|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by Lewis Mammel on October 18, 2005, 2:08 am
Please log in for more thread options
Brian Dean wrote:
> Would I do it again? Not a competition exactly like that, but maybe
> something similar in that it is in a field that is of interest to me
> and the nature of the event is interesting itself. The GC was
> interesting in part because it was so crazy to think anyone could
> create a fully autonomous ground vehicle that could successfully
> navigate 140 miles through an unknown rugged off-road region at useful
> speeds. That had never been done before, which was part of its appeal
> to me.
I think this characterization is a little misleading, considering
the precisely specified GPS course laid out. GPS was really the
sine qua non of the whole venture.
This is not to belittle the achievement, but I think some of the
exultations of success ( which attracted my attention ) were
overblown. This was being touted as an AI breakthrough, but consider
this from the "The Tartan" on the CMU "Red Team(s)" :
While there is an extensive amount of attention to hardware,
“[the] most powerful technology is preplanning the curves in
the hours or so before the race when the route is revealed,”
Whittaker said. “We compute the terrain and the details of
where we’re going to drive and how fast we’re going to drive,
and that is definitely the thinking part of the race.
"definitely the thinking part of the race ..." Compare and contrast
the humble bee, plunging into the UNKNOWN, sans GPS, sans LIDAR, with
only its vision and its ever so tiny brain to rely upon.
Some say that unto bees a share is given
Of the Divine Intelligence ...
- Virgil
Lew Mammel, Jr.
|
|
Posted by Padu on October 18, 2005, 2:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options
"Lewis Mammel"
> Brian Dean wrote:
>> Would I do it again? Not a competition exactly like that, but maybe
>> something similar in that it is in a field that is of interest to me
>> and the nature of the event is interesting itself. The GC was
>> interesting in part because it was so crazy to think anyone could
>> create a fully autonomous ground vehicle that could successfully
>> navigate 140 miles through an unknown rugged off-road region at useful
>> speeds. That had never been done before, which was part of its appeal
>> to me.
>
> I think this characterization is a little misleading, considering
> the precisely specified GPS course laid out. GPS was really the
> sine qua non of the whole venture.
<snip>
Much has been said here lately on this subject. I agree that GPS was one of
the most utilized sensors in the competition, but so it was last year and
results were very different (although I also agree that this year the route
was a little bit simpler than last year's). For the sake of robotics field,
it would be nice to see vehicles with more intelligent vision systems, and I
deeply believe that the real intelligence is in vision.
But look at the two other points of view:
1) DARPA has a very concrete goal in mind. Given a convoy of trucks that
must deliver supplies from Bagda to Basra, make the trucks completely
autonomous. GPS will most likely be available (and military GPS is less
succeptible to jamming), aerial photography will most likely be available
(and military aerial photography has much better resolution than the ones
available to CMU or any other team for example). Roads will probably be even
better that the ones we saw at the GC. So, in DARPA's point of view the
event was really a success. For us half assed scientists (or the eventual
full assed ones 8^) ) it was not enough. Of course I wanted to see a course
with mud, snow, climbs, descents, forests and what not... but I don't think
that's really pragmatic.
2) Although human vision system still cannot be compared with machine
vision, for a course like the GC, we would also need a GPS or at least a
map. Although most of navigation was done using GPS, there was collision
avoidance present in all vehicles, and we were able to see a demonstration
of it on the NQE.
Writing this second view, one question raised on my mind. I believe that
according to the course DARPA chose, it was possible to two vehicles to be
on the same road on opposite directions. How road sharing was managed when
vehicles were about to cross each other? If such thing happened and both
vehicles were allowed to be in movement, I take my hat out for them. Such
capability is fundamental for real world autonomous navigation.
Padu
|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on October 18, 2005, 4:46 pm
Please log in for more thread options Padu wrote:
> "Lewis Mammel"
>> Brian Dean wrote:
>>> Would I do it again? Not a competition exactly like that, but maybe
>>> something similar in that it is in a field that is of interest to me
>>> and the nature of the event is interesting itself. The GC was
>>> interesting in part because it was so crazy to think anyone could
>>> create a fully autonomous ground vehicle that could successfully
>>> navigate 140 miles through an unknown rugged off-road region at useful
>>> speeds. That had never been done before, which was part of its appeal
>>> to me.
>>
>> I think this characterization is a little misleading, considering
>> the precisely specified GPS course laid out. GPS was really the
>> sine qua non of the whole venture.
> <snip>
>
>
> Much has been said here lately on this subject. I agree that GPS was one
> of the most utilized sensors in the competition, but so it was last year
> and results were very different (although I also agree that this year the
> route was a little bit simpler than last year's). For the sake of robotics
> field, it would be nice to see vehicles with more intelligent vision
> systems, and I deeply believe that the real intelligence is in vision.
>
> But look at the two other points of view:
>
> 1) DARPA has a very concrete goal in mind. Given a convoy of trucks that
> must deliver supplies from Bagda to Basra, make the trucks completely
> autonomous. GPS will most likely be available (and military GPS is less
> succeptible to jamming), aerial photography will most likely be available
> (and military aerial photography has much better resolution than the ones
> available to CMU or any other team for example). Roads will probably be
> even better that the ones we saw at the GC. So, in DARPA's point of view
> the event was really a success. For us half assed scientists (or the
> eventual full assed ones 8^) ) it was not enough. Of course I wanted to
> see a course with mud, snow, climbs, descents, forests and what not... but
> I don't think that's really pragmatic.
>
> 2) Although human vision system still cannot be compared with machine
> vision, for a course like the GC, we would also need a GPS or at least a
> map. Although most of navigation was done using GPS, there was collision
> avoidance present in all vehicles, and we were able to see a demonstration
> of it on the NQE.
>
> Writing this second view, one question raised on my mind. I believe that
> according to the course DARPA chose, it was possible to two vehicles to be
> on the same road on opposite directions. How road sharing was managed when
> vehicles were about to cross each other? If such thing happened and both
> vehicles were allowed to be in movement, I take my hat out for them. Such
> capability is fundamental for real world autonomous navigation.
I wonder about the utility of autonomous truck convoys to the military
though. For the foreseeable future they're still going to need human
guards of some kind. I think the utility for an autonomous device would be
more in the nature of a recon or weapons delivery platform--something that
goes in harm's way in lieu of a human.
>
> Padu
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|
Posted by newtype on October 18, 2005, 11:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> "Lewis Mammel"
>> Brian Dean wrote:
>>> Would I do it again? Not a competition exactly like that, but maybe
> Much has been said here lately on this subject. I agree that GPS was one
> of the most utilized sensors in the competition, but so it was last year
> and results were very different ...
Your forgetting GPS data was a requirement last year and this year.
A CD was given out with GPS data and you had to pass over the GPS points,
at the required speed for that GPS data point.
> For the sake of robotics field, it would be nice to see vehicles with
> more intelligent vision systems, and I deeply believe that the real
> intelligence is in vision.
You can see in the dark, unless you use ultrasonic, FLIR? SONAR? SAR?
Light seeable edge detection is not that easy and how are you
going to see a water puddle or pond? that water puddle cause
a car to wreck itself last year. What about driving in a sand storm,
or fog when you can't see 1 ft. in front of you, heavy rain?
I'm not clear about your definition of intelligent vision.
thanks
|
|
Posted by J. Clarke on October 18, 2005, 11:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options newtype wrote:
>
>> "Lewis Mammel"
>>> Brian Dean wrote:
>>>> Would I do it again? Not a competition exactly like that, but maybe
>
>> Much has been said here lately on this subject. I agree that GPS was one
>> of the most utilized sensors in the competition, but so it was last year
>> and results were very different ...
>
> Your forgetting GPS data was a requirement last year and this year.
> A CD was given out with GPS data and you had to pass over the GPS points,
> at the required speed for that GPS data point.
>
>
>> For the sake of robotics field, it would be nice to see vehicles with
>> more intelligent vision systems, and I deeply believe that the real
>> intelligence is in vision.
>
> You can see in the dark, unless you use ultrasonic, FLIR? SONAR? SAR?
Starlight scope.
> Light seeable edge detection is not that easy
Which is one of the reasons that vision is the real challenge.
> and how are you
> going to see a water puddle or pond?
Another reason it's the real challenge.
> that water puddle cause
> a car to wreck itself last year. What about driving in a sand storm,
> or fog when you can't see 1 ft. in front of you, heavy rain?
Then you use alternative sensors. Just remember, though, on the modern
battlefield he who radiates is lost.
> I'm not clear about your definition of intelligent vision.
>
> thanks
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | DARPA Grand Challenge will be on UK TV. | October 22, 2006, 2:19 pm |
| "grand challenge for the moon" ? | December 5, 2005, 2:20 pm |
| CMU wins the DARPA Urban Challenge | November 4, 2007, 7:46 pm |
| Darpa challenge qualifying round schedule.......??? | September 29, 2005, 11:01 pm |
| DARPA Urban Challenge for Autonomous Vechicles | June 24, 2006, 9:46 am |
| Who's working on the DARPA Little Dog project | July 17, 2006, 10:50 pm |
| Re: DARPA GC Killing Robotics | May 21, 2007, 3:35 am |
| Any San Diego area DARPA people? | May 22, 2006, 4:28 pm |
| DARPA legged robot competition | June 24, 2006, 11:57 pm |
| Re: Darpa legged robot competition | June 25, 2006, 2:21 am |
|
|
|
XML site map
> something similar in that it is in a field that is of interest to me
> and the nature of the event is interesting itself. The GC was
> interesting in part because it was so crazy to think anyone could
> create a fully autonomous ground vehicle that could successfully
> navigate 140 miles through an unknown rugged off-road region at useful
> speeds. That had never been done before, which was part of its appeal
> to me.