|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
695 online
Server Time:
2024-05-10 00:35:24
|
|
|
htp123
Total Likes: 119 likes
| | | Re: UAVs in exploring? < Reply # 14 on 6/5/2016 5:25 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | I wouldn't really get into this unless you're also interested in radios and technology in general. These things can be a lot more finicky than they look. Buildings are probably not going to be a problem for your controller, but they will be for getting video back. You can get around that somewhat with a low-frequency transmitter to cut through walls and a circular polarized antenna to limit interference, but I don't think either of those is available with off-the-shelf rigs. If you're not going to use it to transmit video, you're only going to be flying it line-of-sight, in which case you might as well just walk. Collision detection can be dodgy at the best of times, and collision avoidance is an extra complexity build on top of that. Ultrasound can't detect things like cloth, visual (/laser) can't detect glass, and neither is going to stop you in time if you're going at full-speed. If it get's stuck in an attic, it will probably just slam into the nearest wall until it dies. A GPS small enough to fit on a quadcopter is generally also not terribly accurate, and all GPS are prone to interference from buildings, trees, etc. Battery monitors usually work, but I've had a single cell in a 4S battery pack die mid-flight, causing an instant power drop and a very fast, very uncontrolled landing. Keep in mind that quadcopters are basically just 4 flying knives (the blades are designed to cut air), each driven by a ~100W motor. Check the hobbyking forums for pictures of how they can literally strip the meat from the bone. That said, I have a gobbled together FPV rig that I <3. Very few things in life are as awesome as shooting up 50m almost instantly and surveying a place as if you're a god.
|
|
| TheJoker
Gender: Male Total Likes: 41 likes
| | | Re: UAVs in exploring? < Reply # 15 on 6/6/2016 1:14 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | |
| |
| Deuterium
Location: PNW Gender: Male Total Likes: 290 likes
| | | Re: UAVs in exploring? < Reply # 17 on 8/4/2016 6:37 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by htp123 I wouldn't really get into this unless you're also interested in radios and technology in general. These things can be a lot more finicky than they look. Buildings are probably not going to be a problem for your controller, but they will be for getting video back. You can get around that somewhat with a low-frequency transmitter to cut through walls and a circular polarized antenna to limit interference, but I don't think either of those is available with off-the-shelf rigs. If you're not going to use it to transmit video, you're only going to be flying it line-of-sight, in which case you might as well just walk. Collision detection can be dodgy at the best of times, and collision avoidance is an extra complexity build on top of that. Ultrasound can't detect things like cloth, visual (/laser) can't detect glass, and neither is going to stop you in time if you're going at full-speed. If it get's stuck in an attic, it will probably just slam into the nearest wall until it dies. A GPS small enough to fit on a quadcopter is generally also not terribly accurate, and all GPS are prone to interference from buildings, trees, etc. Battery monitors usually work, but I've had a single cell in a 4S battery pack die mid-flight, causing an instant power drop and a very fast, very uncontrolled landing. Keep in mind that quadcopters are basically just 4 flying knives (the blades are designed to cut air), each driven by a ~100W motor. Check the hobbyking forums for pictures of how they can literally strip the meat from the bone. That said, I have a gobbled together FPV rig that I <3. Very few things in life are as awesome as shooting up 50m almost instantly and surveying a place as if you're a god.
| https://www.youtub...atch?v=ZgdW5vzf58E I used to have one of this years ago. There wasn't a battery technology good enough back then and it ran on an alcohol-nitro two stroke. That in itself was a lot of trouble to get it running smoothly. It was both noisy and messy as fuck. RC helicopters weren't that popular. It was wicked hard to fly and time consuming and expensive to fix. Bigger machines were more stable and easier to fly and the same is pretty much true for drones. You don't have to fly far before it turns into a tiny dot in the sky. You'll need a large drone if you want to get stunning view unless you fly-by-instrument with live view or you have god like vision.
[last edit 8/4/2016 6:41 AM by Deuterium - edited 1 times]
| |
| |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 187 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741189336 pages have been generated.
|
|