Right - that was kinda what I was trying to understand. I know they fail, but have to assume they're 100% accurate before they do. Sounds like a good idea for the environment, but what's the true impact of hardware sensors on the environment vs manufacture cost savings - would like to know the assumptions they used to get at that number.

Is it worth the risk to have (again) more data like that out in the wild (given their partner), and security issues around the ability to remotely alter the performance of your vehicle. I'm sure considerations like these were taken into account - Right?

But it does sound like a great opportunity provided there are measurable benefits to the environment, and would definitely provide huge benefits especially for the global fleet management market.

>The virtual sensor itself is something tested, redone, and redeveloped. We made it faster, with less code. But we also proved that the sensor replaces the hardware sensor with 95% accuracy."

So, if I'm reading this right, the hardware is still more accurate?

Maybe they should try making a viable covid vaccine first.

Can confirm this was the most popular costume kit that year, along with the Creature from the Black Lagoon. These came in $3.00 kits at the local Walgreens, or independent drug stores.