But you stated that anything using LIDAR was not capable of robust tracking. Perhaps you meant that anything using LIDAR was doing so because camera-based tracking is not very robust. But that's not the straightforward interpretation of your statement.

>> But that's not the straightforward interpretation of your statement.

Yes, that would be a communication problem of mine. It's something I'm working on ;-) But I would counter that LIDAR isn't going to fully make up for the problems of the camera based system with the result being a simple sounding statement like "if they're using LIDAR it's not good enough", or grossly oversimplified to "LIDAR sucks".

I will admit that LIDAR could conceivably enhance a really good vision system by offering better depth perception, but I don't believe that's why people are using it today.