PowerUp 4.1.1 Update

[Gullwingdmc]

My assumption is someone convinced everyone else in the room that 99% of the time people really only care about what they see.

The infotainment is what the driver sees and the most important from the majority of driver perspective.

As long as the other module are bug free for the majority of people they are inconsequential and we can continue to use the same software update process we have used for years.

You can see that play out here.

The power ups that include an update to the infotainment get much more attention than the power ups that have an invisible change.

I believe the majority of people just care if they have the latest infotainment power up.

That might have been how people thought 10 years ago, but now that everyone is used to having a computer in their pocket that updates OTA with a unified version number people are expecting any device that updates to do the same.

The amount of people I see confused about the sync version vs the power up version on the FB groups just goes to show that the way for went about the software on these cars is not how people expect it to be.

I think if they just included in the release notes (?) what modules were updated, and to what version then people would be less confused.

Sponsored

 

[Neil4Real]

I have one of the earliest Mach Es built. Probably built before yours. I do. not. care. and I am *really* tired of hearing about it

Lol, what?! Then you probably shouldn’t use forums as the same thing gets repeated ad nauseam. Just because you don’t care about the frunk button, doesn’t mean others share that sentiment.

 

[SWO]

Got it today.

Also have a new (I think new) bug.

I click “charge to 100%” in FordPass and the target charge still says “90%.”

Very minor bug since it still seems to be charging to 100%.

I'm pretty sure mine has done that since August of 2021.

 

[ShaggySS]

I'm pretty sure mine has done that since August of 2021.

yep. and when it hits 100% you'll get a push notification that you reached 90%

 

[MacherAWD]

Lol, what?! Then you probably shouldn’t use forums as the same thing gets repeated ad nauseam. Just because you don’t care about the frunk button, doesn’t mean others share that sentiment.

Can we go back to just asking over and over again, "so I heard range is less in winter, but its negative 10, car outside in the snow, and when I drive my range is down 40%, I am guessing I have a defective battery..."

 

[BMT1071]

Can we go back to just asking over and over again, "so I heard range is less in winter, but its negative 10, car outside in the snow, and when I drive my range is down 40%, I am guessing I have a defective battery..."

I much prefer the "did Ford put the wrong battery in my car?" questions. To each their own, I guess. ?

 

[Logal727]

I have one of the earliest Mach Es built. Probably built before yours. I do. not. care. and I am *really* tired of hearing about it

There's an Ignore feature on the forum, use it.

 

[MacherAWD]

I much prefer the "did Ford put the wrong battery in my car?" questions. To each their own, I guess. ?

Yes! that was what I was thinking about, I have seen that so many times "I think I got a smaller battery by mistake...." ummm, no you didnt, EVs loose tons of range in winter. I honestly think everyone should have to drive a Gen 1 Nissan Leaf for a whole winter before buying an EV. Driving home at 55mph, with no heat, bundled as best you can, frosty breath, and getting 45miles of range. Then when you step into your Mach-E you will appreciate the range!

EDIT: and jeez now I sound the equivalent of "I walked to school both ways up hill!" When I was a kid EVs could barely go more than 25miles from home, and forget about using the heat in the winter!

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

This trope is getting really, really freaking old. No one cares

This was posted because the info came to me straight from a senior Ford Engineer.

It’s not a trope, there is nothing figurative or metaphorical about the repeated questions regarding the remote frunk release for Job 1 cars. A lot of job 1 owners want the feature which is standard in every other car built since early July 2021. It was a feature promised to job 1 cars, repeatedly, in writing which has failed to materialize. The fact that some owners see little use for the frunk neither negates the promises made by Ford nor is it more persuasive than the owners who do use the Frunk regularly. The fact that you might not care about it also does not outweigh other owners nor does it negate the promises made by Ford.

And the fact that Ford, as of the second day of Winter 2022, still hasn’t pushed an update implementing a feature standard going on 18 months and now 2 1/2 model years worth of cars, to job 1 cars, all of which have the hardware needed, speaks volumes about Ford.

 

[kdonnel]

I think if they just included in the release notes (?) what modules were updated, and to what version then people would be less confused.

I think you are way over estimating the ability of the average person to read and understand detailed release notes.

I would bet that detailed release notes would generate more questions directed at Ford from the few that read the release notes versus the current system of generic release notes.

Have you read Tesla release notes? They are technobabble. I think written to make people feel impressed about their cars.

We are a small minority of all MME owners. The vast majority do not seek out a message board or FB group. The vast majority don't have any idea they might be on an older release.

It is not economically feasible for Ford to change their software deployment method to satisfy such a small fraction of total owners.

edited to add example Tesla release notes. I feel as an owner I really need to know that my photon count has been upgraded.

- Upgraded the Object Detection network to photon count video streams and retrained all parameters with the latest autolabeled datasets (with a special emphasis on low visibility scenarios). Improved the architecture for better accuracy and latency, higher recall of far away vehicles, lower velocity error of crossing vehicles by 20%, and improved VRU precision by 20%.

- Converted the VRU Velocity network to a two-stage network, which reduced latency and improved crossing pedestrian velocity error by 6%.

- Converted the Non VRU Attributes network to a two-stage network, which reduced latency, reduced incorrect lane assignment of crossing vehicles by 45%, and reduced incorrect parked predictions by 15%.

- Reformulated the autoregressive Vector Lanes grammar to improve precision of lanes by 9.2%, recall of lanes by 18.7%, and recall of forks by 51.1%. Includes a full network update where all components were re-trained with 3.8x the amount of data.

- Added a new "road markings" module to the Vector Lanes neural network which improves lane topology error at intersections by 38.9%.

- Upgraded the Occupancy Network to align with road surface instead of ego for improved detection stability and improved recall at hill crest.

- Reduced runtime of candidate trajectory generation by approximately 80% and improved smoothness by distilling an expensive trajectory optimization procedure into a lightweight planner neural network.

- Improved decision making for short deadline lane changes around gores by richer modeling of the trade-off between going off-route vs trajectory required to drive through the gore region

- Reduced false slowdowns for pedestrians near crosswalk by using a better model for the kinematics of the pedestrian

- Added control for more precise object geometry as detected by general occupancy network.

- Improved control for vehicles cutting out of our desired path by better modeling of their turning / lateral maneuvers thus avoiding unnatural slowdowns

- Improved longitudinal control while offsetting around static obstacles by searching over feasible vehicle motion profiles

- Improved longitudinal control smoothness for in-lane vehicles during high relative velocity scenarios by also considering relative acceleration in the trajectory optimization

- Reduced best case object photon-to-control system latency by 26% through adaptive planner scheduling, restructuring of trajectory selection, and parallelizing perception compute. This allows us to make quicker decisions and improves reaction time.

- Introduced foundational support for model-parallel neural network inference by sharing intermediate tensors across SOCs to improve road edge and road line prediction consistency through changes to TRIP compiler, inference runtime, and inter-processor communication layer.

- Improved handling of traffic control behavior in dense intersection areas by improving the association logic between traffic lights and intersections.

Press the "Video Record" button on the top bar UI to share your feedback. When pressed, your vehicle's external cameras will share a short VIN-associated Autopilot Snapshot with the Tesla engineering team to help make improvements to FSD. You will not be able to view the clip.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

That might have been how people thought 10 years ago, but now that everyone is used to having a computer in their pocket that updates OTA with a unified version number people are expecting any device that updates to do the same.

Pretty much this.

 

[mixduptransistor]

This was posted because the info came to me straight from a senior Ford Engineer.

It’s not a trope, there is nothing figurative or metaphorical about the repeated questions regarding the remote frunk release for Job 1 cars. A lot of job 1 owners want the feature which is standard in every other car built since early July 2021. It was a feature promised to job 1 cars, repeatedly, in writing which has failed to materialize. The fact that some owners see little use for the frunk neither negates the promises made by Ford nor is it more persuasive than the than the owners who do use the Frunk regularly. The fact that you might not care about it also does not outweigh other owners nor does it negate the promises made by Ford.

And the fact that Ford, as of the second day of Winter 2022, still hasn’t pushed an update implementing a feature standard on 18 months and now 2 1/2 model years worth of cars, to job 1 cars, all of which have the hardware needed, speaks volumes about Ford.

My point is, you don't have to mention it in literally every post you make on this forum, regardless of the topic of the thread. Your wishes are on the record, it's well established. Move on

This is the last I'll mention this, since this thread is about something else

 

[mixduptransistor]

I think you are way over estimating the ability of the average person to read and understand detailed release notes.

I would bet that detailed release notes would generate more questions directed at Ford from the few that read the release notes versus the current system of generic release notes.

Have you read Tesla release notes? They are technobabble. I think written to make people feel impressed about their cars.

Everyone on this forum would be well served to drill this into their heads. Everyone here is an extreme enthusiast of these cars. Yes, Ford should absolutely be taking our input into account, and even catering to us to some extent. But, *we* also should realize we're a very small minority of the overall car-owning population and at the end of the day Ford has to do things that minimizes disruption and confusion for the masses

Now, on this specific topic perhaps Ford could post release notes online where enthusiasts can get to them, but not post them to the car where it would confuse the normies, but that also takes resources and what would they really get out of it? It's not causing them any headaches for a bunch of weirdos to argue on a random website they don't operate, and no one is making a car buying decision--even the type of people who post here--based on release note policies

 

[Jimrpa]

I have one of the earliest Mach Es built. Probably built before yours. I do. not. care. and I am *really* tired of hearing about it

I’m not going to get into “who’s rolled off the line first”, but if the discussion of a particular functionality, be it funk release, 5 second limit, HVBJB design issues, or whatever, so bothers you, just blow past the topics. Nobody else will care.

 

[Jimrpa]

That might have been how people thought 10 years ago, but now that everyone is used to having a computer in their pocket that updates OTA with a unified version number people are expecting any device that updates to do the same.

The amount of people I see confused about the sync version vs the power up version on the FB groups just goes to show that the way for went about the software on these cars is not how people expect it to be.

I think if they just included in the release notes (?) what modules were updated, and to what version then people would be less confused.

I see your point, but I think you’d have a different group of people who would be confused. Those who would still see the vehicle as a monolithic system and wonder why they aren’t on the Mustang Mach E equivalent of macOS Monterey.

Sponsored