Autodriver as in Autopilot :D

[Pawelk198604]

I wonder why let computer to pilot a plane or mars rover, yet scientist don't make working fully automated driver for a car?

Does driving is more difficult than piloting?

[R0cketC0der]

Yes, driving is more difficult than piloting. Unlike piloting, where there is just mostly air around you, you need to pay attention to a lot more things and a lot more rules. You need to know when someone is crossing the road, you need to pay attention to the speed limit, traffic lights, etc.

And by the way, google is making one. Just google "google car".

[dharak1]

The Mars rovers also move much more slowly than a normal car. It would be cool to have a rover leaving a huge dust trail doing 120 km/h on Mars though.

[magnemoe]

Google has had self driving cars driving around for years now.

Yes its a test so they have humans ready to take over, yes it includes cities. Army has test cars who work offroad

[MockKnizzle]

In locations where one would normally pilot a plane, or a spacecraft for that matter, there is quite a lot of nothing in all directions. This makes the task of obstacle recognition and avoidance rather simple (since there are none) and the computer just has to worry about keeping the craft flying straight and level. In locations where one would normally drive, there are many dynamic and highly unpredictable obstacles (read: other humans in cars) that the driver must avoid. The spatial awareness and planning necessary to not crash have until recently been beyond the realm of what machine intelligence could handle.

[Pds314]

I wonder why let computer to pilot a plane or mars rover, yet scientist don't make working fully automated driver for a car?

Does driving is more difficult than piloting?

Have you ever heard of Google's driverless cars?

[dbmorpher]

The major problem in driverless cars is not the computer but the other cars, humans are virtually unpredictable

[K^2]

What are you guys talking about? We've had cruise control on cars for decades now.

I mean, that is the appropriate comparison to a typical autopilot.

[magnemoe]

What are you guys talking about? We've had cruise control on cars for decades now.

I mean, that is the appropriate comparison to a typical autopilot.

Not exactly, an autopilot also control direction of travel and correct for error because of wind.

However an plane or boat autopilot is more like a cruise control than a robot car.

An Russian plane crashed because the pilot ignored a mountain then setting up the autopilot for decent to a airport.

Even some advanced fighter jet autopilots who enables flight in very low attitude is very simple in comparison, they probably mostly uses cruise missile software.

[Pds314]

But yes, the basic fact of the matter is that airplanes are easy to control once they are airborne.

In a car, you have to stick to a lane, turn at appropriate times, deal with unexpected objects in your way, and fit within some tight margins, that are simply painted lines on the ground.

In a plane, you have to set the throttle to whatever cruising throttle is and make sure it doesn't drift too far in one direction.

So a basic in-air autopilot for a plane looks something like:

if(autopilotButtonPressed){

autopilot=on;

while(autopilotButtonPressed){

}

}

while(autopilot=on){

if(altitude<desired altitude && AOA<maxAOA && Pitch<maxPitch){

PitchUp;

}

else{

PitchDown;

}

if(angularDifference(heading, TargetHeading)>maxDeviation){

BankTowardTargetHeading;

}

if(autopilotButtonPressed){

autopilot=off;

}

}

And if you added landing and takeoff, you could add something to listen to airtraffic control commands and to avoid mountains/trees/buildings. Point is, there aren't too many things to be worried about.

Now imagine what sort of stuff an autodriver for a car has to do?

-Maintain speed below(ish) the speed limit.

-Maintain appropriate distance between self and next car ahead, taking into account hills, weather conditions, and type and performance of each car.

-Make a gap for a driver trying to merge if reasonable to do so.

-Check other lane so that it can change lanes.

-Actually change lanes.

-Check surroundings for unpredictable dangers outside the road, such as animals, bikers, children and jaywalkers.

-Keep within its lane.

-Pass other drivers, while checking visibility, traction, other driver's behavior, gap size, corners, etc.

-Dodge unpredictable dangers, such as cars stopped in the middle of the road or breaking the law or animals, bikers, children and jaywalkers entering the road, or downed trees in the road or sections of road that have collapsed over a cliff or severe potholes or snow heaves or cars driving in the on-coming lane or fires on the road.

-Avoid rolling

-Make turns quickly but cautiously into the correct lane.

-Maintain correct lane on unmarked roads.

-Dodge and/or honk at oblivious drivers attempting to do something that will otherwise result in a collision with them.

-Maintain control if unintended hydroplaning occurs.

-Stop for gas/charge at optimal times.

-Pull over in a short span if out of gas/charge.

-Avoid low tree-branches and other objects which intersect the height of the car.

-Recognize the differences between hazard types such as people, animals, bikes, drivers, etc.

-Deal with aggressive cars attempting to actively harm it (road-ragers).

-Pull to the side of the road for emergency vehicles.

-Park

-Parallel park

-Back in.

-Pull over for police (recommended), alternatively, evade the police (not recommended).

-Stop appropriately at lights.

-Read signs on side of road to learn of increased likelihood of hazards or the necessity to stop or yield.

-Deal with trucks that have no working brakes and are in runaway.

-Deal with having no working brakes and being in runaway.

-Make life-or-death decisions for passengers and external potential victims if collision is unavoidable.

-"Deal with" people attempting to abuse its compassion by standing in front of it and making it stop in order to harm the passengers.

-Keep ride below certain acceleration thresholds for fragile cargo such as groceries.

-Other things that I probably haven't thought of.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Pds314

[Pds314]

An autopilot for a car would be similar in complexity to an "auto-low-altitude dogfighter and strike attack whilst evading AA and radar" for a plane.

[K^2]

Not exactly, an autopilot also control direction of travel and correct for error because of wind.

Yes, most commercial autopilots will have altitude and heading holds, besides the air speed hold. Though, on some planes, it's literally just a wing leveler + "cruise control". In either case, the principle of operation is the same as that of cruise control. You just have a few extra degrees of freedom it operates on.

[shynung]

Is it possible to implement something like that in a car? Something like a lane-following system that keeps a car from unintentionally veering off its lane? On a long freeway, after the cruise control kicked in, that's the only thing the driver does.

[Redjoker]

Is it possible to implement something like that in a car? Something like a lane-following system that keeps a car from unintentionally veering off its lane? On a long freeway, after the cruise control kicked in, that's the only thing the driver does.

You mean like this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/09/08/cadillac-super-cruise/2775495/

I also remember seeing in a video a while back about a 60's Ford or Chevy project using radar to do something similar.

[linkxsc]

Yes, most commercial autopilots will have altitude and heading holds, besides the air speed hold. Though, on some planes, it's literally just a wing leveler + "cruise control". In either case, the principle of operation is the same as that of cruise control. You just have a few extra degrees of freedom it operates on.

On the plane I took my initial flight lessons on (Cessna 182 I believe) its "autopilot" was a wing leveler/VOR homing system (VORs are beacons all around the country that are logged on maps, turn the system to the right frequency and itll tell you what direction you are from the beacon itself, then they do some stuff to figure out how far you are from them and stuff, but its all depressingly simple electronics) that since it didn't have a laser or radar altimeter, a pressure based one instead. If you set it to a certain altitude, the plane would climb and descend "randomly" following the pressure gradient. Actually was kinda nice because some of the mountains in NH the system will automatically bring you right up over them without input because of the pressure changes (though its a small plane, hands on the stick all the time)