck but feel free to vent while lying in the bed you made. Enough of us are doing the same thing (see the FSD Megathread). No class action on the cost of FSD but, maybe, if they say new hardware is required and don’t provide upgrades free, a case could be made.


----------



## Madmolecule (Oct 8, 2018)

A car is not typically a lifetime Investment. After four years were still debating on what the product will be if it is ever released. It is Kickstarter vaporware if there ever was one. It’s just cruise control with automated annoyances. Why do I need cartoons cars and cones rendered on the screen when I can look out the window. The screen should be used for information that I cannot readily gain by looking out the window, like tire pressure and how fast the Tesla stock is dropping. I’ve driven the car for almost 4 years and now I don’t know where to turn the wipers on. I used to

Tesla does not have and will not have , full self driving, Regardless of your test scores or whether you paid for it or subscribe to the product.
vision only is a failure
The car is not an investment, just a depreciating asset like every other vehicle
FSD is NOT SAFER than humans. If it was, insuring a Tesla with FSD would be cheaper at least with Tesla insurance. Until this is true please don’t try to tell me that the major insurance retailers cannot assess a risk. It is just not safer and that’s all there is to it.

But it’s not like Tesla is against upgrades. I pay $2000 for a software upgrade to make my car go faster. Honestly looking back it seems like it was just a bug fix.

We also came up with his premium connectivity for $10 a month once I purchase my vehicle. There is nothing premium about it.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Madmolecule said:


> Tesla does not have and will not have , full self driving, Regardless of your test scores or whether you paid for it or subscribe to the product.


I feel like they will someday. But by then Tesla might decide not to build cars for normal people anymore - $100k+ supercars for the rich and a self-driving taxi service for everyone else.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

JasonF said:


> I feel like they will someday. But by then Tesla might decide not to build cars for normal people anymore - $100k+ supercars for the rich and a self-driving taxi service for everyone else.


I honestly am starting to believe it won’t come out in my lifetime.


----------



## DocScott (Mar 6, 2019)

It certainly won't come from firmware updates for current cars. 

SpaceX doesn't expect to get Starship to Mars just by tweaking the software on the first model with enough engines. They know they have to go through multiple hardware iterations too.

But Tesla doesn't like to admit the same is true for FSD. 

To get to L5, they definitely need a method to clear cameras of snow. Maybe they'll need lidar--maybe they won't. Maybe they'll need radar--maybe not. Maybe they'll need more cameras. Maybe a better computer. 

They just don't know because they won't know until they push up against the limits of the current hardware.

Heck--just take the auto wipers as an analogy. It's pretty clear they need better sensors to have the auto-wipers work for human drivers. The essential problem is that the forward-facing cameras aren't located in the part of the windshield the human driver is looking through. That will never be completely fixed by firmware updates.


----------



## bwilson4web (Mar 4, 2019)

I was kicked out of the beta FSD (thanks Nashville rush hour) would use it again if given another chance.

The beta FSD handles lanes on streets without lane lines. It also handles traffic lights better by passing through cleared intersections than the current Autopilot. I would like to continue my testing.

Personally, I would like those who bought it to sell it for their original purchase price. That kind of feedback would accelerate development.

Bob Wilson


----------



## Madmolecule (Oct 8, 2018)

JasonF said:


> I feel like they will someday. But by then Tesla might decide not to build cars for normal people anymore - $100k+ supercars for the rich and a self-driving taxi service for everyone else.


Definitely. I think they’ve already mentioned that we might be able to apply for jobs as Tesla shepherds. Why would they sell some thing that can drive right from the factory and start making money. If the fantasy ever came close to true, there would be zero relocation cost, because the robotaxi could make money in route to its new location with dojo navigation. Still not quite sure what a Tesla Shepherd would do, since these amazing vehicles can do everything. maybe the shepherds will just be Bots to stop by and vacuum or clean puke or something.

If FSD was safer than humans driving, only the super rich could afford to actually manually drive a car,, because insuring a human driven car would be too expensive. This is obviously not the case because FSD is obviously not safer


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

FSD will never reach 100% (and neither will any other self driving tech) because it can't do something that humans do easily: Play follow the leader. 

When us humans are on an unfamiliar and confusing road, we fall back on watching what other drivers do and copying them. Computer Vision can kind of do that - but what it can't do yet is _selectively_ follow based on whether we believe what the driver in front of us is doing is safe. That's not the same as _legal_ - obviously even a computer can tell that a driver in front making an illegal u-turn onto a high-speed highway is dangerous. But if every car in front is driving on a median to avoid a crash, a computer wouldn't be able to apply the rules and determine that path is safe _enough_, while a human would, based on the fact that none of the other drivers doing it are suffering consequences. An automated pilot would just get stuck there behind the crash, determining that driving on the median violates the rules and isn't safe.

Driver automation systems are instead trained for different situations, one situation at a time, but accumulating millions of miles of experience. That will get them through _most_ situations, but there will be enough exceptions that people who distrust automated drivers in the first place will always point them out and say "See? This thing is dangerous!"


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Oh, and the reason I think the future of Tesla might be $100k+ supercars for the rich, and self-driving taxi service for everyone else is because a) Elon Musk hinted at it already; and b) because the fashion right now for huge big ticket items is instead of allowing people to finance them for x number of years and then own it, why not make them pay for it forever? That idea makes stockholders everywhere salivate.

But if you sell them a physical car, the car will get old at some point, and people won't want to make a new car payment on an old car. So the answer is giving them access to either a new car at any time for a permanent monthly car payment - which is not a sustainable model, and will probably lose money - or have them make that same payment and _never have possession of a car_, i.e. self driving taxi service.

The primary reason why I object to that is it will not save any money over actually financing a car that you get to keep, except that you don't get to possess anything for it. $700-$800 a month to "have a car available at any time", except with a lot of waiting as opposed to getting into your own car right away and driving it. I'm not afraid of the future, I'm afraid of it becoming more expensive and also more difficult.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

JasonF said:


> FSD will never reach 100% (and neither will any other self driving tech) because it can't do something that humans do easily: Play follow the leader.
> 
> When us humans are on an unfamiliar and confusing road, we fall back on watching what other drivers do and copying them. Computer Vision can kind of do that - but what it can't do yet is _selectively_ follow based on whether we believe what the driver in front of us is doing is safe. That's not the same as _legal_ - obviously even a computer can tell that a driver in front making an illegal u-turn onto a high-speed highway is dangerous. But if every car in front is driving on a median to avoid a crash, a computer wouldn't be able to apply the rules and determine that path is safe _enough_, while a human would, based on the fact that none of the other drivers doing it are suffering consequences. An automated pilot would just get stuck there behind the crash, determining that driving on the median violates the rules and isn't safe.
> 
> Driver automation systems are instead trained for different situations, one situation at a time, but accumulating millions of miles of experience. That will get them through _most_ situations, but there will be enough exceptions that people who distrust automated drivers in the first place will always point them out and say "See? This thing is dangerous!"


Exactly why I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime. Because Tesla wants to rely on vision only, then an AI needs to be used, and THAT isn't happening anytime soon.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> Exactly why I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime. Because Tesla wants to rely on vision only, then an AI needs to be used, and THAT isn't happening anytime soon.


See, I don't think the issue is with vision at all. I think it has a steeper learning curve, quite honestly because even humans tend to see things that aren't there sometimes. What makes us different from an AI in that case is, if we see a house appear in the middle of the road, it doesn't mean jam on the brakes and panic - it means we re-evaluate and look again because it makes no logical sense. There might _be_ a house in the middle of the road, but our logical skills give it the benefit of the doubt of "it's not supposed to be there". For humans that sometimes means a delay in reaction, but that delay is critical most of the time. Since we're told Computer Vision systems can re-evaluate much faster than a human can, the way we see it, there is no excuse for falling back on an immediate panic reaction.

By the way, that's what we call "Phantom Braking" with Autopilot.

The benefit to vision over lidar is that if it's done properly, it sees exactly what we do. That's important because lidar is invisible, meaning it can react to things that we can't see. In the long run that makes it undesirable as a multi-purpose system, though it's very good at being single-purpose (if you map out the route explicitly).

Of course the problem with all of these systems is what I said above - they will never be 100%. But in order for people not to be scared by them, in order for them not to become victims of legislation, legal liability, or insurance rates that are set by fear, they _have to be 100%_. They have to never, ever cause a crash or cause anyone to be hurt. That's the goal I don't think they will ever reach.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

bwilson4web said:


> The beta FSD handles lanes on streets without lane lines.


In my experience, it handles them somewhere between extremely poorly and downright dangerous.

In my area the car immediately goes to dead center between the curbs on unlined roads, and about 40% of the time it's in the opposing traffic lane. The pre-FSD-ß-ß did a MUCH better job of staying on the right side of unlined roads.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

JasonF said:


> See, I don't think the issue is with vision at all. I think it has a steeper learning curve, quite honestly because even humans tend to see things that aren't there sometimes. What makes us different from an AI in that case is, if we see a house appear in the middle of the road, it doesn't mean jam on the brakes and panic - it means we re-evaluate and look again because it makes no logical sense. There might _be_ a house in the middle of the road, but our logical skills give it the benefit of the doubt of "it's not supposed to be there". For humans that sometimes means a delay in reaction, but that delay is critical most of the time. Since we're told Computer Vision systems can re-evaluate much faster than a human can, the way we see it, there is no excuse for falling back on an immediate panic reaction.
> 
> By the way, that's what we call "Phantom Braking" with Autopilot.
> 
> ...


Thing is, they're not comparable. Radar/Lidar is hardware based while Vision is software based. Vision is nothing more than saying, we'll abstract expensive hardware for cheap cameras, and make all decisions based on software. BUT, the amount of software sophistication needed is tantamount to having a full fledged human AI.

In your own statement (as well as everyone else), Vision is constantly compared to a human's ability to see. Problem is that the software for Vision won't ever come to the capability of what controls human vision (the brain).


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

Klaus-rf said:


> In my experience, it handles them somewhere between extremely poorly and downright dangerous.
> 
> In my area the car immediately goes to dead center between the curbs on unlined roads, and about 40% of the time it's in the opposing traffic lane. The pre-FSD-ß-ß did a MUCH better job of staying on the right side of unlined roads.


When I drive on unmarked roads I also drive in the middle. When a car comes from the other direction then I retreat to my side of the road. Based on several YouTube videos I've seen, FSD does exactly that.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

francoisp said:


> When I drive on unmarked roads I also drive in the middle. When a car comes from the other direction then I retreat to my side of the road. Based on several YouTube videos I've seen FSD does exactly that.


Do you have examples of those videos. FSD seems to want to stay in the middle for far too long. Gets to the point that I always have to disengage it by jerking the wheel to the right so the oncoming driver doesn't think I'm trying to play a game of chicken.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> Radar/Lidar is hardware based while Vision is software based.


This is an inaccurate statement. The photons that illuminate the video CCD chips on a Tesla comes from whatever light source (the sun, the moon, a street light) that's providing it. A lidar provides its own illumination to capture an "image". Its biggest advantage is that the wavelength used to illuminate objects doesn't have to be visible light which means it's able to penetrate fog, snow and rain (up to a point). Both lidar and vision depend heavily on software to recognize objects. The difference is mainly where the software runs. On a Tesla car, the pattern recognition software is handled by its neural network and other processors. Cepton, a manufacturer of lidars that will be used in the upcoming GM EVs starting in 2023, performs pattern recognition on its lidar module using its firmware and provides the information to the car's UltraCruise software.



shareef777 said:


> Do you have examples of those videos. FSD seems to want to stay in the middle for far too long. Gets to the point that I always have to disengage it by jerking the wheel to the right so the oncoming driver doesn't think I'm trying to play a game of chicken.


There's a youtuber called Dirty Tesla and he sometimes starts filming his drives from home on a dirt road. And we can see how the car stays close to the middle until it encounters an incoming car and then it moves to the right to make room. Unfortunately I don't have a link to provide because that would be too time-consuming trying to locate one.


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

...


----------



## skygraff (Jun 2, 2017)

shareef777 said:


> Thing is, they're not comparable. Radar/Lidar is hardware based while Vision is software based. Vision is nothing more than saying, we'll abstract expensive hardware for cheap cameras, and make all decisions based on software. BUT, the amount of software sophistication needed is tantamount to having a full fledged human AI.
> 
> In your own statement (as well as everyone else), Vision is constantly compared to a human's ability to see. Problem is that the software for Vision won't ever come to the capability of what controls human vision (the brain).


Sensors are sensors, software still needs to interpret the data and determine actions.

Not defending vision only, but, Elon is correct in saying that the entire driving environment was constructed to be navigated by (human) vision (and hearing) alone. Other sensors are unnecessary even if they may prove beneficial; cost benefit analysis including, possibly, coding energy.

Now, while I never saw much enhancements like my forward radar supposedly sensing cars several vehicles ahead by bouncing under, I do recall some failures (me and reported by others) due to ice build up on the nose. So,no matter the sensor, FSD will need to ensure they’re unobstructed and have predictive persistence for momentary blind spots.

What’ll really swing things toward FSD dominance is when the majority of vehicles and traffic signals are communicating with each other to manage flow. Eventually, that’ll be so common that visible signals will be removed and manual driving will require in-cab displays of those invisible data points (preferably HUD). Classic cars will be limited to side streets or aftermarket display units.


----------



## Madmolecule (Oct 8, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> Thing is, they're not comparable. Radar/Lidar is hardware based while Vision is software based. Vision is nothing more than saying, we'll abstract expensive hardware for cheap cameras, and make all decisions based on software. BUT, the amount of software sophistication needed is tantamount to having a full fledged human AI.
> 
> In your own statement (as well as everyone else), Vision is constantly compared to a human's ability to see. Problem is that the software for Vision won't ever come to the capability of what controls human vision (the brain).


The speed required to react to a stimulus, requires your body to be reacting prior to your brain making the decision. From what I’ve read, your brain has more of ability to stop a reaction then to drive the reaction from a stimulus. With 30,000,000 miles of FSD driven, they still don’t have a valid data set, big data is not always big information. Even the best phone bot trying to sell you something and take your money, can easily be busted that it is a robot and not a human in the simplest of questions. What is the longest conversation you’ve ever had with a bot without realizing you were talking to a bot. Even if I go 10 seconds I feel like a fool. Automation is pretty good at replacing machines. Replacing humans is a whole other story. A big problem is we are all used to how a human drives a car


----------



## francoisp (Sep 28, 2018)

skygraff said:


> What’ll really swing things toward FSD dominance is when the majority of vehicles and traffic signals are communicating with each other to manage flow. Eventually, that’ll be so common that visible signals will be removed and manual driving will require in-cab displays of those invisible data points (preferably HUD). Classic cars will be limited to side streets or aftermarket display units.


As much as I like and agree with that, in America that kind of consensus won't come by easily. In China it's already happening.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> In your own statement (as well as everyone else), Vision is constantly compared to a human's ability to see. Problem is that the software for Vision won't ever come to the capability of what controls human vision (the brain).


That's a good comparison to use - because in order to drive successfully, FSD only needs to be about as smart as a horse. But in order to drive safely 100% of the time, it has to be smarter than an average human. That's a huge difference, which is why it will never reach 100%.


----------



## Ed Woodrick (May 26, 2018)

Wow, lots of people seem to be expecting what just doesn't exist at this time.

Tesla does not have FSD software at this time, the do have software that is in beta. They are selling a future product that may or may not get here. Everyone should realize this.

If you are expecting the car to drive itself, you really should just never request to be in the beta or turn it on. It just doesn't do it.

But do they have software out there does an amazing job at something that is extremely hard, yep they do. The software work for well over 99% of a journey. Sure, there is a number of cases in which it has problems. 


But then again, how many accidents and deaths happen every day from all of the human drivers?

I dare say that for everything the car does wrong today, I could go out and find a driver that does the same thing. That include stopping for shadows. Too many cars go down the Interstate and decide to slow down for no reason.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> Tesla does not have FSD software at this time, the do have software that is in beta. They are selling a future product that may or may not get here. Everyone should realize this.


I realize that. The hard part is that Elon Musk doesn't, and his belief that it will be complete any day now has virtually halted all future vehicle development at Tesla that doesn't dovetail with FSD (like a custom built self-driving taxi network).


----------



## Madmolecule (Oct 8, 2018)

Ed Woodrick said:


> Wow, lots of people seem to be expecting what just doesn't exist at this time.
> 
> Tesla does not have FSD software at this time, the do have software that is in beta. They are selling a future product that may or may not get here. Everyone should realize this.
> 
> ...


you are correct it does not exist, I am only expecting it because that is what I was sold. I don’t like being sold vaporware that never materializes. Maybe you do, I don’t

I purchased my 2018 Tesla model 3, with full self driving as a product. This was not the first vehicle I have purchased. I’ve also bought many vehicles that I was provided a “we owe” document for something I purchased that would be delivered later. I did not purchase a Kickstarter Fantasy. I was not donating money for Elon’s ego. Please name one other product or service that you’ve purchased in your lifetime that you were treated like this. I know of no other And certainly know other that finally came through with anything close to what they’ve delivered. It is not overzealous enthusiasm for completing a product, after four years it is blatant lies and a scam!! I might have a little bit of sympathy for Tesla, if they did not continue to perpetuate the lie, that all these great products will be released in a very short time. But they must stop the billion dollar BS.

Tesla does not have a Cybertruck (they do have my $100 for years)
Tesla does not have a semi
Tesla does not have a roadster (not flying with fart thrusters)
Tesla does not have a bot
Tesla does not have full self driving, as good as a human, that can work with vision only, on current hardware and sensors
Tesla does not have a robotaxi
Tesla does not have a $25,000 car because they refused to sell their $25,000 car without $25,000 of vaporware
Dojo does nothing for Tesla
smart summon does not work and will not park itself
autopark does not work
When Tesla says later this year it means nothing

Tesla keeps moving the goalposts of what FSD is. The software does not work for 99% Of my journey, or yours. I’m not allowed to use it even though I paid for it because my score is not high enough, but oddly I can drive the car that I purchased every day without a problem. Unless you are lying, your car did not drive 99% of the journey, You drove and managed the car with Beta FSD assist. You took 100% responsibility for the hardware and software. the driving of your car, the safety of others And your Tesla freed up 0 time for you to do other things while your car was allegedly driving.

I do think this is more of a job for the FTC, then a class action suit. What are the limits of claims you can make on a product you have sold?

I was also told since I was an early adopter, I would be provided a button that I can download the full self driving and other great features before everybody else, this was a lie


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Madmolecule said:


> you are correct it does not exist, I am only expecting it because that is what I was sold. I don’t like being sold vaporware that never materializes. Maybe you do, I don’t
> 
> I purchased my 2018 Tesla model 3, with full self driving as a product. This was not the first vehicle I have purchased. I’ve also bought many vehicles that I was provided a “we owe” document for something I purchased that would be delivered later. I did not purchase a Kickstarter Fantasy. I was not donating money for Elon’s ego. Please name one other product or service that you’ve purchased in your lifetime that you were treated like this. I know of no other And certainly know other that finally came through with anything close to what they’ve delivered. It is not overzealous enthusiasm for completing a product, after four years it is blatant lies and a scam!! I might have a little bit of sympathy for Tesla, if they did not continue to perpetuate the lie, that all these great products will be released in a very short time. But they must stop the billion dollar BS.
> 
> ...


There're lots of example like FSD. Just go on over to Patreon and you'll see. Plenty of "creators" there that slack off as soon as they have enough subscribers and only continue projects AFTER their supporters start to disappear. Problem is there're too many supporters of FSD so Tesla has no reason to change anything. Happens on Patreon A LOT.

This is essentially a Kickstarter/Patreon scam, without having to pay kickstarter/patreon a cut.


----------



## Madmolecule (Oct 8, 2018)

You might think this is fuzzy logic, but if it’s not software and it’s not firmware, it must be vaporware

I see Cadillac is actually paying early adopters of the Lyriq’s to have access to their data. Unlike Tesla, where I pay, I don’t get the product, I don’t get access to the beta, I give Tesla access to all my data for free. I did get a safety score, higher insurance and catquest.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

Madmolecule said:


> You might think this is fuzzy logic, but if it’s not software and it’s not firmware, it must be vaporware


Firmware _IS_ software.
Just sayin'!


----------



## Ed Woodrick (May 26, 2018)

What ever it is, it's doing a pretty good job of driving my car. If it's vaporware, send me more.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

Ed Woodrick said:


> What ever it is, it's doing a pretty good job of driving my car. If it's vaporware, send me more.


Theriein lies [one of the] problem(s).

1. TOTAL lack of consistency between different cars and, perhaps, different roads. in MY experience, it's STILL totqlly incapable of just getting out of my neighborhood without 5+ "interventions" in 1/2 mile. That's totally, easily repeatable.

2. The continued increasing unexplained phantom braking is DANGEROUS. And each new "release" of this Alpha-warre gets worse. Easily repeatable - just take a 2 mile drive to anywhere.

3. Redonculous, rendom lane changes are STILL a major issue - perhaps associated with the incorrect lane choices? Like insisting multiple times to get into the left lane for an upcoming RIGHT turn. Repeatable on ANY multi-lane road.

I could go on.

Do you not experience any of these issues (great features)??


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Ed Woodrick said:


> What ever it is, it's doing a pretty good job of driving my car. If it's vaporware, send me more.


You must have some pretty mundane roads and non-existent traffic. The only times I’ve EVER had FSD behave well is on a route that’s 90%+ a two lane divided and straight road and practically no other veichles around. It’s also at night when any type of Sun/glare can’t severely cripple the system.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Klaus-rf said:


> Theriein lies [one of the] problem(s).
> 
> 1. TOTAL lack of consistency between different cars and, perhaps, different roads. in MY experience, it's STILL totqlly incapable of just getting out of my neighborhood without 5+ "interventions" in 1/2 mile. That's totally, easily repeatable.
> 
> ...


OMG YES!!!

So ridiculous when it keeps changing lanes for absolutely no reason.

Even worse is the SINGLE route that FSD regularly manages fine still has it change to the right lane (no traffic around) after going miles in the left lane. And stays in the right lane till LITERALLY .1 miles before a left turn needs to be made!


----------

