What's new
By:

Gravity software updates

Confused as to whether it is version 3.3.40 or is version 3.4.0. They are being used interchangeably, but they aren’t.

Anyone seen official number from Lucid itself?

@marqie?
 
tmichael said:
Confused as to whether it is version 3.3.40 or is version 3.4.0. They are being used interchangeably, but they aren’t.

Anyone seen official number from Lucid itself?
Click to expand...
From the screenshots, the announcement specifically references v3.3.40.
 
Lucidtracker.app is referring to 3.4.0

I agree it appears to be 3.3.40

Difference is an iterative update or more significant. Just wondering out loud - very pleased it is coming at all!
 
Gravitas said:
Is v3.4.0 live? Has anyone updated yet?
Click to expand...
And...... we're off and running (slowly 😛)

1769639446704.webp
 
Well, there’s our answer! Thanks!
 
I'm excited about the new update, but some of the wording in the release notes bother me.
FYI, I'm an overthinker ... sometimes.

One example, the notifications/alerts.
I'm fine with the removal of inaccurate notifications.
However, removing/reducing unneeded notifications/alerts "when they don't impact the driver" comes across to me as covertly saying "the underlying causes for these alerts may still exist, but the driver doesn't necessarily need to be notified/alerted all the time".

Makes me wonder if the underlying causes may still exist, but unless there is a need for the driver to know about the effects, the driver won't be impacted/notified/alerted.
Perhaps false positives (inaccuracies) have been removed and true negatives are communicated on a need-to-know basis.
Kind of a way of solving TMI to the driver.
Driver only "needs" to know when it's something they are going to notice.
Cause & effect; the cause may still exist, but until the driver is effected, no notification/alert.

If the outlets are working, but an inaccurate "Outlets Unavailable" notification is no longer displayed, good.
However, if the outlets aren't working, but the driver isn't notified until they attempt to use an outlet, not good.

Inaccurate notifications: easy to define.
Unneded notifications: depends on how "unneeded" is defined.


Screenshot 2026-01-28 at 6.42.27 PM.webp
 
msaunders9430 said:
I'm excited about the new update, but some of the wording in the release notes bother me.
FYI, I'm an overthinker ... sometimes.

One example, the notifications/alerts.
I'm fine with the removal of inaccurate notifications.
However, removing/reducing unneeded notifications/alerts "when they don't impact the driver" comes across to me as covertly saying "the underlying causes for these alerts may still exist, but the driver doesn't necessarily need to be notified/alerted all the time".

Makes me wonder if the underlying causes may still exist, but unless there is a need for the driver to know about the effects, the driver won't be impacted/notified/alerted.
Perhaps false positives (inaccuracies) have been removed and true negatives are communicated on a need-to-know basis.
Kind of a way of solving TMI to the driver.
Driver only "needs" to know when it's something they are going to notice.
Cause & effect; the cause may still exist, but until the driver is effected, no notification/alert.

If the outlets are working, but an inaccurate "Outlets Unavailable" notification is no longer displayed, good.
However, if the outlets aren't working, but the driver isn't notified until they attempt to use an outlet, not good.

Inaccurate notifications: easy to define.
Unneded notifications: depends on how "unneeded" is defined.


View attachment 36463
Click to expand...
Here's an example: if there is a lost packet in communication with one of the components, right now the car might throw an error, and then it might immediately go away as the connection is quickly re-established. That's much of what you see happening in the car today, by my estimation.

So, requiring a higher threshold for 'comms loss' seems prudent, since for many components intermittent loss (as long as it isn't frequent) is fine. The outlets would be an example.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't fix the comms loss problems, and they will, but if it both doesn't affect the driver and the driver cannot do anything about it, I agree with raising the thresholds.

Just one example
 
msaunders9430 said:
I'm excited about the new update, but some of the wording in the release notes bother me.
FYI, I'm an overthinker ... sometimes.

One example, the notifications/alerts.
I'm fine with the removal of inaccurate notifications.
However, removing/reducing unneeded notifications/alerts "when they don't impact the driver" comes across to me as covertly saying "the underlying causes for these alerts may still exist, but the driver doesn't necessarily need to be notified/alerted all the time".

Makes me wonder if the underlying causes may still exist, but unless there is a need for the driver to know about the effects, the driver won't be impacted/notified/alerted.
Perhaps false positives (inaccuracies) have been removed and true negatives are communicated on a need-to-know basis.
Kind of a way of solving TMI to the driver.
Driver only "needs" to know when it's something they are going to notice.
Cause & effect; the cause may still exist, but until the driver is effected, no notification/alert.

If the outlets are working, but an inaccurate "Outlets Unavailable" notification is no longer displayed, good.
However, if the outlets aren't working, but the driver isn't notified until they attempt to use an outlet, not good.

Inaccurate notifications: easy to define.
Unneded notifications: depends on how "unneeded" is defined.


View attachment 36463
Click to expand...
For some reason, I feel confident that the bugs related to these errors were squashed, as opposed to removing the notifications. For example, we don’t need to know the passenger airbag is on or off once we are driving down the road without a passenger in the passenger seat. I feel good that if we are actually going up an exit ramp the wrong way, we will be notified.

Just my way of thinking…
 
borski said:
Here's an example: if there is a lost packet in communication with one of the components, right now the car might throw an error, and then it might immediately go away as the connection is quickly re-established. That's much of what you see happening in the car today, by my estimation.

So, requiring a higher threshold for 'comms loss' seems prudent, since for many components intermittent loss (as long as it isn't frequent) is fine. The outlets would be an example.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't fix the comms loss problems, and they will, but if it both doesn't affect the driver and the driver cannot do anything about it, I agree with raising the thresholds.

Just one example
Click to expand...
Makes sense ... as long as the need and reason(s) to raise the threshold doesn't continue and the underlying causes are fixed.
The Lucid team seems to be competent enough to know which components an intermittent comms loss is acceptable.

Trusting Lucid's triage/treatment process.
Compromise nothing, not even comms loss. :)
 
msaunders9430 said:
Makes sense ... as long as the need and reason(s) to raise the threshold doesn't continue and the underlying causes are fixed.
The Lucid team seems to be competent enough to know which components an intermittent comms loss is acceptable.

Trusting Lucid's triage/treatment process.
Compromise nothing, not even comms loss. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear ya. Your concern is valid, around hiding problems rather than highlighting them or fixing them. I don’t think that’s the case, but I do hear the concern!
 
tmichael said:
For some reason, I feel confident that the bugs related to these errors were squashed, as opposed to removing the notifications. For example, we don’t need to know the passenger airbag is on or off once we are driving down the road without a passenger in the passenger seat. I feel good that if we are actually going up an exit ramp the wrong way, we will be notified.

Just my way of thinking…
Click to expand...
Agree.
The wording just doesn't set well with me.

If my wife comes to me after dinner and asks how I'm feeling, I'm asking questions.
If she says "oh, nothing", that's fine with me maybe once, but no more.

If the cheese in the lasagna was bad (going the wrong way), tell me before I start eating (the exit ramp).
 
msaunders9430 said:
Agree.
The wording just doesn't set well with me.

If my wife comes to me after dinner and asks how I'm feeling, I'm asking questions.
If she says "oh, nothing", that's fine with me maybe once, but no more.

If the cheese in the lasagna was bad (going the wrong way), tell me before I start eating (the exit ramp).
Click to expand...
We just got the wrong way warning yesterday; it was jarring, lol. It was an odd intersection, but we definitely weren’t going the wrong way. Took a minute to go away, too.
 
borski said:
We just got the wrong way warning yesterday; it was jarring, lol. It was an odd intersection, but we definitely weren’t going the wrong way. Took a minute to go away, too.
Click to expand...
Continual trust building process, with the disclaimers in the manual, as reminders.
 
Release notes show Lucid is clearly all over the bugs/issues AND adding cool features along the way, which are a surprise to me. I expected bug fixes for 2H 2026. Time will tell how this update performs, but super glad Lucid appears to be listening and acting.

Agree wording isn’t super clear but again, we will all see how it performs (soon hopefully!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top