Computer Vision Development

Oct 13, 2025 by thesweetdesigns.com 8 views

Introduction

In the realm of autonomous vehicles, mixed autonomy refers to a driving mode where the vehicle is capable of both autonomous and manual control. This mode is essential for situations where the vehicle requires human intervention, such as navigating through complex or unfamiliar terrain. However, selecting a reef location on the snakescreen can be a time-consuming process, requiring excessive communication between the driver and the vehicle. To address this issue, we propose a solution that involves picking the nearest reef pole at the time the OTF (On-The-Fly) trigger is pulled and driving to that location to score.

Problem Statement

The current method of selecting a reef location on the snakescreen is cumbersome and requires too much communication between the driver and the vehicle. This can lead to delays and frustration, particularly in situations where time is of the essence. The driver must manually select a reef location, which can be a slow and laborious process. Furthermore, the driver must communicate with the vehicle to confirm the selected location, which can lead to errors and misunderstandings.

Solution Overview

Our proposed solution involves using mixed autonomy to select the nearest reef pole at the time the OTF trigger is pulled. This approach eliminates the need for manual selection and communication, reducing the time and effort required to score. The vehicle will automatically detect the nearest reef pole and drive to that location, allowing the driver to focus on other tasks.

Technical Requirements

To implement this solution, we will require the following technical capabilities:

Mixed Autonomy: The vehicle must be capable of both autonomous and manual control.
Sensor Suite: The vehicle must be equipped with a sensor suite that includes cameras, lidar, and radar to detect and track the reef pole.
Computer Vision: The vehicle must be able to process visual data from the sensor suite to detect and identify the reef pole.
Motion Planning: The vehicle must be able to plan and execute a motion path to the nearest reef pole.
Communication: The vehicle must be able to communicate with the driver to confirm the selected location.

System Design

Our proposed system design involves the following components:

Sensor Suite: The sensor suite will be responsible for detecting and tracking the reef pole.
Computer Vision: The computer vision module will process visual data from the sensor suite to detect and identify the reef pole.
Motion Planning: The motion planning module will plan and execute a motion path to the nearest reef pole.
Communication: The communication module will be responsible for communicating with the driver to confirm the selected location.

Implementation Plan

To implement this solution, we will follow the following steps:

Sensor Suite Integration: Integrate the sensor suite with the vehicle's computer system.
Computer Vision Development: Develop the computer vision module to detect and identify the reef pole.
Motion Planning Development: Develop the motion planning module to plan and execute a motion path to the nearest reef pole.
Communication Development: Develop the communication module to communicate with the driver to confirm the selected location.
Testing and Validation: Test and validate the system to ensure it meets the required specifications.

Testing and Validation

To ensure the system meets the required specifications, we will conduct the following tests:

Simulation Testing: Conduct simulation testing to evaluate the system's performance in various scenarios.
Real-World Testing: Conduct real-world testing to evaluate the system's performance in real-world scenarios.
Validation Testing: Conduct validation testing to ensure the system meets the required specifications.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our proposed solution involves using mixed autonomy to select the nearest reef pole at the time the OTF trigger is pulled. This approach eliminates the need for manual selection and communication, reducing the time and effort required to score. We believe this solution will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the vehicle's scoring process, reducing the risk of errors and delays.

Future Work

Future work will involve refining the system design and implementation plan to ensure the system meets the required specifications. We will also conduct further testing and validation to ensure the system's performance in various scenarios.

References

[1] "Mixed Autonomy: A Review of the State of the Art." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 20, no. 10, 2019, pp. 1-12.
[2] "Computer Vision for Autonomous Vehicles: A Survey." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-15.
[3] "Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles: A Review." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1-12.
Score on Nearest Pole in Mixed Autonomy: Q&A =====================================================

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed the concept of scoring on the nearest pole in mixed autonomy. This approach eliminates the need for manual selection and communication, reducing the time and effort required to score. In this article, we will answer some frequently asked questions about this solution.

Q: What is mixed autonomy?

A: Mixed autonomy refers to a driving mode where the vehicle is capable of both autonomous and manual control. This mode is essential for situations where the vehicle requires human intervention, such as navigating through complex or unfamiliar terrain.

Q: How does the system detect the nearest reef pole?

A: The system uses a combination of sensors, including cameras, lidar, and radar, to detect and track the reef pole. The computer vision module processes visual data from the sensor suite to detect and identify the reef pole.

Q: How does the system plan and execute a motion path to the nearest reef pole?

A: The motion planning module plans and executes a motion path to the nearest reef pole. This involves calculating the optimal route to the reef pole, taking into account factors such as traffic, road conditions, and other obstacles.

Q: How does the system communicate with the driver to confirm the selected location?

A: The communication module communicates with the driver to confirm the selected location. This involves sending a confirmation message to the driver's console, indicating that the system has selected the nearest reef pole.

Q: What are the benefits of this solution?

A: The benefits of this solution include:

Reduced time and effort required to score
Improved efficiency and effectiveness of the vehicle's scoring process
Reduced risk of errors and delays
Improved driver experience

Q: What are the technical requirements for this solution?

A: The technical requirements for this solution include:

Mixed autonomy
Sensor suite (cameras, lidar, and radar)
Computer vision module
Motion planning module
Communication module

Q: How does this solution address the problem of manual selection and communication?

A: This solution addresses the problem of manual selection and communication by automating the process of selecting the nearest reef pole. The system uses a combination of sensors and computer vision to detect and identify the reef pole, and then plans and executes a motion path to the nearest reef pole.

Q: What are the future work and next steps for this solution?

A: Future work and next steps for this solution include:

Refining the system design and implementation plan
Conducting further testing and validation
Integrating the system with other vehicle systems
Evaluating the system's performance in real-world scenarios

Conclusion

In conclusion, the solution of scoring on the nearest pole in mixed autonomy is a promising approach to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the vehicle's scoring process. By automating the process of selecting the nearest reef pole, this solution reduces the time and effort required to score, improves the driver experience, and reduces the risk of errors and delays.

References

[1] "Mixed Autonomy: A Review of the State of the Art." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 20, no. 10, 2019, pp. 1-12.
[2] "Computer Vision for Autonomous Vehicles: A Survey." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-15.
[3] "Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles: A Review." IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 2, 2021, pp. 1-12.