|
The answer to your question is automotive software is generally incredibly complex and poorly structured. NASA's full report on the Toyota unintended acceleration in the 2000s slammed Toyota for such poor software design and architecture that they (NASA's software engineers) couldn't say for certainty that Toyota's software wasn't causing unintended accelerations.
In addition, it appears automakers have used techniques out of the 60s for their control software. Techniques such as timing loops that can't be ported to newer, faster hardware; no abstraction of hardware layers; etc. This became apparent last year when the CEO of Intel Corp. chastised the auto industry for wanting the integrated circuit industry to reopen foundries for 20 year old chip technology. Tesla and other EV startups appear to have avoided this issue by using modern software design techniques so that when one chip became hard to get they were able to switch to other chips to continue manufacturing.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen.
Probably the best-designed part of the software is the entertainment deck, which typically runs Android.
The actual control software for the car is a cluster-![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Probably the best-designed part of the software is the entertainment deck, which typically runs Android.
That says a lot
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that @den2k88 works on this type of software, but I don't know if he'd be willing to tell tales out of school.
|
|
|
|
|
Things evolved. Mostly from 2005 onwards, thanks to self promoted commitees like GENIVI and the ISO26262 regulations. AutoSAR also added some layer of standardization, though its drawbacks are heavy and I can't speak openly of them.
obermd wrote: modern software design techniques so that when one chip became hard to get they were able to switch to other chips to continue manufacturing.
It's a half hoax. Model based design has a single software suite on the market produced by a monopolits company whose name starts with Math and ends with Works. They overcharge their licenses and the courses (3 day lesson for 2 people is over 25k€) and it can elegantly abstract the control parts of the vehicle (PI control, retroaction loops) but not the application part (i.e. diagnostic protocols like UDS and customer dependent behaviors) and definitely not the hardware part - all the drivers are supplied by the manifacturer but the HAL must be written manually to ensure compatibility with the model. And the generated code is significantly bigger and slower, which is an issue in a market where most ECUs are 40 Mhz processors with 64kB of flash memory and 3 to 6 kB of RAM.
Tesla and other EV startups are marketing towards very high prices anyway so they will use more integrated (and proprietary) logic with more powerful ECUs... with the underlying issue that ECUs are active even when the car is off, and more powerful logic consumes more power than less powerful logic.
obermd wrote: This became apparent last year when the CEO of Intel Corp. chastised the auto industry for wanting the integrated circuit industry to reopen foundries for 20 year old chip technology
Mosti automotive components must work from -40°C to 155°C, they must be EMI compliant and automotive safe. They have to be validated (and automotive validation is second only to biomedical as for anal retentiveness) and certified as safe. Many manifacturers will prefer something that works for sure rather than something shinier, better, bigger that kills a dozen people. Wether you're driving an EV or an ICE, you're placing your ass on what's essentially a bomb with a carefully controlled energy dispersion. Don't mess with that control.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Mosti automotive components must work from -40°C to 155°C, they must be EMI compliant and automotive safe. They have to be validated (and automotive validation is second only to biomedical as for anal retentiveness) and certified as safe. Many manifacturers will prefer something that works for sure rather than something shinier, better, bigger that kills a dozen people. Wether you're driving an EV or an ICE, you're placing your ass on what's essentially a bomb with a carefully controlled energy dispersion. Don't mess with that control.
I did a little research - SpaceX uses three dual core x86 processors in the Falcon 9. These off the shelf processors handle radiation (via redundancy) and temperature swings from -150C to +150C. The legacy automotive industry is in serious denial about modern processors.
|
|
|
|
|
Or adding 50-100$ (minimum, consider that printing PCBs is costly and scales with the size of the PCB, which scales with the components used) of cost for everyone of the 50-150 ECUs on a car will inflates its price so much it becomes unmarketable at all. SpaceX is a billionaire pet project with high costs for every unit produced, comparing it with a mass market industry is definitely inadequate.
Engineers: balancing time constraints, safety, functionalities and costs since the dawn of time.
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: is automotive software is generally incredibly complex and poorly structured.
Well thank god that doesn't happen in every other industry. For example what would be the state of things if banks were still using COBOL code.
obermd wrote: Techniques such as timing loops that can't be ported to newer, faster hardware; no abstraction of hardware layers; etc.
Yet another thing that no other industry ever does. Be a real shame if every industry didn't plan for every new and unknown technology innovation coming in future years. And certainly CEOs and CFOs are so willing to provide that extra budget to provide for all of that.
|
|
|
|
|
CalinNegru wrote: My guess is that it`s sensors recording the gas formula but are the sensors always on,
Yes.
CalinNegru wrote: like does the driver get a real time display of the recoded result as he is driving the car?
Sorta. "Engine trouble" light going on and car refusing to start are technically realt time display.
CalinNegru wrote: To my mind all engines found inside same model cars produce exhaust in the same amount and of the same (chemical) formula if subjected to identical conditions.
Conditions is the keyword: age, cleanliness of the fuel system, quality of the fuel used, wear and tear, driving style (which isn't as simplified as sportive, eco, family. Many things impact fuel economy and exhaust). Also engine control mostly balances air and fuel to go as lean as possible, depending on what's asked from the driver, air pressure, humidity and temperature.
CalinNegru wrote: My question is there a centralized operation system behind that manages all of it?
No*. Every single ECU is independent from the others and communicates through one or more communication buses: for ECU working in the car's logic (i.e. instrument panel, pedals, lighs, tow-rope) they're usually CAN lines, for small actuators on the periphery of the car's logic (i.e. electric windshields, engine cooling fan, oil pumps) it's usually a single LIN line if not just a PWM signal, which is piloted by a more complete ECU.
*All these systems are managed by the BCM, aka body computer, which is the main intelligence in the car that controls the overall behavior of the car. Many functions are now replicated on the IPC (instrumentation panle) for redundancy. The actual topologies vary from platform to platform and are trade secrets.
CalinNegru wrote: Then there is of course the question of Tesla cars which have an even higher number of sensors
Where does this information come from? Electrical vehicles have a lot less parts than a ICE vehicle, and the ADAS systems on a Tesla are only marginally better than those of high end cars (talking about Audi level, not even luxury cars). As far as I know Tesla cars are simpler but have more integrated software and more intelligent peripherals, discharging a lot of load from the BCM. But they can do it: they produce all their components in house. There are no "compatible vendors" and no "off-the-shelf" components - it's all extremely proprietary and they're pushing to forbid drivers from opening their cars' hoods (unverified, I have a video in my waiting list to check out on the topic but I still haven't).
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Just got this email:
Dear Friend, good day,
I apologise for invading your privacy, especially by contacting you through this means. I am Martial Douti, an attorney by profession here in the Republic of Togo. I have a Business Proposal of nine million eight hundred thousand dollars for you to handle.
Please contact me for more information if this interests you.
Regards,
Martial Douti, esq
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martial Douti?
Isn’t he the cousin of Nigerian prince Buchi Olawale? Go for it! Those guys are connected!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe he can teach you something about martial arts too!
|
|
|
|
|
I use Gmail exclusively for my personal email, and I have never received this type of email before. I have heard of this and read about them many times on this site and other place, but never received one using Gmail.
Just an observation.
Anyhow, its funny that this kind of email scam is still being pursued. I wonder how one gets on their "mailing list".
Take the money and run!! Take The Money And Run - YouTube[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere that these scams are deliberately full of red flags in order to weed out people that can see through the BS - they'd rather not waste their time with them so they're casting a huge net with deliberate dumbstupid to try and rope in only the most gullible saps they can find. It's actually sort of devious.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should have saved it, but I actually got one of these in snail mail (US Postal Service).
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. Considering they have to pay actual money for that I wonder where it came from.
|
|
|
|
|
I know a couple of guys who call themselves Rich, but actually, Dick is a much more common form. I guess those Richs I know don't want to be associated with other meanings of 'dick'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to have far less ships than MarineTraffic.com[^].
I've been running an AIS receiver feeding data to MarineTraffic (and aishub.net) for the past 10 years.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: I've been running an AIS receiver feeding data to MarineTraffic (and aishub.net) for the past 10 years.
Great, then you should have no problem determining which vessel classification is being tracked on the map. 
|
|
|
|
|
Seem to be only military/Coast Guard vessels but the URL suggests it's from 2013. Not sure I get it.
Tracking military ships is notoriously difficult as they turn off the AIS and go dark. At least they have good reasons to. Other ships do it for far more nefarious reasons.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: Seem to be only military/Coast Guard vessels
To me, it looks like anything but rowboats are included ... If there exists a rowboat with an AIS transmitter, I guess it is included as well, probably in the "Pleasure Craft" category.
Some of those "Pleasure Craft" vessels does not look like dead serious entries, judged by the AIS information they supply! Seems like the only requirement for transmitting AIS signals is that you can afford the transmitter. No formal requirements. If there are any at all, they must be extremely loose. It takes a lot more to obtain a CB or VHF license!
|
|
|
|
|
Here in Canada you would get slapped with a hefty fine if you try to operate a VHF transmitter without proper license. And yes, they do monitor the frequency spectrum. Don't ask how I know that
SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea Conventions) requires all ships of over 300 tonnes to have an AIS. Smaller crafts can have it but it's not required. In principle, once you have your VHF license you can install an AIS without much fuss.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
