What does issuing Air's OTA 2.8.9 say about Air's OTA 3.x.x?

[Buffalo Bob]

Please forgive me if this is a stupid question... I have heard talk about an eventual Air OTA 3.x.x release representing a significant software design shift, such that new UX capabilities could eventually be introduced to the Air. My expectations for that were never high, but it seems like Lucid jumping their OTA naming conventions to OTA 2.8.9 as quickly as they did has boxed them an OTA beginning with '3' sooner than later. Hence, my question... Is the first Air OTA of 3.x.x likely to represent a major design shift, or just another number in a long (and welcome) series of feature releases?

As much as I would love to see a major design shift open the door to new exciting capabilities, I would hate to see it reintroduce a number of transition-induced reliability issues.

As a side note... I am so happy to see responsibility for Lucid's current software 'situation' shift to the capable hands of Emad Dlala. Seeing his empassioned and brilliant work on the hardware side makes me a lot more optimistic about where we are heading on the software side.

 

[borski]

it seems like Lucid jumping their OTA naming conventions to OTA 2.8.9 as quickly as they did has boxed them an OTA beginning with '3' sooner than later.

That is incorrect. Lucid uses semantic versioning, so nothing is stopping a 2.9.*, 2.10.*, 2.11.*, 2.1087.*, etc.

As a side note... I am so happy to see responsibility for Lucid's current software 'situation' shift to the capable hands of Emad Dlala. Seeing his empassioned and brilliant work on the hardware side makes me a lot more optimistic about where we are heading on the software side.

Agreed.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

That is incorrect. Lucid uses semantic versioning, so nothing is stopping a 2.9.*, 2.10.*, 2.11.*, 2.1087.*, etc.

But, looking at Lucid's past numbering, including what they do with major feature releases, wouldn't your example represent a significant departure from past practice?

Also, you are not adressing the fundamental question...

 

[borski]

But, looking at Lucid's past numbering, including what they do with major feature releases, wouldn't your example represent a significant departure from past practice?

No. Semantic versioning is semantic versioning. Since Lucid uses semantic versioning, it would not represent a departure from past practice.

Also, you are not adressing the fundamental question...

I don't know the answer to that question. I do know the answer to the one I answered.

The only info I have on the other question is that 2.x was a major rewrite for the Air, and the way semantic versioning works is Major.Minor.Patch.

A 'patch' is backward compatible bug fixes.
A 'minor' update is adding functionality in a backward compatible manner.
A 'major' update is when you make incompatible API changes.

(as explained at the top of semver.org)

Even if Lucid doesn't follow semver religiously, I would imagine that a 3.x.y would represent a major update, which would mean something significant. Whether that's a new design is an open question; it certainly is a possibility.

I hope that helps, but that's all I know!

 

[Jwutt]

The next update coming soon is 2.8.16, and it’s another generic “With this update, we are improving the robustness and general functionality of the vehicle” patch, hence the .16 designation. I do wish Lucid provided details on the bugs they are addressing like they used to in the patch notes, but that appears to have ended after the 2.8 minor update that included new functionality for DDPro in August of this year.

 

[borski]

The next update coming soon is 2.8.16, and it’s another generic “With this update, we are improving the robustness and general functionality of the vehicle” patch, hence the .16 designation. I do wish Lucid provided details on the bugs they are addressing like they used to in the patch notes, but that appears to have ended after the 2.8 minor update that included new functionality for DDPro in August of this year.

They have better release notes for features, but bug fixes and the like are usually sparse like this

 

[NLH]

Looks like the rollout of 2.8.9 has been stopped. Still on 2.8.5 and never received 2.8.7 (luckily)

 

[Jwutt]

They have better release notes for features, but bug fixes and the like are usually sparse like this

If you look at https://www.lucidupdates.com/ota-updates.html, the patch notes were far more detailed in May 2025 and earlier and now no longer include any information at all. I wish Lucid would return to that prior practice.

 

[NLH]

If you look at https://www.lucidupdates.com/ota-updates.html, the patch notes were far more detailed in May 2025 and earlier and now no longer include any information at all. I wish Lucid would return to that prior practice.

So 2.8.16 is on the way