Slipstream
Established Member
I've emailed MG to see what they have to say. I get that many conflicting messages that it would be interesting to know once and for all.
I've emailed MG to see what they have to say. I get that many conflicting messages that it would be interesting to know once and for all.
To clarify, I am not taking about the tech in the car, I am purely talking about their software update system/process.You say 'You just build the new workflow system on top of the existing old/flawed system.' Really do you think MG could be bothered to do this. I think not. The MG ZS EV was their first electric car sold for a very cheap price. This car was a tester we were very lucky to get the Comfort 2 update, some even got it for free.
The next MG ZS EV, coming out very soon, will have a similar software configuration with a few extra features, all digital dash etc. as the existing system is not flawed as you suggest.
What you are writing is pie in the sky wishful thinking based on a flawed understanding of how car companies design and implement software for budget vehicles. Tesla do have a much better integrated approach combining multiple cameras, radar, sat nav, artificial intelligence
etc. together, but they do spend a lot more on research and development and charge much more for their vehicles. You pay for what you get in the real world.
It would seem from your posts you know more about writing software and updating systems than SIAC Motor, but wait they have 204,820 employees and a revenue of $106.7 bIllion.To clarify, I am not taking about the tech in the car, I am purely talking about their software update system/process.
Their process for installing the software updates on the car is flawed - reply on a human to do various things correctly, instead of the system just looking at what the current versions/configs are and doing the necessary updates. At the very least, there should be a check performed at the end of the process by the system to make sure the car is at the correct software level - it's quite pathetic that it doesn't even do this & could be VERY easily and cheaply implemented.
Tesla for example must literally spend 100s of millions more than MG on their actual cars IT systems, as much as I would like it I don't expect a high tech car like the Telsa for the MG money.
I have to agree with @JodyS21 to an extent, we can all tell the difference between good and bad front end systems, the user interface. These can be updated relatively easily without affecting the behind the scenes modules and what they do, which is what he is suggesting, not rewriting the entire software.It would seem from your posts you know more about writing software and updating systems than SIAC Motor, but wait they have 204,820 employees and a revenue of $106.7 bIllion.
In your words the company is 'pathetic' as it cannot perform process system checks.
It's great you know so much, and the 'pathetic' Chinese company knows so little. Maybe you, with all your expertise based on, as you have said previously, 'only from what I've heard/been told about' (hearsay) could get a job with SIAC and be employee 204,821.
You really don't know what you are talking about, just hearsay no empirical data, worse still what you are promoting is misleading and when using words like pathetic, would appear to be ignorant and offensive.
If you did not like the bongs on a test drive, you could opt to buy another car. However MG listened and updated the software, pretty good.SAIC created the software that produced the bongs......need we say more!
Point is it doesn't matter how big an organisation is they can still make poor designs.If you did not like the bongs on a test drive, you could opt to buy another car. However MG listened and updated the software, pretty good.
You can improve over any design.Point is it doesn't matter how big an organisation is they can still make poor designs.
However, is it essential to have the new BMS if the old one is working perfectly?
MG will update to the latest BMS at service unless you tell them not to.That’s useful information regarding the bms versions - I’ve not seen that before. I understood that lowering the top end voltage of the pack to c450v was something MG wanted to do across all ZS cars to improve battery longevity but i‘m not sure if MG plan to do this - my car is on the 455v bms and i have no issues so I’m wondering if MG will touch it.
But there is a problem with the use of the software by some technicians. We have all seen the stories of the comfort 2 update where not all of it has been done because the technician didn't tick all 3 boxes required for it, plus others that have missed the charge while unlocked update etc. etc.This is why I argue there is absolutely no problem with the software implementation used by MG.
In the future MG should not offer software updates. You buy the car that's what you get. Then there is no technician intervention or human error, and therefore no more gripes. This would sort the problems.But there is a problem with the use of the software by some technicians. We have all seen the stories of the comfort 2 update where not all of it has been done because the technician didn't tick all 3 boxes required for it, plus others that have missed the charge while unlocked update etc. etc.
The key is to remove as much human error as possible.
It's the most common gripe on this forum, the cars are great, the dealers aren't.
If a manufacturer gets a lot of 'gripes' when trying to improve a product why bother.An interesting suggestion. Do you think all EV manufacturers should take this approach or just MG?
I have yet to hear one fact, statistic or evidence from anything you have written so far. All you do is complain, state things are rubbish and talk about computer software development systems as if you know more about them than a multi billion dollar company, which you don't.I think it is a fact not hearsay that it clearly is a rubbish system
LOL you're very funny mate.I have yet to hear one fact, statistic or evidence from anything you have written so far. All you do is complain, state things are rubbish and talk about computer software development systems as if you know more about them than a multi billion dollar company, which you don't.
Have you actually done some coding in C++?
MISRA-C is a set of guidelines designed to minimise bad code when using C++, check them out.
I remember receiving my first C developers pack back in 1979 which was easier than the direct 'machine code' I had been using up to then, ah the good old days. Building and amending automotive software is certainly not as easy as you would make out.
I can imagine it going the way you suggest.Not all software updates are about addressing customer gripes or general improvements.
Some involve critical updates involving vehicle safety and these must always be carried out.
Other updates involving major vehicle performance issues are also essential.
it’s always interesting to hear alternative views.
The future general update model for EV’s in the longer term may well move more towards a Microsoft office 365 type of update with subscription. pay each year and get the latest version.
As the world transitions to EV’s the software update process must become effortless, transparent and easily managed and controlled by both customer and provider. We’re a little way away from that at the moment.