[1]: https://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/bmw-3-ser...
EDIT: top is after, bottom is before.
The top pic I saw in the showroom and I really didn't like it.
Now, screens aren't required by law or safety ratings, but there's no getting around having a lot of software in there, and thus a screen to configure all that stuff.
The vehicle HAS A front facing camera, it takes up a huge portion of the front windscreen. There's no way to see an image from the front camera.
Is it there to....To tell me if i'm...about to crash? it has no automatic cruise or anything. Absolutely puzzling.
Another gripe about this car; "car play" works about half the time. Maybe. 20 percent of the other half, whole display freezes until I restart the car. Mazda can't figure it out and what am I gonna do, lemon it?
mye 15 year old other mazda hatchback connects to bluetooth instantly as soon as i turn the car on and begins to play music.
The lack of adaptive cruise is baffling. We test drove a ‘15 CX-something-or-other in 2014 and it had the ability to brake automatically (dealer was very interested in demoing this feature). I assume it also had adaptive cruise, so it’s wild that a 6 years newer sports car wouldn’t have that feature.
When it comes to mazda it's hard to understand why they do the things they do. We can only be happy they haven't turned miata into a crossover yet.
Great car!
I wouldn't make the camera a free for all though, it makes sense for pretty good direct visibility to be a design priority (so the camera would be required on cars that had okay but not great forward visibility and it wouldn't be allowed to build anything else).
Getting the software right is hard (and thus expensive), which is what traditional physical product companies have a hard time figuring out.
Like, you have 10s of critical applications that you want to keep simple and not crashing or bugging out. So, just give them each a computer.
No way for the shitty wiper department's buggy ECU to ruin your day in the brake ECU by blocking all the hydraulic lines. You can even put them on different CAN buses!
What are they even counting as a 'computer' to get to 70?
I know that in the door there's going to be a microcontroller, to connect the buttons, the lock and the window motor to the CAN bus (or whatever it is they use these days). Is that a computer? Are they proposing to get rid of it?
It's much easier to run a communication wire and a 12V wire, and have a microcontroller control the sensor/motor
I know from working at a phone company that hardware absolutely has bugs and it's only reliable as long as you're changing very little. If you start having a system where you're trying to optimise everything e.g. to save power when not in use and allow lots of customer choices in how things work then you're going to choose new microcontroller hardware and software and it will have bugs that have not been ironed out over the years.
The stories I read about ID3 updates going wrong were about certain controllers not successfully acknowledging their firmware updates. So I can see a strong temptation to make it all vertical - to have control over everything so you can ensure it works before you order 200k of them. Instead of having 60 suppliers all providing their interpretation of your bus protocol, each with unique bugs you take the whole thing into a single design.
I can also see it being far more conducive to have a smaller number of bigger and more homogeneous microcontrollers each of which might not be perfect for every job but since they're all the same you only have to provide 1 software update solution and you can test the shit out of it.
When I worked in the industry, we had four different CPUs of different architectures on one small (fit in your hand) circuit board, each running its own software and communicating with each other via buses on the board. This was for controlling one single function in the car.
Strictly speaking, I would say that single circuit board was 4 separate computers. It quickly adds up.
We keep taking things that worked fine without a computer, adding a computer, and ending up with all the problems of a computer but with little extra benefit to the user.
It was probably using stepper motors, with the pulse train being generated by a microcontroller.
The best of both worlds...
Cars are / were basically Frankenstein monsters under the hood, with dozens of onboard computers / chips all needing to work independently yet collaboratively and talk to each other. VW set up a new subsidiary and hired 3000 people to build the car software system of the future, reducing the 70-odd computers to 3 or so.
But we all know software, it uh, didn't go as planned.
Anyway, iirc Toyota or Mazda, one of them, was at the forefront of bringing regular buttons back to cars. And I hope there's going to be new car companies that iterate on the thing again and build simpler cars again. It should be a lot cheaper too, because it feels like they bolt on more and more electronic features to try and upsell the car. Building a car with the features and numbers of 30, 40 years ago should be doable at a fraction of the cost. And that development is coming actually, but it's coming from the likes of China and India. It's not profitable to bring them to the west though.