Slashdot Mirror


Land Rover Demos "Transparent Hood"

cartechboy (2660665) writes "When we were kids, we were promised flying cars in the future, like The Jetsons. Well, now it's the future, and we don't have any flying cars. But Land Rover just unveiled some crazy new technology called the Transparent Hood system. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and yet quite complex in its implementation. Using a web of camera images and projectors, the Transparent Hood system projects the area just in front of and underneath the nose of the vehicle onto a head-up display along the lower portion of the windshield. Not only is this obviously breathtaking, but when it comes to off-roading—or parking in tight urban spaces—this could change the game. It will allow drivers to see precisely what's below them and immediately in front of them allowing precise placement of the vehicle's front wheels. The system also displays key vehicle data including speed, incline, roll angle, steering position, and drive mode. People, this is the future, and the future is now."

172 comments

  1. So... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now I can see the potholes as they rattle my bones in real time. Kewl! ;-)

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:So... by cusco · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only reason why this design is even seen as useful is because of the very poor ergonomic design of autobodies that has become popular the last few years. I have a 2002 Tacoma, I can see all four corners of the vehicle. With a glance I can tell within six inches of exactly where each corner of the vehicle is. We used to have a 1995 Corolla, and I could park it in any spot. My wife has a new Audi, and until recently I was driving a fairly new Corolla supplied by my employer. Hate parking those things, you can't see the corners of the vehicle so can only guess as to how far away I am from the next vehicle.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:So... by dubyrunning · · Score: 1

      Can you see underneath your Tacoma's engine? Because you could with this new system.

    3. Re:So... by dsginter · · Score: 1

      I can't even see the hood of my vehicle while seated. Why would I need to make it transparent?

      --
      More
    4. Re:So... by dubyrunning · · Score: 1

      Well I guess the allure is that if you normally can see your hood, you'd rather be able to see through it.

    5. Re:So... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finally, I can tailgate to within 6 inches of the guy in front of me. I'll get home that much faster!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:So... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bad for you perhaps, but the reason we have those high curved bonnets now is to protect pedestrians when you hit them. It isn't the initial contact with their legs that gives them fatal injuries, it's the blow as their head slams down against the bonnet. Previously the engine block tended to be right under the thin metal cover so their skull effectively went into that. Now there is more room for the bonnet to flex and cushion the blow.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:So... by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      Having done some off-road driving the big advantage here is when you crest a steep hill and need to see what is immediately on the other side of the crest. A variation on this is when you crest a hill, on a narrow trail, which may be curved, which makes it nearly impossible to see what is beyond and which way you need to turn to stay on track or avoid a hazard, which you can't get out and see.

      It's nice, but not something you couldn't have rigged yourself and I'm pretty sure kits exist for.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bad for you perhaps, but the reason we have those high curved bonnets now is to protect pedestrians when you hit them.

      But can they do something about that clunking noise when they hit? I really hate that noise on the way to work.

    9. Re:So... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      This is very much application specific. Nobody needs this on their A to B car. On the other hand, vehicles that spend time off roads can make use of this to see where their wheels are. I know people who work in the woods with dump trucks and trust me when I said they could make good use of this. Obviously the camera would need regular cleaning but the benefits would out weight the inconvenience.

      A friend of my grandfather actually tipped a dump truck in an open pit mine because one of the 8 wheels (yes 8 wheels for extra weight capacity) came off the road causing enough weight to shift and for the truck to tumble to the road bellow. Lucky enough nobody was hurt. With a system like this he could have anticipated the wheel coming off the road and avoid the accident.

    10. Re:So... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      are you in a car or 4 wheel drive? Most 4 wheel drive vehicles sit the driver quite high whereas cars seem to sit you lower

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    11. Re:So... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      It's nice, but not something you couldn't have rigged yourself and I'm pretty sure kits exist for.

      I'm sure you can get a dash camera kit. And you could probably rig it yourself.

      But I'm thinking the windshield HUD is probably not something you're going to build yourself. You could, I know, I know. But you won't. ;)

      And if you tried, it might turn out to be non-trivial.

    12. Re:So... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The only reason why this design is even seen as useful is because of the very poor ergonomic design of autobodies that has become popular the last few years. I have a 2002 Tacoma, I can see all four corners of the vehicle. With a glance I can tell within six inches of exactly where each corner of the vehicle is.

      The car maker in question is Land Rover. Land Rover dont make small cars. In fact, here is the Land Rover Discovery 4, the latest Disco. You wont have problems seeing the bonnet on that. However you will have a problem with seeing in front of it.

      My wife has a new Audi, and until recently I was driving a fairly new Corolla supplied by my employer. Hate parking those things, you can't see the corners of the vehicle so can only guess as to how far away I am from the next vehicle.

      This means you need to spend more time in your vehicle learning about it. It's not hard to find out where the corners of a modern car are. In fact if it takes you a while to learn this, driving is not your forte.

      If you have trouble figuring out where the front of your car is, it must be nigh upon imposisble for you to figure out where the back is.

      The curved bonnet gives me a better view of the road in front of me, my major gripe with cars are the ones that have massive blindspots on the B or C pillars.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:So... by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      Finally, I can tailgate to within 6 inches of the guy in front of me. I'll get home that much faster!

      If you drive a Land Rover, you will be doing this already. No need for cameras.

  2. More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I'm just old school, but the more features such as these makes me think that there's just another thing to go wrong.

    hah, captcha is "redneck".

    1. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right, what if this thing breaks and it's just like every other car that has been produced up until this point! Think of the carnage!

    2. Re:More problems. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, because having this system operational is clearly crucial to operation of the vehicle, and you won't be able to just drive without it....

      I guess you prefer not having a radio in your car either, since that's "just another thing to go wrong".

    3. Re:More problems. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I think you need to go back to school and figure out the logic of the failure modes before commenting.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here.

      No, but I'm sure you'll end up having an idiot light blinking along with a voice recorder saying there's an issue. Then come time for inspections, you'll get a fail sticker because OBD II has picked up an error code on one of the cameras. This is all coming from a guy that fixes his own vehicles. Ya'll want to pay some monkey in a suit to hack away at a vehicle that you trust your loved ones in by all means go for it. Last time someone worked on one of my cars it was for an oil change and I lost a tire at 50 mph. 22 years later I still won't allow anyone to work on my vehicles.

      I'm sure the majority on /. don't even pump their own gas. I just speak from my perspective as the guy that has to fix all this electronic shit.

    5. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would you allow them to do an oil change at 50mph?!

    6. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP again.

      Better question is, and I never got a straight answer for, was why they removed my tire for an oil change...

    7. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever encountered a service station that did an oil change without a basic inspection as well. They took off your tire to check your brake pads. It's common practice and probably the policy of the service station.

    8. Re:More problems. by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ding ding! Places like that are always looking to upsell, so when you come in for an oil change, they look for something else to sell you, such as an air filter change, a transmission oil change, brake service, etc. Sometimes they even do things like show you a worn belt or filter which isn't even from your car, claiming it is, and saying it needs to be changed.

      Unfortunately, many times the monkeys at these service places don't know how to put wheels back on correctly.

    9. Re:More problems. by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Why would you allow them to do an oil change at 50mph?!

      Because doing one at 100mph is dangerous.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, the OBD2 spec doesn't allow for non-emission issues to trigger the light.

    11. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I learned about the changing one's oil when I was in college... and just told the lube place to do "the works". They gave me a $400 bill... and the next day, I had to get the vehicle towed to a real shop for a transmission rebuild because they sliced one of the ATF hoses.

      Do it yourself, or find a competent mechanic. The fast lube places are asking for trouble.

    12. Re:More problems. by sexconker · · Score: 0

      OP here.

      No, but I'm sure you'll end up having an idiot light blinking along with a voice recorder saying there's an issue. Then come time for inspections, you'll get a fail sticker because OBD II has picked up an error code on one of the cameras. This is all coming from a guy that fixes his own vehicles. Ya'll want to pay some monkey in a suit to hack away at a vehicle that you trust your loved ones in by all means go for it. Last time someone worked on one of my cars it was for an oil change and I lost a tire at 50 mph. 22 years later I still won't allow anyone to work on my vehicles.

      I'm sure the majority on /. don't even pump their own gas. I just speak from my perspective as the guy that has to fix all this electronic shit.

      There's absolutely no way you are certified to perform all regulated maintenance and inspections, properly dispose of hazardous materials, or invest tens of thousands of dollars into equipment you use once in a blue moon for your personal vehicles. Either you're being negligent with your vehicles and breaking the law with certain things (like emissions checks or whatever the fuck else is regulated in your area), or lying.

    13. Re:More problems. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure, if the system is done right.

      My last car merged the radio/voice recognition/other fncy shit system with the HVAC in a single card. So if anything went horribly wrong with any of it, the car was effectively undrivable in bad weather, as you lost the ventilation.

      So, yes, the radio going wrong would make the car undrivable, because of quite common design decisions (But hey, when I used the voice system, it would turn off the ventilation fans so it could hear me. Tricks like that that seem silly after a week do help sell cars, so I don't see that sort of BS going away).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:More problems. by lgw · · Score: 1

      You seem to be assuming that cars are well-engineered with fault isolation, such that one non-essential piece breaking won't have side effects that make the car undrivable. I'd like to live in the world where that was true - that would be a pleasant world.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:More problems. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I love how people go to Jiffy Lube, the cheapest possible service, and complain that the service isn't as good as when you spend 5x as much elsewhere.

    16. Re:More problems. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Like if the rear camera in newer cars fails, and you can't drive them anymore?

      It's a front facing camera, not an integral part of the drive train.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    17. Re:More problems. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Don't say they, and just find a good mechanic. Where I go for my oil change, they do chack all that, but many tims they ahve told me everything is fine and no upsell at all.
      And when the do, its usually for a standard upcoming service.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:More problems. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Again, you're only right in principle. In practice my last car would become undrivable if the radio malfunctioned badly, because the HVAC, radio, and voice recognition were all on the same board, and any of it blowing up took it all down. Driving without HVAC isn't practical in common weather in many places. That kind of mistake is normal in car engineering these days.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:More problems. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      A person can most certainly do all the work they need to do on their own car. If they are willing to put in the effort.

      "There's absolutely no way you are certified to perform all regulated maintenance and inspections"
      You don't need to be actual certified. Only cert are needed if you want to maintain the warranty, or show people you went to some class.

      " properly dispose of hazardous materials"
      you just take it to a disposal place. Usually a gas station with a shop, or a part store.

      " invest tens of thousands of dollars into equipment "
      Do you have an example of any piece of equipment that you need to fix / maintain your own vehicle that cost "tens of thousands of dollars". or even 1000 hundred dollars.
      Those tools are for company that do cars all day long. Lifts and such.
      There is nothing on my car I can not replace if I were so inclined. That includes transmission and engine replacements.
      I don't becasue I have a good mechanic, I value my time, and I don't enjoy it anymore.

      You seem to be complete ignorant of how to take care of a vehicle; which is fine. Just stop calling other people liars based on you ignorance of the field.

      "(like emissions checks or whatever the fuck else is regulated in your area)"
      You can do them at home, but to gte official you go to the inspector. State may vary.
      In Oregon they check it by just looking at the codes, and you can buy something to do that for under 50 bucks. OR more, depending on features, etc.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:More problems. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think radio failure will cause you to loose vent. Maybe, but in the systems I have seen that is only possible of the failure is with the HVAC.
      Plus, you should be able to turn off the radio/voice and have control of vents in any case.

      If you are actual correct, and not just guessing becasue they are linked, it is an engineering failure in the extreme.

      EXTREME!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:More problems. by lgw · · Score: 1

      From the forums for this model, it did happen. It's not that surprising: if a chip burns out on a board, having it fail in such a way (short etc) it makes everything on the board stop working.

      Fault isolation is difficult and expensive. Throwing everything together is cheap and easy. I suspect some systems like HVAC and traction control will eventually have some isolation required, but all the other stuff? I just expect the more features, the more problems. But the new-car-every-3-years crowd won't care.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:More problems. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      There's tons of shit you can't legally do a car (both modification and maintenance) without certification depending on where you're from. The simplest and most routine example would be a smog check. In California you need an official smog check to register your vehicle. Repairs can only be performed by specially (and separately) licensed shops. Plenty of other states have similar regulations.

      Taking your hazardous material to a disposal place and paying a fee? Let's be honest - no one fucking does that. Not for cooking oil, not for batteries, not for anything.

      A lift would be the most obvious, then there's the equipment to properly read and reset the proprietary computers in the car which refuse to adhere to an industry standard for diagnostic codes, if you ever need to take the engine out you'll need a hoist, then there's the equipment needed to properly flush and fill various fluid lines, and I doubt you're installing tires and balancing your wheels by hand, you'll need a cheap ($$ - $$$) but unique tool just to be able to replace other parts - a compressor for work on shocks/struts, various long-head wrenches or security drivers, etc. That's ignoring any body or electrical work.

      You can change your own oil and belts, but you're not the family mechanic anymore than you're the family lawyer, family doctor, etc. It's not affordable, not practical, and unless you're an ACTUAL mechanic, some of what the OP claimed to do (which is EVERYTHING) is not legal.

      Spend 5 seconds to think about some AC's claim instead of taking it at face value. It's bullshit.

    23. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not affordable, not practical, and unless you're an ACTUAL mechanic, some of what the OP claimed to do (which is EVERYTHING) is not legal.

      Spend 5 seconds to think about some AC's claim instead of taking it at face value. It's bullshit.

      OP again.

      What am I doing that isn't legal? I own two vehicles. pre 1996. Neither of them require emissions. My F250 got a new motor last year. I stripped it down, honed the cylinders, new piston rings, and a different cam. Was going to go with shorter rods to stroke it, but it really wasn't worth it to me.

      In my garage there's a oxy/acety torch, 20 ton press, drill press, JD2 pipe bender, Hobart 190 welder, bench grinder, four angle grinders, and a Snap On box full of tools. In the past 12 years I've built and sold three 4x4s out of that shop.

      Just because this is /. doesn't mean that everyone is someone that stares at code all day.

    24. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we don't all live in California. Some of us live in places that don't have smog checks and have waste stations that will collect personal amounts of waste materials for free.

      To be perfectly honest with you, as long as my car has lights, license plates, mirrors, and a windshield, I don't have to do shit to my car.

      Any maintenance that I do to my car is legal to do. Producing certified paperwork for bureaucratic bullshit in other locales is another story.

    25. Re:More problems. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      " The simplest and most routine example would be a smog check. "
      I hae a device that tells me if it passes. If it doesn't pass It tells me what is wrong and I can fix it until it passes. THAN I can take to to get the official cert. Getting the cert is a legal qualification and not maintenance. Maintenance is what you need to do to qualify for the cert.

      "Repairs can only be performed by specially (and separately) licensed shops.
      In order to have a shop, you need a license, you do NOT need one to work on your own car.

      "Plenty of other states have similar regulations.
      Citation for any state, just one. Please.
      Remeber this is about repair you own car, not running a shop.

      "Taking your hazardous material to a disposal place and paying a fee? Let's be honest - no one fucking does that. Not for cooking oil, not for batteries, not for anything."
      A) It's free.
      B) don't project your shit onto others.. I do that with everything I am aware of I need to. that include every liquid I replace for my car with the exception of the window cleaner.

      "A lift would be the most obvious,"
      A lift is nice to have, but I have changed transmission and engines without one.

      " then there's the equipment to properly read and reset the proprietary computers in the car which refuse to adhere to an industry standard for diagnostic codes
      which cost less then 50 dollars. I specifically mention that.

      " if you ever need to take the engine out you'll need a hoist, "
      which costs less then 300 dollars, but I usually borrow one for a case of beer, or a couple of bucks..

      " then there's the equipment needed to properly flush and fill various fluid lines"
      Such as? hoses? a pump? how much do you think that costs?

      "and I doubt you're installing tires and balancing your wheels by hand,"
      True. I do know people with that equipment, and in fact could take a tire over there and do that work, but where I buy new tires, the istallatrion and balance is free, so why bother?

      "you'll need a cheap ($$ - $$$) but unique tool just to be able to replace other parts"
      For the ones I can't rent or borrow? sure.

      "- a compressor for work on shocks/struts"
      You don't know what you are talking about, do you? Why would I need to use my compressor to change my shocks?

      You did not site a single repaid that is not legal to do on your own.

      "Spend 5 seconds to think about some AC's claim instead of taking it at face value. It's bullshit."
      Since I have done all this, I know for a fact he is correct. How much car work have you done?
      I've rebuilt engines, transmissions replaced every think that attaches to the engine, computers, control modules, wiring.I've even created after market firmware. I've work on pit crew teams and off road raced.
      My dad used to race(not professionally), and I was around race cars as a kid. Hell, I helped my day change rings when I was 10. And by helped I'm sure is was more like 'helped' :)

      YOU have exactly zero clue what you are talking about.

      Something you don't seem to know:
      1) Mechanics share equipment all the time.
      2) Most of those tool are collected over time, but if you needed every tool, bought at one time that you will need for personal auto repair, it's still well on 4 grand. No where near 10s of thousands of dollars.
      3) I know personal mechanics that have installed a lift, and even put in rotating garage floor(Not the same person, natch*). THAT stuff costs 10's of thousands of dollars.

      *rotating lifts. That would be something, wouldn't it?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:More problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I learned about the changing one's oil when I was in college... and just told the lube place to do "the works". They gave me a $400 bill... and the next day, I had to get the vehicle towed to a real shop for a transmission rebuild because they sliced one of the ATF hoses.

      Live in a place where you don't need a car. Owning a car is nothing but trouble.

      There. FTFY.

    27. Re:More problems. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Well, that's bad board design.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:More problems. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      You are liable to keep you car in safe working order when on public roads in every state. Just an FYI

      And there is still some back ass state that doesn't require smog? Jeez.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:More problems. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes it is. Bad component design in cars is shockingly common (as long as the flaws aren't evident in the first few months).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re:More problems. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      Major engine problems will. On newer vehicles there are actually 3 states to the engine light. Off is good (no error), on is emissions (fix before next inspection), blinking is "take me to a mechanic NOW".

    31. Re:More problems. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how cheap service is; it should never leave your car in an unsafe condition, nor should that service ever attempt to defraud you. Fraud is illegal, and making it so your wheel falls off is criminal negligence. If you can't run your business in such a way that you don't need to resort to fraud or endanger your customers' lives, then you shouldn't be in business in the first place.

    32. Re:More problems. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's only two places in the US where you can get away without owning a car without being consigned to poverty: SF and NYC (and only certain boroughs there even). Both these places are outrageously and unaffordably expensive for most people. In fact, lots of people have to commute into these places on trains, and I'm sorry, but spending 3-4 hours a day on a train is not preferable to a 30-minute commute by car.

    33. Re:More problems. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      That guy is a moron. Arizona has smog checks do, and so do lots of other places. My experience is with AZ; the checks are easy: you just drive up to a state-run emissions checking station, and have them do the test. If it's '96+, they just plug in an OBD-II reader and look for codes. If there are none, you're done, and you just pay the fee and drive a way with your certificate. If it's pre-96, they put it on a dyno and check the emissions directly. If you pass (not hard to do if the engine is running OK), again pay your fee and take your certificate.

      If you fail, you have a certain amount of time to fix it. You do NOT need to have a "certified mechanic" or somesuch fix it, you can do it yourself. Then you come back later after it's fixed and get it re-tested. It's really not a big deal unless you've seriously modified your engine, taken out the catalytic converter, etc.

    34. Re:More problems. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you can't run your business in such a way that you don't need to resort to fraud or endanger your customers' lives, then you shouldn't be in business in the first place.

      Well then what businesses are left, after applying your silly rules?

    35. Re:More problems. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Get your head out of your ass. Nearly every manufacturer of everything has been sued for dangerous goods, especially those who make inherently dangerous things (cigarettes, cars, chainsaws, mowers). That you don't know this makes you a huge idiot. Fraud is common in business. They call it "advertising".

      Just because we today find ourselves surrounded on all sides with inept incompetence, doesn't mean it's normal or desirable or acceptable.

      That was my point. Why are you arguing like a jackass when you are agreeing with me? We are surrounded by dangerous and fraudulent companies, if we shut them all down tomorrow, who would be left? That you read something into that I didn't say does't mean it's true. You agree with the implication that we are surrounded by "bad" companies. So why all the hate?

      The idiot OP didn't mention suing Jiffy Lube (or whoever), or holding them responsible, he just whined about it. Why aren't you whining to him, instead of me?

  3. Transparent Aluminum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought this was going to be an article about transparent aluminum, beam me up Scotty!

  4. Shut up already by oodaloop · · Score: 1, Funny

    and take my money!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  5. Can This Be Adapted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so that I can see the ground hidden by my Big Fat Beer Gut?

    1. Re:Can This Be Adapted... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And by clicking the EgoBoost (tm) button in the app, you can give yourself the penis you always wanted, including one that never existed in the first place, while you're at it.

  6. Technological fix for bad fundamental design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe if the hood wasn't so long or the windshield wasn't so small they wouldn't be having this issue!

  7. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "demo" is just a "virtual prototype in testing", also known as: CGI. What an innovative concept... not. Please get back to me once you really have something to show.

    1. Re:So.... by timeOday · · Score: 2
      Costs a little more, but the F35 Joint Strike Fighter actually has this capability:

      "These helmets are designed to utilize cameras on the outside of the aircraft to project the pilot's surroundings onto his mask. This way, if the pilot needs to look at the ground directly below him, he no longer has to roll the aircraft. He can simply look straight down, essentially looking through the floor and his own body!"

      Not just visible light, either, so you can see at night and through clouds...

      It's not on a HUD though, you have to wear the helmet mounted display system.

    2. Re:So.... by Minwee · · Score: 2

      The difference is that the Land Rover has more hours in service than the F35.

      Probably more hours in flight too.

    3. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's enough to patent the idea right?

  8. Re:not me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't add it as an option, or don't switch it on if standard.

    Was it that hard?

  9. Cue the naysayers... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

    Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.

    This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...

    1. Re:Cue the naysayers... by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.

      This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...

      I think the biggest legitimate criticism that came out of the rear/side camera replacement of mirrors was that you had to refocus your eyes from infinity to dashboard to infinity each time you glanced at the video display. In this case you will already be tracking your bonnet so that the required change in eye focus will be minimal.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.

      This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...

      Just be prepared to have to constantly get out of your vehicle to clean all those different lenses, or else camera tech is useless.

    3. Re:Cue the naysayers... by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Just be prepared to have to constantly get out of your vehicle to clean all those different lenses, or else camera tech is useless.

      Why do you think that has to be manually done? Air blast of sensors to keep them clean is common in industry, and various high end cars already have things like head light washer/wipers.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You mean like in all those cars that currently have reversing cameras, etc.?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Too late, someone already called it "just another thing to go wrong". It sure seems that these idiotic Slashdotters would rather just drive around in Model Ts. Is there some other site that covers tech news, and actually has techies commenting rather than anti-tech luddites? This site is pathetic.

    6. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.

      This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...

      Just be prepared to have to constantly get out of your vehicle to clean all those different lenses, or else camera tech is useless.

      I would hope there's be high-pressure water jets to do it for you.

    7. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Scottingham · · Score: 2

      phys.org rules

    8. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recently drove a (older) Toyata Prius. The backup camera was useless unless the lens was perfectly clean, and I quickly learned to just ignore it.

    9. Re:Cue the naysayers... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ah, that was an AC. My settings mean that they aren't generally visible to me. Nothing of value is lost.

    10. Re:Cue the naysayers... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Slashdotters would rather just drive around in Model Ts

      Not so sure about that. A lot of start-ups and younger tech companies now seem to be encouraging a culture of self-righteous car-hating hippie-liberals that want to ride pedal bikes everywhere.

    11. Re:Cue the naysayers... by David_W · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually. Most annoying aspect of my back-up camera is when it gets dirty, or wet. Not all the manufacturers have figured out keeping them clean automatically yet.

    12. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you call it "a tax on poor people". It sounds worse that way, except when you realize that it's not so much a tax, as deliberately charging poor people more to make rich people richer.

    13. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, cyclists and car-haters don't run around telling everyone how they love their 1970s or 1980s car and don't need "all this electronic shit".

    14. Re:Cue the naysayers... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway

      Camera...angle...

      I see what you did there.

    15. Re:Cue the naysayers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never had a problem in my Tacoma. And I often haul dirt. If its wet, it doesn't work well. But after it dries its fine. So it works 90% of the time. Better than nothing.

    16. Re:Cue the naysayers... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Oh that's what most slashdotters think? Cool then I fit right in :-)

    17. Re:Cue the naysayers... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I hadn't even considered that issue. My problem with it is reliability, replacement cost, and glare issues from driving in daylight. My backup camera is great, except I can't see it when my car is pointed north in the morning and the sun shines onto the screen through the sunroof.

      If it breaks, well a mirror face is a $30 replacement, installed.

      The upside, on the other hand, is at night when people's headlghts are blinding, they would only ever be as bright as the LCD can get, and not shining a beam into my eyes. Worst case, is the rear view is unusable.... worst case with mirrors is quite an annoyance.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    18. Re:Cue the naysayers... by plover · · Score: 1

      My windshield washer fluid tank ran dry, so I quickly learned to not drive in the rain. Oh, wait, no, I did something about it.

      I clean my rear view lens every time I fill the tank, and every time I walk past the back of the car and notice it's dirty. It takes about three seconds to give it a swipe of the thumb; if you're planning ahead and are afraid of dirt, you could pocket a tissue before you head out to your car.

      --
      John
    19. Re:Cue the naysayers... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      also, they haven't figured out how to keep the side windows clean. I can hardly see out of mine!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Cue the naysayers... by David_W · · Score: 1

      Ha ha. If only.... Seriously though, it becomes much more of a problem than the side windows for two reasons: 1) It only takes one drop of water or one decent-sized speck of dirt/dust to cover enough of the camera to be useless. Surface area will get you. 2) You only see the camera output when you are already in the car, in reverse (in the case of the back-up camera). Windows, you stand a chance of noticing they need cleaning as you are getting in. Plus you can roll down the window if you are desperate.

      All that said, I still love my camera, and unlike most of the naysayers from the other day, I think they are a great asset. There is just room for improvement.

    21. Re:Cue the naysayers... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      My car doesn't have one, but when I drive a car with them, I really like them. I've eve had a car with a camera issue, and here in Oregon, I drive in the rain all the time.
      all the damn time. Rain rain. blah.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Cue the naysayers... by geekoid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Don't reply to AC, they're usually lying.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Cue the naysayers... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Recently both rear view cameras and sideview camera systems have been criticised as a bad idea by some here on Slashdot.

      This Land Rover invisible hood system seems beyond criticism. But I'm sure slashdot naysayers will find an angle anyway. Go for it...

      I think the biggest legitimate criticism that came out of the rear/side camera replacement of mirrors was that you had to refocus your eyes from infinity to dashboard to infinity each time you glanced at the video display. In this case you will already be tracking your bonnet so that the required change in eye focus will be minimal.

      The biggest criticism with rear view cameras is that when you are reversing, you're looking out of the rear window so you can't even see the dashboard, let alone the display.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    24. Re:Cue the naysayers... by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Bah! Next thing you know you won't be able to buy a car without seatbelts, either.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  10. "This could change the game." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, it allows me to see what I'm about to drive over, and might be able to avoid if I'm moving very slowly.

    I'm sure the military will pay for this, because goddammit private companies have a RIGHT to profit, and public money is the best way to achieve this.

  11. Transparent bonnets by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like Amish porn

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Transparent bonnets by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Amish porn

      Awwww yeahhhh

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  12. Parallax, and why stop at the hood? by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Well this will work (well?) for one point of view, the driver presumably. The passenger will see a distorted view unless they use some sort of system that can show two different images for two (or more) different viewpoints. They could use the "micro louvers" screen filters (patented by 3M I think) or some more sophisticated system that are used on some large screen LCD TVs that provide multiple points of view (or 3D images) without glasses. It's the same problem basically.

    Why stop with just the hood? Why not make the door panels, the dash, even the roof and supports transparent? This would require displays that can be placed on curved surfaces but with OLEDs that is hardly a show-stopper. The big advantage to this, as opposed to most applications, is that the position of the driver (and passenger's) head and eyes are pretty well defined so the system wouldn't have to be calibrated to work with a lot of extreme cases (say with the driver's head down around the feet).

    1. Re:Parallax, and why stop at the hood? by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a passenger if looking through the driver's Heads Up Display, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Parallax, and why stop at the hood? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Depends on who she is and where you are parked.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Parallax, and why stop at the hood? by number17 · · Score: 1

      Technically they call it a Smart Windscreen Head-Up Display. That name implies that the windscreen will be the display, not a pair of goggles. In that case, there would be a distortion of images.

  13. Promised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we were kids, we were promised flying cars in the future

    Who promised this? Was there a delivery date in their "promise"?

    People dreamed of one day having these things, but nobody promised them.

  14. Brilliant. Now for proximity sensors. by Chirs · · Score: 1

    I'd also love to have proximity sensors giving the distance from any part of my car to any obstacle. It'd make parallel parking a lot quicker if I could get a readout showing how many inches there are between my car and the vehicle behind me.

    Rearview cameras can be useful, but unless you've got one like an RV mounted way up high aiming down at the back of the vehicle they won't help much in parking.

  15. Took long enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the amount of money that goes into building a high-end car, you could equip it with a shitload of environmental sensors that monitor every tiny part of its surroundings - radar, sonar, infrared, visual, etc. The engine already gets monitored very extensively, and yet outside sensors have barely reached the point of dash-cams and reverse parking sonars - and even those aren't yet common-place.

    1. Re:Took long enough by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Outside sensors are becoming much more commonplace on not-so-expensive cars. I test-drove a Mazda 3 recently (about $27K fully loaded) which had not only a rearview camera, but a blind-spot radar warning system. (I'm not sure if it had parking sonar sensors or not; I didn't get to parallel park it, and a lot of modern parking sensors hide completely behind the bumpers instead of being obvious like in earlier models.)

      Rearview cameras will be mandatory in all new cars in a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if blind-spot warning systems follow suit shortly after.

      There's been high-end cars for a little while with thermal infrared imaging; I imagine those will be commonplace in another decade or two.

    2. Re:Took long enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I test drove a 1989 Civic Hatchback with the wrong bonnet on it. The original bonnet was damaged when a washing machine fell on it. The owner pulled a bonnet off of a 1989 Civic Sedan,donor automobile, but it turns out that the the Sedan's body is every so slightly different than the Hatch, or the Wagon. So in this case, the hood sticks out a little bit, kind of like a person with an overbite. Anyway, the AC works, and the 5 speed manual gear box shifted pretty good, with only 3rd gear slightly grinding on quick shifts, which is easily solved by double clutching. In the end I took the car home for $1300. The engine does not smoke, or knock, and I got 450 miles out of my first fill-up of the tank. The average young person jumps into a $20,000 "starter" vehicle, and at the 5 year mark, spends over $45,000 TCO. And people today wonder why they will remain slaves to the bank, their employer, their w2 form, their cubicle for the rest of their lives. Correction. They don't wonder. They like it that way.

  16. Re:Transparent Bonnet by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, okay. Don't get a bee in your hood...

    ( :-P )

  17. Good for Offroading... Offroading = mud by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing I don't get with these camera displays is the fact that they don't seem to have wipers on the camera, with cleaning solution.
    Snow/Salt/Mud/Dirt really collect and make visibility bad. If you are offroading then one puddle and your feature is useless.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Good for Offroading... Offroading = mud by modi123 · · Score: 1

      Per the image in the article - the cameras are mounted in the grille.

      http://www.motorauthority.com/...

    2. Re:Good for Offroading... Offroading = mud by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Sure, mud/salt/dirt can get in the grill too.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Good for Offroading... Offroading = mud by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't get with these camera displays is the fact that they don't seem to have wipers on the camera, with cleaning solution.
      Snow/Salt/Mud/Dirt really collect and make visibility bad. If you are offroading then one puddle and your feature is useless.

      ... uh, we could just install wiperless glass AKA ultrasonic wipers.

  18. Re:not me! by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

    as a frequent off road driver I think this would be a crappy device to have, very disorienting

    You might be right as a frequent off-road driver - but as someone who occasionally drives off-road I would welcome it, as I get a really disconcerting feel when you come to the brow of a steep hill and all you can see in the windscreen is sky but you have to keep on driving until the car goes over the bump and you can see again.

  19. Useless by Khyber · · Score: 2

    " Not only is this obviously breathtaking, but when it comes to off-roading—or parking in tight urban spaces—this could change the game."

    Not when the people using said vehicles aren't even familiar with the basics on how to handle and maneuver.

    If you need assistance to parallel park in a tight urban space, you either need a smaller vehicle, or you need to call a cab or walk.

    On top of that, you shouldn't have been given a license in the first place.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  20. Re:Brilliant. Now for proximity sensors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Followed closely by implementation of appropriate armaments...

  21. F35 Joint Strike Fighter by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Maybe Land Rover could second-source this see-through-opaque-surfaces sensor system to Lockheed to solve the problems with the virtual reality helmet on the Lightning II aircraft (the F35 JSF)?

    1. Re:F35 Joint Strike Fighter by Khyber · · Score: 1

      That would actually be a much more feasible use for this, at least for certain ranges of speed at certain altitudes.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  22. Re:Transparent Bonnet by Sique · · Score: 1

    In the video, it is mentioned that Land Rover itself calls it "Transparent Hood" in North America.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  23. Tractors already do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tractors have had this feature for years. They are designed so that the front wheels are directly visible from the cab. A simple solution to a simple problem.

    1. Re:Tractors already do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works wonders for aerodynamics at highway speeds.

  24. Having done a bit of off-roadnig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in Utah's Canyonlands, I'm not sure I *want* to see what's just in front of the bumper! It can be a long way down that uber-steep slope...

  25. Great! If you can see the hood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is awesome...but how will it work on the large number of modern cars where you can't even see the hood from the normal driving position? They'd have to find some way to display it in car.

  26. pretty cool by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    This is a pretty cool feature. I have seen a similar implementation in a Mercedes and a Toyota, but for backwards driving only. It would turn on the camera as soon as you shifted into reverse.

  27. "along the lower portion of the windshield" by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    The article (and video) doesn't make clear how large the "heads up display" is but considering that they say it is along the lower portion of the windshield that implies it must be pretty big (to cover the area of the "hood").

    The range rover isn't a military aircraft where the H.U.D. is going to be relatively near the pilot's face and directly in front of the pilot. For the range rover it wouldn't be safe or convenient to hang a piece of glass so near an ordinary automobile driver. The H.U.D.'s purpose in this case is to "mask" or overlay the hood which subtends a large part of the driver's viewing angle. Since it is placed far away (at the lower part of the windshield) it must be large. Hence it will also occupy a large portion of the (front seat) passenger's viewpoint and thus will project a distorted view unless corrected as I described above.

    1. Re:"along the lower portion of the windshield" by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      A digital screen spread across the dashboard is hardly a heads up display. It might be more like Google Glass.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:"along the lower portion of the windshield" by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The classic meaning of heads up display is that you don't have to look down at your instruments, but keep looking out of the window. Overlaying reality. As this appears to projection onto the lower portion of the windscreen, it would qualify as heads up.

      Google Glass can't do heads up. It's display is up and to one side, and can't overlay reality.

  28. Darn! The hood is NOT made of transparent aluminum by psychogre · · Score: 1

    I guess they would have to get that pesky engine out of the way for it to do any good then...

  29. "So when you hit a pedestrian.... by MrIlios · · Score: 1

    ...you can see if he was a friend of yours." Just as Tex Avery Predicted in his cartoons:- http://vimeo.com/32889552 (see 10m 50s in). Pure Genius.

  30. Re:Brilliant. Now for proximity sensors. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

    Nissan already offers that.

    http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/avm.html

  31. It's been invented already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...ever since there is a 2nd row of seats in a vehicle: When driving parents ignore screaming kids at the back rows. That's Trans-parenthood.

  32. Re:Brilliant. Now for proximity sensors. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    I'd also love to have proximity sensors giving the distance from any part of my car to any obstacle. It'd make parallel parking a lot quicker if I could get a readout showing how many inches there are between my car and the vehicle behind me.

    Couple Arduinos, couple ultrasonic rangefinders, couple of LED strips...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  33. Jeep, license this tech already! by docwatson223 · · Score: 1

    Moab and Rubicon Trails would rock with this!

  34. It's no coincidence that the hood was black by muhula · · Score: 1

    With a light colored hood, the heads up display during the day would be washed out.

    I imagine that cars with this technology would benefit from a matte black hood, making future cars look like modders with carbon fiber hoods. Next, we'll see some technology that requires a huge spoiler :)

  35. How soon before standard? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

    I understand that backup cameras will be mandatory in cars by 2018. Related, I can see this being very use for larger vehicles where ground clearance impedes visibility. A small object or child can easily disappear below the line of visibility on larger SUV's and trucks and this seems to make it visible without being a distraction (and able to toggle off/on). Safety aside I can see this being very useful for driving in tight spaces and other instances where seeing the ground and wheels would be immensely helpful.

  36. International solved this 40 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend had an International Scout that was so rusty you could see through the hood and both fenders. This is not new tech!

  37. Truly Life Changing by rdelsambuco · · Score: 1

    We are clearly approaching the singularity.

    --
    I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
  38. invisible hood is "beyond criticism" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    This is not a good application of technology...

    ALL OF THIS IS TO INCREASE SHOWROOM SALES

    this is about hooking in soccer moms, with an eye to short term sales figures only, by dazzling them with technology they will never use

    no ammount of technology can account for an **inattentive driver**

    this is bunk application of tech....and to pretend otherwise is bad for our industry

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:invisible hood is "beyond criticism" by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      ALL product improvements are to increase sales.

      Have you actually looked at the marketing video. It has nothing to do with parking - for which it would have little benefit, and which is already addressed by other technology. This is for off-roading. Where exact placement of the wheels is a significant benefit.

    2. Re:invisible hood is "beyond criticism" by aclarke · · Score: 2

      Do you actually drive off-road? This addresses a real issue, which is how to safely straddle obstacles in the road to protect your undercarraige. You may only see Land Rovers driven by "soccer moms", but they are one of the few companies producing vehicles that can genuinely be driven off-road.

      I'm a curmudgeon driving an '80s Land Rover completely devoid of computers, but I have a large and increasing amount of respect for the capabilities of new Land Rovers.

  39. Technology as demonstrated by Blaine the Mono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of 'Star Trek did it!' It's 'Stephen King did it!'

  40. brilliant by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    That's what we need; a Land Rover where the driver can't tell where the front end actually is. I'm sure they won't hit any hydrants/curbs/garage walls.

  41. Off-roading? by camperdave · · Score: 2

    Off-roading? The cameras would be caked with mud and dust within 15 minutes. How is this going to be helpful?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Off-roading? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The windshields and headlamps are self-cleaning, so why can't these cameras be? Oh, someone on Slashdot thought of one possible (but easily solved) problem, therefore the entire tech is useless because the summary didn't outline every technical challenge and solution.

    2. Re:Off-roading? by modi123 · · Score: 1

      Per the image in the article - the cameras are mounted in the grille.

    3. Re:Off-roading? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Off-roading? The cameras would be caked with mud and dust within 15 minutes.

      And the windscreen. It's a wonder anyone goes off-roading at all, having to get out and wipe the muck off the windows every quarter of an hour.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Off-roading? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      How many Land Rover owners actually off-road? Im guessing a small fraction of a percent. These cars are more of a luxury vehicle than practical offroader. The transparent hood is just a marketing gimmick to get people to buy a Land Rover. The main market for these cars are yuppies and soccer moms with money. They don't have to ford rivers, climb a steep hill or drive down muddy dirt roads after a monsoon to buy groceries, make it to their hair appointment or commute to work.

    5. Re:Off-roading? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      hey don't have to ford rivers, climb a steep hill or drive down muddy dirt roads after a monsoon to buy groceries, make it to their hair appointment or commute to work.

      But the cars are capable of that, and that's why they're also popular with farmers and people that live outside of cities.

  42. Video Game by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    This will take the senior citizen's favorite game "Farmer's Market" to a whole new level of interaction!

  43. That's OK! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    No one uses a 100,000$ dollar Land Rover for offroading silly! Are you nuts?

    They are used by rich soccer Moms to drop off little Bobby at practice. Those camera may prevent them from running over Jimmy when they have had one too many cocktails and get all sassy and decide to take a short cut over the neighboring pitch...

  44. Or we could ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... just not hand out drivers licenses to people who can't parallel park.

    Equipment on a Land Rover isn't going to save children. That's a rich person's car. Rich people's kids don't play in the street. Poor people will continue to be run over by clapped-out F150s.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  45. Not new. by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    We did pretty much the same thing with US Army helicopters almost twenty years ago.

  46. the video is cool by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    I have no problem admiting that the video is cool...but this is more about design trends and the implications

    first...what was depicted in the video is not "off roading"

    2nd...the most "off roading" these Range Rovers will ever see is if the Soccer Mom ever accidentally backs into a flower garden

    again I think the video is cool, and the general concept has many awesome applications

    this *particular* application is not one of them

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  47. Maybe not by Solandri · · Score: 1

    While working in the shop in undergrad (all engineering majors were required to take a metalworking shop course so we wouldn't come up with stupid designs which were impossible to manufacture), the professor told us to be especially careful with the lathe. Because it's spinning and parts of it appear semi-transparent, it apparently doesn't register in some people's brains as really being there. I thought that was silly, then discovered that I was one of those people and nearly stuck my hand into the spinning lathe clamp. I've taken note of this deficiency in my visual system and am especially careful around things like fan blades and aircraft propellers (I have accidentally stuck my fingers into rotating CPU fans, which fortunately don't have enough mass to do much damage).

    I suspect if you made a semi-transparent virtual view through the hood, people like me might "forget" there's a hood there in the first place thereby increasing the danger rather than reducing it. A view of only critical areas like directly in front of the tires would probably be safer, rather than making the entire hood semi-transparent for the gee whiz factor.

  48. VR ! by savuporo · · Score: 2

    Can we just go full VR with this, ala Oculus ? Just put a headset on before you get in the car.
    The opportunities would be endless ! First of all, it could repaint the entire interior to look like whatever sports coupe, vintage classic or whatever your dream car is.
    You could be launching virtual. very satisfactory rockets at the jackass who just blocked your turn, create imaginary, optionally naked supermodels on passenger seats and so on ?

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    1. Re:VR ! by dleewo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want to be on the same road as someone who's driving via a VR headset

    2. Re:VR ! by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Right, but how about someone who is driving with Augmented Reality , which this camera gizmo, proposed removal of side view mirrors that Tesla is championing etc effectively are ? Even rear backup cameras are effectively AR.
      I mean going full VR is just the next logical step ..

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  49. Re:Transparent Bonnet by lgw · · Score: 1

    Land Rover has been an Indian car company for 6 years now. I can remember when they were British, but really all the interesting tech in Land Rover and Jaguar has come since Tata took them over, and started trying to make modern cars. It can be a hood if it wants to be.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  50. Transparent Hood, hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have 6' 1". I wanna to go up instead of down so i can see the fracking traffic light when i am first in line!!!

    1. Re:Transparent Hood, hell by Primate+Pete · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I know there are considerations about rigidity and strength of the frame in a crash, but I'm under 6', and have trouble seeing a traffic light at least once a day. Is it really not possible to put larger windshields on cars?

  51. Re:Transparent Bonnet by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Don't make me give you the boot..

    YEAHHHHHHH!!!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  52. Rocks by aclarke · · Score: 1

    The other advantage is where you place an obstacle under your vehicle. If there's a large sharp rock, you want to drive over it such that it doesn't rip open your differential, for example. Now, all modern Land Rovers have independent suspension, but you still want to be straddling obstacles in the safest way possible.

  53. Re:Technology doesn't make up for lack of ability. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ``Prii''

  54. so a mobile Oculus by itchybrain · · Score: 1

    Imagine, not having to see the boring interior of the car, but in essence, speeding along in open space like on a motorcycle, only with better protection. I can buy into this idea if done properly.

  55. Re:Transparent Bonnet by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1
  56. Eye / Head tracking required(?) by Lluc · · Score: 1

    I think this would require eye tracking. The image projected on the windshield would change depending on the height of the driver, and would also change as you move your head up and down. It's a clever idea, but it could be very distracting as the image is continually adjusted for the height of your eyes.

  57. "Obviously breathtaking" by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

    Not so much. I get you're a fan but ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously.

  58. Rover Tech by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Sounds like some great new technology Rover has there. It will be a great help in finding out where the oil leaks are coming from.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  59. Not really a "demo" as such by Trogre · · Score: 1

    More of a concept illustration. What the video shows is how someone can superimpose two videos and move the Opacity slider a bit.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  60. Is that an appropriate application? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With 8 wheels, wouldn't there be better ways of tracking distance from drop offs than a transparent hood?

  61. What if you used hundreds of sensors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linked to a computer that recognized loss and switched?

    Perhaps too soon...

  62. Re:Transparent Bonnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because Americans are easily confused, and struggle with English

  63. Old fashioned design.... by metaforest · · Score: 1

    Long time ago I owed a boat..... 1969 Malibu. One of the cool features of that car once I got the hang of it, is that the hood lines told me where the corners of the car were within a few inches. I knew if I was in the center of the lane by comparing the hood creases to the road markers.... easy peasy. Making that connection took all of about 2 hours of driving....

    Today.... not so much... I have driven recent high-end cars that lack those old-school hood marks and are fairly hard to keep in lane without checking the left-outside mirror to check the center-line of the road(!)

    WTF?!

    Tesla seems to get this but a recent GM vehicle I drove had no 'center-line' marker on the hood. I was hunting the whole time of was driving it trying to figure out what hood feature was giving me feedback.... after 20 minutes I gave up... the left rearview was my best marker.... and that sucked.... I had to keep checking a mirror to make sure I was not over the center-line..... fuck you GM....

    1. Re:Old fashioned design.... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Replaying to myself:

      apparently a few manufactures have forgotten why there are raised lines, or raised features on a hood.... well shit.... they are for aiming the car.... who'd of thunk.... oh... and by the way.... Fuck you GM.... some of your recent vehicles respect that the hood is a great place to provide visual indications of lane position!

  64. now we can bring back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    superchargers and hood scoops

  65. Personal vehicles are not the future. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Driverless, automated taxis are the future. Whether they fly or not.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"