Sectorgame

But this one's real. And legal. And going to be for sale, judging by the fact that the article lists a price. And even gets 30 MPG on the ground!

Or so they say

Flying Car

It might have a steering wheel but that ain't no car.

The paperwork involved...

Technically this isn't really a flying car because there are no anti-gravity engines :P It's just an airplane. :P

Neo wrote:Technically this isn't really a flying car because there are no anti-gravity engines It's just an airplane.

A VTOL solution would be better.

kosh wrote:A VTOL solution would be better.

It can't defy gravity unless negative energy exists or maybe it uses electro-magnetism like a flying saucer is thought to. They also will have to stop using oil or things like oil if they want them to be efficient enough and cheap enough to make them practical, I believe.

I can't wait until it is widespread for cars to drive themselves. I know they are already working on prototypes for that and have built-in computer warning systems for new cars. Then when they can drive themselves, they can also fly themselves like a permanent auto pilot unless absolutely necessary to go manual. They theorize this happening in the show called 2057. They talked about all cars communicating with each other and sensing each other like an internet network. Traffic jams and speed limits would be a thing of the past. Also, we won't have to worry about trivial things like car accidents. It's about time they find ways to prevent car deaths. How many must die before they get serious and get it done faster, I wonder.

I expected a so-called flying car to look more like a car, but the tech is still in its infancy. If a car is to be truly high tech, it must also have tweel technology, not ancient inflatable tire tech, and cheap and efficient fuel. Hmm, maybe that flying car/plane doesn't use traditional air tires or normal fuel?

One would suggest that a 'flying car' looking like a conventional car would, in fact, be a car.

Also, FYI, programming a car to drive itself is a very, very complex problem.

Kind of like doing an MMORPG with realtime physics and no lag, we haven't quite got the tehnology without breaking down the whole system into 'areas' and that adds the complications of moving between those areas.

Add to that that need for absolutely precise data in object location, not just of other cars, but bollards in road-works, paths through closed lane sections etc, and, ensuring that bridges are not rivers etc, with the current infrastructure, you are facing an impossible job.

I suspect the very best you are ever really going to get people to trust is semi-automated vehicles, which can handle long, straight-ish stretches of road, but contacts the driver as soon as it is faced with a situation outside some pretty limited parameters.

I think it's probably classed as an NP-complete problem; pathfinding in a dynamic, (essentially) stochastic and partially visible environment.

Also, I just noted. 'before they get serious and get it done faster' is quite possibly one of the stupidest statements I've ever read. Why not just paint red stripes on and make it faster?

Because as everyone knows, that works.

I mean they seem to be taking their time. I know it is always best to do the job right and do it slower if it means it will get done correctly since it is vital this kind of thing get done correctly. But are they really trying? We all know that often times, people and companies tend to slack, in some places much more than others.

[off-topic]

They say Rome was built in a day (though it couldn't have been that fast) and back then, they didn't have all these machines and most of the work was done by hand and real manual labor, but now we have many machines and it takes them 2 or 3 years to complete a small bridge project and add some signs and side walks and extra width of road next to that school a few miles from where I live.

Close to where I live, they are rebuilding a bridge, and they started around the beginning of this year, I believe, and it said on a sign something like "it will be completed around summer 2012. Your tax dollars at work". That surprised me that it would take so long. Maybe most of the tax money isn't going where it should since if more did, they could afford to have more than one construction work shift. If so, it would be possible to have some days where there are three 8 hour shifts on the construction site, thus making it get done faster without Roman slavery practices.

[/off-topic]

gary wrote:I mean they seem to be taking their time. I know it is always best to do the job right and do it slower if it means it will get done correctly since it is vital this kind of thing get done correctly. But are they really trying? We all know that often times, people and companies tend to slack, in some places much more than others.

All signs point to yes, considering, y'know, DARPA's yearly challenge on getting a robotic vehicle to travel several hundred miles over a randomized route that's announced on race day and robotic vehicles being the holy grail of mass transit.

It was only a few years ago that anyone actually completed the DARPA challenge for the first time, and as far as I know it hasn't yet been duplicated. (Even by the same team!) The technology just isn't there yet.

gary wrote: [off-topic]

I am going to hope you are posting off-topic in a still-related manner, but knowing you, I am not hoping very much.

gary wrote: They say Rome was built in a day (though it couldn't have been that fast) and back then, they didn't have all these machines and most of the work was done by hand and real manual labor, but now we have many machines and it takes them 2 or 3 years to complete a small bridge project and add some signs and side walks and extra width of road next to that school a few miles from where I live.
Close to where I live, they are rebuilding a bridge, and they started around the beginning of this year, I believe, and it said on a sign something like "it will be completed around summer 2012. Your tax dollars at work". That surprised me that it would take so long. Maybe most of the tax money isn't going where it should since if more did, they could afford to have more than one construction work shift. If so, it would be possible to have some days where there are three 8 hour shifts on the construction site, thus making it get done faster without Roman slavery practices.

[/off-topic]

First; it wasn't and your quote is wrong. The saying is that "Rome wasn't built in a day" and refers to complex tasks being difficult to complete.

Second: your personal anecododte is irrevelant to the difficulties we are discussing, in just about every way imagineable.[/i]

gary wrote:I mean they seem to be taking their time. I know it is always best to do the job right and do it slower if it means it will get done correctly since it is vital this kind of thing get done correctly. But are they really trying? We all know that often times, people and companies tend to slack, in some places much more than others.

Er, quite frankly, yes they are trying.

You may not realise that the very practical possibility of this is part of a whole sub-suite of AI problems (pathfinding, agent co-ordination, video recognition), combined with networking (for example, if flying cars communicate position, they need some form of ad-hoc wifi, and probably not one based on a fixed infrastructure). The theory may be present, but the the implementation is not.

I must say I love this entirely nebulous 'they'. It speaks so heavily of 'I don't really know what i'm talking about, but I assume someone else will, so I'll put something vague and let them fill in the differences'.