Anyone else kind of sick of the Gravity negative posts?

[tarator]

FWIW I think Lucid is clearly, like Tesla, an SDV company so IMHO their vehicles are not going to be great choices for people who just want stuff to stay the same.

It seems many of the SDV companies are using the fact that software can be upgraded as an excuse to deliver low-quality software. Lucid, as well as Tesla to some extent are certainly doing that.

 

[ilyabu]

It seems many of the SDV companies are using the fact that software can be upgraded as an excuse to deliver low-quality software. Lucid, as well as Tesla to some extent are certainly doing that.

Maybe. And yes the SW on the Gravity had MANY bugs at delivery. But there are also inherent limitations in SW testing; scale is everything so there is a reality that some bugs just won't be found until there is a significant volume of vehicles being used every day.

 

[TahoeMichael]

You're riding this horse way too hard. Yes, there have been some complaints about receiving only one key fob, especially from Dream owners who were told they would get two.

In the first place, complaints about the number of key fobs have been a minor presence in the larger landscape of early problems.

There are many multi-driver households with multiple cars in which each driver wants to keep a key on their own keyring so that another driver doesn't inadvertently forget to leave the sole key behind when leaving home in another car. I've had this happen when my partner went somewhere in our Air but forgot to put the Gravity fob back in the place we normally keep it. And the early issues with key cards not working reliably and no PAAK yet available did not help.

But has it ever occurred to you that this is about more than just a missing key fob. It's reflective of a company that began delivering very expensive cars without having their procurement lines for key (no pun intended) components yet nailed down. We saw the same thing with the confusion Lucid sowed when they could not procure enough HUDs for initial production and had to rejigger the contents of the Technology Package that many customers had ordered. And again when they had to divert much of early production to Saudi Arabia because of unspecified issues with stepping up the voltage for U.S. Gravities to use Superchargers, followed by reports of rear drive unit failures (which may or may not have been related).

Complaints about one fobs are also a product of linking driver profiles to the fob. I've had cars where the fob you used didn't matter, often because there were no profiles at all. But if you're going to integrate profiles with fobs, then it's natural for people to want one fob per driver in the household. Of course that will change when phone keys become a thing, but who knows when that will happen.

 

[tarator]

Maybe. And yes the SW on the Gravity had MANY bugs at delivery. But there are also inherent limitations in SW testing; scale is everything so there is a reality that some bugs just won't be found until there is a significant volume of vehicles being used every day.

While I agree that some bugs are hard to reproduce, the sheer amount of bugs in Lucid software show that's not the case here. The best way to fix bugs is to make sure they don't exist in the first place. It doesn't seem that Lucid is using any standard techniques for quality software development.

As an example, I'll mention the bug that somebody reported that their car randomly switches from "hold", to "rolling". How can anything like this happen in properly written software?

 

[ilyabu]

While I agree that some bugs are hard to reproduce, the sheer amount of bugs in Lucid software show that's not the case here. The best way to fix bugs is to make sure they don't exist in the first place. It doesn't seem that Lucid is using any standard techniques for quality software development.

As an example, I'll mention the bug that somebody reported that their car randomly switches from "hold", to "rolling". How can anything like this happen in properly written software?

Respectfully, as someone who has worked on SW for ~35 years, there is no way to make sure ALL bugs don't exist in the first place. There will always be SOME bugs which will only be found with scale usage. Did the Gravity ship with too many bugs? Yes that seems clear, and seems like the release was indeed rushed. But expecting 0 bugs is just not realistic.

FWIW my hypothesis is that Lucid faced a much bigger challenge than they anticipated in using QNX as a base OS and then (reportedly) another OS (Android?) using the QNX Hypervisor model for infotainment. The Hypervisor approach can be very challenging in many ways in my experience.

 

[eelpout]

FWIW my hypothesis is that Lucid faced a much bigger challenge than they anticipated in using QNX as a base OS and then (reportedly) another OS (Android?) using the QNX Hypervisor model for infotainment. The Hypervisor approach can be very challenging in many ways in my experience.

yes, they are using Android on top of the QNX Hypervisor for user facing stuff.

 

[borski]

The best way to fix bugs is to make sure they don't exist in the first place.

Also the best way to fix cancer. But sometimes cancer shows up despite one’s best efforts.

It doesn't seem that Lucid is using any standard techniques for quality software development.

Based on… ?

As an example, I'll mention the bug that somebody reported that their car randomly switches from "hold", to "rolling". How can anything like this happen in properly written software?

Race conditions can happen. Concurrency mistakes can occur. Perhaps a configuration rolled back because it was corrupted somehow, and a prior version was safer than a potentially corrupted version. (Of course it should tell you that if that’s the case)

I don’t know, I made all of that up. But all of those are possible reasons a flag could change.

 

[tarator]

Also the best way to fix cancer. But sometimes cancer shows up despite one’s best efforts.


Based on… ?


Race conditions can happen. Concurrency mistakes can occur. Perhaps a configuration rolled back because it was corrupted somehow, and a prior version was safer than a potentially corrupted version. (Of course it should tell you that if that’s the case)

I don’t know, I made all of that up. But all of those are possible reasons a flag could change.

Based on my, and other people's experience here. I have on idea why you think mentioning terms like "race conditions" and "concurrency" makes sense. I mean, I know what they mean, but I doubt most people here do. The likely reason for that particular bug is different, but there is no point discussing things like that here.

The facts are that Lucid doesn't do proper software engineering. Maybe that approach works for web development, but not for cars. And, now thinking, I don't remember seeing that many bugs on websites either. I guess Lucid is worse than that.

 

[tarator]

Respectfully, as someone who has worked on SW for ~35 years, there is no way to make sure ALL bugs don't exist in the first place. There will always be SOME bugs which will only be found with scale usage. Did the Gravity ship with too many bugs? Yes that seems clear, and seems like the release was indeed rushed. But expecting 0 bugs is just not realistic.

FWIW my hypothesis is that Lucid faced a much bigger challenge than they anticipated in using QNX as a base OS and then (reportedly) another OS (Android?) using the QNX Hypervisor model for infotainment. The Hypervisor approach can be very challenging in many ways in my experience.

Respectfully, as someone who has workin on SW for ~30 years, there is a way to prevent MOST of the bugs before the software even goes to QA. We are not talking about SOME bugs here, we are talking about many, many, many bugs, most of them randomly showing up for some but not all users.

I personally don't see what might be challenging in using virtual machines and containers, but I haven't used QNX either, so I won't comment on that. In my completely humble opinion, QNX is overkill, obsolete, and can only cause problems. But last time I've seen QNX was more than 25 years ago (the one floppy disk demo).

 

[RandomDesign]

Respectfully, as someone who has workin on SW for ~30 years, there is a way to prevent MOST of the bugs before the software even goes to QA. We are not talking about SOME bugs here, we are talking about many, many, many bugs, most of them randomly showing up for some but not all users.

I personally don't see what might be challenging in using virtual machines and containers, but I haven't used QNX either, so I won't comment on that. In my completely humble opinion, QNX is overkill, obsolete, and can only cause problems. But last time I've seen QNX was more than 25 years ago (the one floppy disk demo).

QNX is used in a ton of vehicles and is hardly obsolete. Mercedes, BMW, Ford, GM and a bunch of others, even Tesla used it at one point.

 

[tarator]

QNX is used in a ton of vehicles and is hardly obsolete. Mercedes, BMW, Ford, GM and a bunch of others, even Tesla used it at one point.

The fact that something is used doesn't make it not obsolete. With the significant increase of cheap computational power and number of cores, real-time guarantees are quite easy to achieve without special OSes.

 

[eelpout]

QNX is used in a ton of vehicles and is hardly obsolete. Mercedes, BMW, Ford, GM and a bunch of others, even Tesla used it at one point.

Yeah JLR uses QNX for their Pivi Pro stuff and that seems quite solid (3 years with one of their cars for me and no issues). Their previous In Control system was on Linux and that, um, wasn't as reliable.

 

[RandomDesign]

The fact that something is used doesn't make it not obsolete. With the significant increase of cheap computational power and number of cores, real-time guarantees are quite easy to achieve without special OSes.

Wasn't my point. QNX is used for a reason. It's a tried and tested RTOS that has been specialized for embedded systems, has massive compatibility with processors used in those applications, tons of proven reliability in many use cases and a lot of available talent with experience developing for it. I'd say it's done a good job staying relevant and trusted even as the tech around it evolved.

 

[Leftlane]

I am riding this horse just as much as I'd like to ride it, thanks.

So why would you have an issue with anyone else riding the horse they choose, and riding it as much as they want? No one cares if you don’t like their posts, I promise. If you don’t like a topic being raised again, just exit the thread and move along. Not sure why that is so hard to do.

 

[hmp10]

I am riding this horse just as much as I'd like to ride it, thanks.

And I'll post as much about the negative aspects of the Gravity as I please, thank you. You were the one that started a thread to bellyache about owners who are having issues posting about them. So don't dish out what you can't take.

I am a DE owner and I did get a second fob, just after delivery.

Good for you. I just bought my third Gravity DE, and not one of them came with the second fob. I took delivery of the first one in June, and the Miami Service Center is telling me they still have no word from Lucid about when they will be getting the additional fobs to fulfill the due bills. We're talking half a year here.

And the HUD point is another good one, Lucid was clear that they had to make a packaging change with the HUD and yet people still seemed surprised if / when their car didn't have a HUD.

That is not the way it went down. Many posters had placed orders for the Technology Package before Lucid communicated a problem with procuring reliable HUDs. These posters were not "surprised" or confused when their cars arrived without a HUD. They were trying to figure out how long the wait would be to get one (with no information coming from Lucid on that score) or whether they wanted to go ahead and take delivery of a car without the HUD.

Your repeated refrain that Lucid buyers are too lazy or incompetent to figure things out by simply reading what Lucid puts out is both condescending and insulting.

 

[ilyabu]

QNX is used in a ton of vehicles and is hardly obsolete. Mercedes, BMW, Ford, GM and a bunch of others, even Tesla used it at one point.

I was not at all saying QNX is obsolete. I was saying a hypervisor model is often challenging to implement well.

 

[ilyabu]

So why would you have an issue with anyone else riding the horse they choose, and riding it as much as they want? No one cares if you don’t like their posts, I promise. If you don’t like a topic being raised again, just exit the thread and move along. Not sure why that is so hard to do.

Great looking forward to you exiting this thread then.

 

[ilyabu]

And I'll post as much about the negative aspects of the Gravity as I please, thank you. You were the one that started a thread to bellyache about owners who are having issues posting about them. So don't dish out what you can't take.



Good for you. I just bought my third Gravity DE, and not one of them came with the second fob. I took delivery of the first one in June, and the Miami Service Center is telling me they still have no word from Lucid about when they will be getting the additional fobs to fulfill the due bills. We're talking half a year here.



That is not the way it went down. Many posters had placed orders for the Technology Package before Lucid communicated a problem with procuring reliable HUDs. These posters were not "surprised" or confused when their cars arrived without a HUD. They were trying to figure out how long the wait would be to get one (with no information coming from Lucid on that score) or whether they wanted to go ahead and take delivery of a car without the HUD.

Your repeated refrain that Lucid buyers are too lazy or incompetent to figure things out by simply reading what Lucid puts out is both condescending and insulting.

Good job posting about my bellyaching while adding a good dose of your own bellyaching about key fobs. Oh so sorry for your horrible plight!

Sorry you're feeling insulted. I stick by my assertion that people who are "confused" on here could easily stand to do a little simple reading and research before complaining.

 

[ilyabu]

Based on my, and other people's experience here. I have on idea why you think mentioning terms like "race conditions" and "concurrency" makes sense. I mean, I know what they mean, but I doubt most people here do. The likely reason for that particular bug is different, but there is no point discussing things like that here.

The facts are that Lucid doesn't do proper software engineering. Maybe that approach works for web development, but not for cars. And, now thinking, I don't remember seeing that many bugs on websites either. I guess Lucid is worse than that.

You might want to look up the definition of "facts" and "assertions" because you seem to be confusing those. The only known fact here is that the Gravity shipped with quite a few SW bugs, unless you work at Lucid I assert you don't actually know if they do "proper" SW engineering or not.

 

[ilyabu]

Respectfully, as someone who has workin on SW for ~30 years, there is a way to prevent MOST of the bugs before the software even goes to QA. We are not talking about SOME bugs here, we are talking about many, many, many bugs, most of them randomly showing up for some but not all users.

I personally don't see what might be challenging in using virtual machines and containers, but I haven't used QNX either, so I won't comment on that. In my completely humble opinion, QNX is overkill, obsolete, and can only cause problems. But last time I've seen QNX was more than 25 years ago (the one floppy disk demo).

Have you worked in software recently? Most tech organizations no longer even have QA, everything is a dev ops model now. QNX is the standard OS today for automotive systems, which need a true real time OS.