ACC/Pilot Assist Modification precautions

[iamyxy]

Please pay attention when making ACC/PA configuration changes.

It is best to consult the technical documentation before modification. Due to different car models, I have not yet sorted out the specific architecture week.

Not all SPA/CMA vehicles can use these functions by modifying configuration items. Especially for early vehicles equipped with BCM, after modifying the configuration, the braking function during use can make you very uncomfortable and pose certain risks.

[Power6]

Yeah this is a known risk. AFAIK any car with the "conventional" brake system (it has a BCM and not a BCM2) if it does not have PA/ACC from the factory, the ABS hydraulic unit is supposed to be replaced, with a different specific part for PA/ACC. This is what Volvo requires when the factory "Intellassist" accessory to enable PA/ACC is installed.

You can enable PA/ACC anyways, as you know. It's a personal risk decision. Some have noted strange feelings with the automated braking in this case. I have not noticed myself, but I have not had the opportunity to compare a factory equipped car to an "enabled" car like mine, with the conventional hydraulic brake system.

[allen.xu]

Please pay attention when making ACC/PA configuration changes.

It is best to consult the technical documentation before modification. Due to different car models, I have not yet sorted out the specific architecture week.

Not all SPA/CMA vehicles can use these functions by modifying configuration items. Especially for early vehicles equipped with BCM, after modifying the configuration, the braking function during use can make you very uncomfortable and pose certain risks.

Looking forward to your summary and sharing.
After changing the ACC and PA, I've had some feedback that the brakes have become stiffer.

[DiyEverything]

Yeah this is a known risk. AFAIK any car with the "conventional" brake system (it has a BCM and not a BCM2) if it does not have PA/ACC from the factory, the ABS hydraulic unit is supposed to be replaced, with a different specific part for PA/ACC. This is what Volvo requires when the factory "Intellassist" accessory to enable PA/ACC is installed.

You can enable PA/ACC anyways, as you know. It's a personal risk decision. Some have noted strange feelings with the automated braking in this case. I have not noticed myself, but I have not had the opportunity to compare a factory equipped car to an "enabled" car like mine, with the conventional hydraulic brake system.

I have driven a 2019 S90 Inscription and can compare the ACC/PA with my 2019 S60 Momentum that has been "enabled" drove both cars on the same section of road, 20 miles in each direction, and noticed no difference in the way they behaved. both were a bit shaky when there were several crack repairs in the center of the lane or when the road opened to two lanes. The cars braked behind a stopping, slowing, or merging car in the same manner. they also both stopped the same behind another car at a traffic light very similar, I did notice a bit more pulsation of the brakes in my modified S60.

I also got behind the wheel of a 2022 S6 Recharge on the same roads, and it was a totally different experience. Almost all the "new driver" feel was gone. Very little shaking or jerking of the wheel and braking or slowing behind another car was much better. I think that is just improved technology over previous model years.

Again, this is just my experience and how I perceived how the cars behaved, your results may vary.

[afranke]

Sorry if this has been covered (I searched and couldn't find), but when it comes to ACC do we actually know what the "levels" mean?  I'll admit at one point I just upped all the PA/ACC stuff (on my '23 V60 PE) to whatever the highest level is for awhile.  It worked just fine, no errors and hundreds of miles without incident.  I recently reverted the config to stock to get service and used the ACC on the way, and it felt "better". I can't really describe how, just more situated.  I think there was less hunting between the lines, it seemed to actually follow closer, and the braking seemed smoother.

That got me thinking of possible reasons.  One idea that stuck out in my head is that maybe the "levels" are related to the size of the vehicle for PA/ACC calculations.  I wonder if by changing to a higher level I made the system think it was a different sized model.  This could cause issues with lane hunting as the software doesn't know the car isn't as wide as it thinks it is, so it's constantly trying to "fill" the middle of the lane with the wrong sized car.  On top, the following distance would probably be increased for a heavier vehicle as it would take longer to come to a complete stop.

I wish I could browse all of the default config data Orbit has pulled from cars to compare and see if there is a trend or "default" collection of settings for certain features or models.

[DiyEverything]

Sorry if this has been covered (I searched and couldn't find), but when it comes to ACC do we actually know what the "levels" mean?  I'll admit at one point I just upped all the PA/ACC stuff (on my '23 V60 PE) to whatever the highest level is for awhile.  It worked just fine, no errors and hundreds of miles without incident.  I recently reverted the config to stock to get service and used the ACC on the way, and it felt "better". I can't really describe how, just more situated.  I think there was less hunting between the lines, it seemed to actually follow closer, and the braking seemed smoother.

That got me thinking of possible reasons.  One idea that stuck out in my head is that maybe the "levels" are related to the size of the vehicle for PA/ACC calculations.  I wonder if by changing to a higher level I made the system think it was a different sized model.  This could cause issues with lane hunting as the software doesn't know the car isn't as wide as it thinks it is, so it's constantly trying to "fill" the middle of the lane with the wrong sized car.  On top, the following distance would probably be increased for a heavier vehicle as it would take longer to come to a complete stop.

I wish I could browse all of the default config data Orbit has pulled from cars to compare and see if there is a trend or "default" collection of settings for certain features or models.

I think you raise some very good questions and I would be interested to learn more on the lane keep and ACC values as well. Not sure about the theory on lane centering as the center of the lane doesn't change with the size of the vehicle but braking and following distance certainly could. I have played with the different levels of Pilot Assist and have not found a difference, they all want to bias to the left for whatever reason; so I always feel too close to the center in heavy traffic.

[afranke]

Sorry if this has been covered (I searched and couldn't find), but when it comes to ACC do we actually know what the "levels" mean?  I'll admit at one point I just upped all the PA/ACC stuff (on my '23 V60 PE) to whatever the highest level is for awhile.  It worked just fine, no errors and hundreds of miles without incident.  I recently reverted the config to stock to get service and used the ACC on the way, and it felt "better". I can't really describe how, just more situated.  I think there was less hunting between the lines, it seemed to actually follow closer, and the braking seemed smoother.

That got me thinking of possible reasons.  One idea that stuck out in my head is that maybe the "levels" are related to the size of the vehicle for PA/ACC calculations.  I wonder if by changing to a higher level I made the system think it was a different sized model.  This could cause issues with lane hunting as the software doesn't know the car isn't as wide as it thinks it is, so it's constantly trying to "fill" the middle of the lane with the wrong sized car.  On top, the following distance would probably be increased for a heavier vehicle as it would take longer to come to a complete stop.

I wish I could browse all of the default config data Orbit has pulled from cars to compare and see if there is a trend or "default" collection of settings for certain features or models.

I think you raise some very good questions and I would be interested to learn more on the lane keep and ACC values as well. Not sure about the theory on lane centering as the center of the lane doesn't change with the size of the vehicle but braking and following distance certainly could. I have played with the different levels of Pilot Assist and have not found a difference, they all want to bias to the left for whatever reason; so I always feel too close to the center in heavy traffic.

It's obviously all just made up in my head without seeing any code, but I've been debugging/troubleshooting software for 20+ years so I don't mind making some guesses about the logic they used.  Its possible they aren't actually looking to find the center of the lane, but to keep the car a certain distance from the lines on the edges (probably trying to keep the gap on each side about the same).  If this is the case, the system would need to "know" how wide the car is supposed to be in order to determine that gap.  If it has the wrong size, it'll end up in the wrong spot over and over, thus the hunting between lines. 

The systems these days use data from many sensors such as the camera, LIDAR, radar, as well as computer vision.  I do believe this is how the Volvo system works, and as with every other system they have in place, it must be modular to work across model lines.  Therefore, there must be some value passed to the ACC system that tells it how big the car is and where the sensors are in relation to each other.  This would definitely cause a problem as most ACC systems first use the camera to do edge detection for lines, which factors in camera perspective, which is different for vehicles of different heights.  Here's a basic outline from Wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:...orithm.jpg

And as I mentioned before, things like weight distribution and power are important details when automating a car.  How do we know there isn't some value here changing the maximum brake force applied or estimated stopping time/distance for an XC90 vs C40?  I wouldn't want to be behind the wheel (or driving in front of) an XC90 in ACC that thinks it's a C40 in ACC.

I dunno, just seems not worth the changes unless you know for sure they are adding a benefit.  I'll keep the Curve Speed Assist because I have actually seen it work and add benefit compared to what it was before.

[estorsky]

Hello everyone,

I have a few (stupid) questions here.

I would like to install front side sensors as it is a "blind" zone when making a parallel parking.
I have even have places for them already in my Cross Country. I also have 4 front parking sensors from the factory.

I do not need the full Park Pilot Assist though.

Do you think it is possible to somehow wire side sensors to the side sensors?
Something like my sketch below.

I have sensors #1, 2, 3, 4. Let us call left side sensor L and right side sensor R.
Now I have four separate signals from 1, 2, 3, and 4.
I would like to somehow connect L to 1 (so the system would respond no matter which one is beeping) and R to 4.
As a result, CEM would think there are 4 sensors, but I will have information from 6: 1+L, 2, 3, 4+R.

Is that even possible? I would like not to screw everything, and I suspect there are complications related to voltage etc.
Any ideas? Thanks.

[Power6]

And as I mentioned before, things like weight distribution and power are important details when automating a car.  How do we know there isn't some value here changing the maximum brake force applied or estimated stopping time/distance for an XC90 vs C40?  I wouldn't want to be behind the wheel (or driving in front of) an XC90 in ACC that thinks it's a C40 in ACC.

I dunno, just seems not worth the changes unless you know for sure they are adding a benefit.  I'll keep the Curve Speed Assist because I have actually seen it work and add benefit compared to what it was before.

You are right everything is designed to be modular. Because I have been deep in the weeds to develop OrBit, I have gotten some idea of how the systems work. There is some sort of "model" of the car defined, based on dimensions. It looked related to the parking sensor system but that model may be used or duplicated elsewhere for the other safety systems. That probably allows a pretty universal system across all the current and future models, a new model would only need to have the physical model defined.

I would not worry much about the PA/ACC levels, these appear to be different levels of functionality. There is more info in this thread, I just updated based on the research I did to implement Config Presets for the PA/ACC settings. OrBit will know pick the "right" settings for the car. Overall the settings appear to go with the hardware capabilities of the car, regardless of the model.

Something like "braking" is contained within the BCM/BCM2 module it has the calibration, and the configuration of the specific brakes, read from the centra config of course. It knows the torque output of the brakes, accelerometer data, calculated tire slip etc. at all times. There is no need for the PA/ACC programming to account for those things with a configuration for "level", if it were needed to know which model, it could simply read the configuration item for the model code of the car, that's the benefit of a central config system. In the older cars the ASDM (Active Safety Domain Manager) ties all the dynamics systems together, the VCU1 (Vehicle Computational Unit) in the newer cars. That's where the magic of drivetrain, safety and driver aids come together i think, that may be where the physics model of the car exists. I'm far from an expert, just been messing with the Volvo stuff for a while ;-)

I have sensors #1, 2, 3, 4. Let us call left side sensor L and right side sensor R.
Now I have four separate signals from 1, 2, 3, and 4.
I would like to somehow connect L to 1 (so the system would respond no matter which one is beeping) and R to 4.
As a result, CEM would think there are 4 sensors, but I will have information from 6: 1+L, 2, 3, 4+R.

Is that even possible? I would like not to screw everything, and I suspect there are complications related to voltage etc.
Any ideas? Thanks.

To keep it short...what you propose is far more complicated to achieve than: install the extra sensors, wired as factory (as the accessory install would), and enable Park Pilot Assist with OrBit. You will have the side sensors installed and functional.

[IMAY2023]

And as I mentioned before, things like weight distribution and power are important details when automating a car.  How do we know there isn't some value here changing the maximum brake force applied or estimated stopping time/distance for an XC90 vs C40?  I wouldn't want to be behind the wheel (or driving in front of) an XC90 in ACC that thinks it's a C40 in ACC.

I dunno, just seems not worth the changes unless you know for sure they are adding a benefit.  I'll keep the Curve Speed Assist because I have actually seen it work and add benefit compared to what it was before.

You are right everything is designed to be modular. Because I have been deep in the weeds to develop OrBit, I have gotten some idea of how the systems work. There is some sort of "model" of the car defined, based on dimensions. It looked related to the parking sensor system but that model may be used or duplicated elsewhere for the other safety systems. That probably allows a pretty universal system across all the current and future models, a new model would only need to have the physical model defined.

I would not worry much about the PA/ACC levels, these appear to be different levels of functionality. There is more info in this thread, I just updated based on the research I did to implement Config Presets for the PA/ACC settings. OrBit will know pick the "right" settings for the car. Overall the settings appear to go with the hardware capabilities of the car, regardless of the model.

Something like "braking" is contained within the BCM/BCM2 module it has the calibration, and the configuration of the specific brakes, read from the centra config of course. It knows the torque output of the brakes, accelerometer data, calculated tire slip etc. at all times. There is no need for the PA/ACC programming to account for those things with a configuration for "level", if it were needed to know which model, it could simply read the configuration item for the model code of the car, that's the benefit of a central config system. In the older cars the ASDM (Active Safety Domain Manager) ties all the dynamics systems together, the VCU1 (Vehicle Computational Unit) in the newer cars. That's where the magic of drivetrain, safety and driver aids come together i think, that may be where the physics model of the car exists. I'm far from an expert, just been messing with the Volvo stuff for a while ;-)

I have sensors #1, 2, 3, 4. Let us call left side sensor L and right side sensor R.
Now I have four separate signals from 1, 2, 3, and 4.
I would like to somehow connect L to 1 (so the system would respond no matter which one is beeping) and R to 4.
As a result, CEM would think there are 4 sensors, but I will have information from 6: 1+L, 2, 3, 4+R.

Is that even possible? I would like not to screw everything, and I suspect there are complications related to voltage etc.
Any ideas? Thanks.

To keep it short...what you propose is far more complicated to achieve than: install the extra sensors, wired as factory (as the accessory install would), and enable Park Pilot Assist with OrBit. You will have the side sensors installed and functional.

Not quite. I did installed the park assist pilot in addition to already existing front & rear 8 total parking sensors to my 2019 S60.  Each sensor has 3 wires, 2 of those are common connected to 2 CEM pins. Then you have 8 individual wires from each sensor to CEM on 8 different pins.  When you add 4 additional side sensors they also use the same 2 shared wires and pins on the CEM but each sensor on the sides, has it's own pin on the CEM. So, in total you have 12 sensors connected to CEM in 14 pins. (12 individual and 2 common).  As a result, it is not possible connecting 4 additional sensors in parallel.