|
I had a tiny copter that used a "right stick at one of the corners" sort of thing as a lower-level recalibration than just "assume level @ powerup." I don't recall the details but that came to mind when you mentioned pulling the right stick down and to the right stopping the motors. Maybe there is something like that for yours as well and you inadvertently (re)calibrated something in a similar way.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
The Estes Proto and Hubsan X4 are like that to reset the gyros. Left stick held to bottom right, quickly shake right stick full left and right (center, not corners) until the LEDs flash. I do that periodically I fly the X4 but certainly not each time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
I was looking to get into fixed-wing flying with an EasyStar or something like that but instead got a DJI F450 kit from my cousin, who just moved on to a bigger drone. I've flown a basic kit helicopter so I have a little of experience, but since it came RTF, I'm not fully familiar with all the possible parts and components. I hoped to get a Taranis but it's not available at HK EU warehouse and getting it from the HK warehouse (or elsewhere) would gently caress me over three times on shipping, VAT and duty. It seems that a Mode 2 transmitter is generally suggested, but it's also out of stock - would Mode 1 be a big deal? I'm also getting two batteries to try a lighter battery, get some more total fly time, and share the smaller battery with a plane (like http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__30447__Floater_Jet_EPO_with_Motor_ARF_EU_Warehouse_.html) I'll get later. Does all of this make sense and will work with the F450 + eventually FPV?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Mode 1 moves the throttle to the right hand gimbal, so if you are used to flying with the throttle on the left side, yeah, it's a big deal. Since there's no centering spring on the throttle, you can't just swap the channel assignments. It's possible to swap the gimbals around (There's youtubes of it somewhere), if you are comfortable doing that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Called Horizon Hobby about my Nano QX, after testing a couple things we got it to pair, but since it still spazzed once it connected they're sending me a new transmitter. (MLP4DSM) Should have it Wednesday! I was having a lot of fun while it lasted. Even though the first scouting mission, codename Lamp Recon, was fraught with peril and questionable success.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Mode 1 moves the throttle to the right hand gimbal, so if you are used to flying with the throttle on the left side, yeah, it's a big deal. Ahh yeah, I am somewhat used to the the throttle on the left from flying the helicopter. Still, I'm probably going to order that one and swap it myself later, as those youtube instructions seem reasonably straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
I just read about "digital headtracking" for HMDs which is not what I thought it was. Apparently it uses a wide-angle lens and the HMD's screen uses head tracking to pan around the wide-angle image to simulate looking around without actually using a pan/tilt rig. Neat. I'd like to try it. Saw this http://horizonhobby.com/product/multirotor/multirotor-aircraft/camera-platforms/nano-qx-fpv-rtf-with-safe-technology-blh7200 and was seriously tempted despite the price tag and my bottomed-out fun money fund. But then I spotted the word PREORDER and uggghhh total bonerdeath 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Wait, poo poo, that receiver won't actually work with the transmitter module, would it? The descriptions for these things really suck, it's all "you can program it for any protocol" but it's an entirely different frequency. And of course HK doesn't have any 433 receivers. Or 2.4 transmitter modules. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Wait, poo poo, that receiver won't actually work with the transmitter module, would it? The descriptions for these things really suck, it's all "you can program it for any protocol" but it's an entirely different frequency. And of course HK doesn't have any 433 receivers. Or 2.4 transmitter modules. What the gently caress. If you flash the transmitter with openlrsng, you should be able to use it with any receiver with openlrsng, which you might find elsewhere in the EU Mister Sinewave posted:I just read about "digital headtracking" for HMDs which is not what I thought it was. Apparently it uses a wide-angle lens and the HMD's screen uses head tracking to pan around the wide-angle image to simulate looking around without actually using a pan/tilt rig. that exact camera / transmitter module shown in the vid is available separately for $100 (and they show you how to make one on a recent flitetest vid) moron izzard fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
A Yolo Wizard posted:that exact camera / transmitter module shown in the vid is available separately for $100 (and they show you how to make one on a recent flitetest vid) That's cool but the digital headtracking [optionally on a small stable quad] is what I'd actually like to try out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Wait, poo poo, that receiver won't actually work with the transmitter module, would it? The descriptions for these things really suck, it's all "you can program it for any protocol" but it's an entirely different frequency. And of course HK doesn't have any 433 receivers. Or 2.4 transmitter modules. What the gently caress. Yep. LRS is not compatible with DSMX.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Big NTSB news, they referred the case back to the ALJ but opened the doors to either making all flying illegal, rec and commercial, to nothing, depending on you ask. http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html Either way, not good news I don't think. edit: Lot of speculation on the main forums and news sites, I'm waiting for some of the heavy-weights to weigh in, Brendan Schulmann, Peter Sachs, etc. Elendil004 fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
So basically, the NTSB ruled that any "device" that is "used for flight" is under the regulatory authority of the FAA. A broad reading of this means that all hobby flying, illegal (you're operating an uncertified aircraft without a license), paper airplanes, illegal, etc. Really totally loving stupid. e: the big distinction now is that before the FAA thought they had the authority and no sane person agreed. Now they've got a ruling from the NTSB backing them up. ee: Of course, I fully plan on being as civilly disobedient as I can. A paper airplane falls on my lawn, I will summon an NTSB investigative team since it's an aircraft crash, right? Elendil004 fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Umm, you'd have to play pretty fast and loose to believe something else would have been handed down by the NTSB. It's surreal to think that R/C craft would be off-limits to regulation. The judge in the Pirker case only found that the FAA can't misappropriate unrelated fines to punish previously unenforceable corner cases. Note that the NTSB reiterated that reckless flying is already against existing FAA regulations. The problem was that there was no enforcement structure for r/c craft so they applied fines from commercial flight rules. At this point it's just getting punted back to the judge to decide whether trappy was "reckless" in his flying the plane or not. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
^^Except that Congress said in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically that hobby aircraft shall be except from FAA regulation. This may give a temporary ego boost to the FAA, and expect them to start going after more people, but I think it's far from the end of Huerta vs. Pirker. There are many more courts to appeal to and Trappy is stubborn. Now's the time to support TBS if ever there were. Now, I've got to get back to tying up NTSB and FAA phone lines with crashed RC plane reports and questions on airworthiness certificates for my Walmart glider... Schulman's writeup: http://dronelaw.com/2014/11/18/ntsb-remands-pirker-case/ Vitamin J fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
What a clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
GG close USA. GG close The whole situation down there for you guys sucks but it has a long long way to go before it is settled. I would say the biggest risk from Trappy's point of view will be how much continued legal action will cost him. Unless Kramer Levin is representing pro bono.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:^^Except that Congress said in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically that hobby aircraft shall be except from FAA regulation. It really doesn't say that at all. quote:SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Now, I've got to get back to tying up NTSB and FAA phone lines with crashed RC plane reports and questions on airworthiness certificates for my Walmart glider... Remember, for it to require a full NTSB crash investigation it has to be 300+ lbs. Let's not forget that the NAS now extends from the top of a blade of grass in your yard. hey, didn't they ban aircraft from flying over stadiums? Well next time Tom Brady throws a football, which is clearly a device designed to fly through the air, better fine him 10,000. Elendil004 fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:It really doesn't say that at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
BTW I work for a startup drone company currently and a large part of our commercial customers are overseas. There are so many businesses in America that want to use drones but they all cite the FAA as the reason they aren't pursuing them. The rest of the world is going nuts with these things and can't get enough. This is such a shame and really should be a much bigger deal in the media or elsewhere but the only people who get upset are FPVers and droners. Even regular LOS flyers couldn't give a poo poo about what's happening even though they're now subject to a $10,000 fine just the same as we are. gently caress the AMA, really just gently caress them for creating this huge divide in the RC community when they took their original negative stance on FPV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:It says the FAA may not create any rules regarding model aircraft and gives a definition of model aircraft and a list of requirements to be exempt. So yeah if you change my original post to read "model aircraft" instead of "hobby aircraft" then yeah, it does say exactly that. Aside from that whole section that says, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle" and "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system." and "(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;" Sure it says exactly what you said. As much as I support r/c flight in the US and drone companies, it really doesn't help your argument to misrepresent the opposition. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Aside from that whole section that says, http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=29977271&postcount=5498 quote:No, Sec. 336 says absolutely nothing about the CURRENT legal status of model aircraft, and does nothing to confer any kind of authorization upon them. What is says is, " the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." We've really gotta pray (work hard spreading the message) this judgement is appealed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Some folks think it might be open for an article III court: An Article III court is a court established by Congress under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The NTSB court is an administrative court and is therefor part of the Executive Branch under Article II. Article III courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions of administrative courts. From: http://dronelaw.com/2014/11/19/meaning-yesterdays-ntsb-ruling/ The way I look at it, as a commercial operator is that the faa could really nail me to the wall IF they wanted to, this ruling took away a big shield, though there's still no legal binding law on commercial operation. It hinges now on which bag of poo poo from the FAA has what definition of reckless, which is scary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
^^IMO this ruling almost equalizes commercial and hobby flying, both are now subject to the same fine under the same conditions. The ruling had nothing to do with the commercial aspect of his flying from what I can tell, maybe that will come later now that it's going back to the administrative court. +1 for appeals, the best part of America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:You're right I was wrong about that and not only that but I guess I'm still operating under old precedents. Here's a good write-up by prelator who's worked on Schulman's team when they were first starting: Well it's being sent back to the administrative judge based on the question, "is what Pirker did reckless?" so I don't think that it would be appealed or overturned on any grounds which would create sweeping precedent that bans or deregulates R/C hobby flight. Either the judge agrees with the FAA that Pirker was reckless and they decide if there's any applicable punitive fees, or else the judge disagrees with the FAA and the matter is dismissed again. I don't see how the judge could make another ruling that says "r/c craft are bound by no law."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
The more I look at it, the more I really like the design of the Inspire 1 platform. Still just too much of a jump over the Vision 2+ to justify for me though as a hobby/toy. Question: How cold have you guys flown your RC in? Preferably those of you with gimbals? Being that it's winter (for intents and purposes) if a nice day comes along, when do you draw the line at temp? Freezing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Question: How cold have you guys flown your RC in? Preferably those of you with gimbals? Being that it's winter (for intents and purposes) if a nice day comes along, when do you draw the line at temp? Freezing? I have flown below freezing temperatures. Wear winter clothing and a transmitter mitt and you'll be fine. The only thing to watch out for is batteries underperforming due to the cold, if you keep them warm until you take off that really helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
The new parrot beebop looks cool, and the proto-X fpv is definitely on my to buy list as soon as someone will ship it overseas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Am I a sucker for wanting the Nano QX FPV? Flying around with goggles like a little bug sounds like an incredibly fun time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
24-7 Urkel Cosplay posted:Am I a sucker for wanting the Nano QX FPV? Flying around with goggles like a little bug sounds like an incredibly fun time. No it looks like a decent product especially if you already have goggles. Nano qx is amazingly stable. It is really only suited for indoor use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Attempted to go fly my FPV plane tonight... and it was darker than I thought. Did one take off from grass towards a lighted area, stalled, dived down to the right, and prayed I got it leveled out enough when it went towards the pavement. I think it cartwheeled a little but was overall ok. I'm going to wait for daylight for any further attempts, but it gave me a quick taste. And it was delicious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The more I look at it, the more I really like the design of the Inspire 1 platform. Still just too much of a jump over the Vision 2+ to justify for me though as a hobby/toy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OlvFus3muM I've flown many FPV platforms in temps down to -10 Fahrenheit. Keep the Lipos in your jacket or a car up until you use them and expect voltage sag until they're under constant load and warm up, but other than that no problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/articles/drone-flights-face-faa-hit-1416793905?tesla=y
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
So they want a plane license for things under the 400 foot limit of their authority? Also, a 2 pound foam plane is going to require more licensing than an ultralight? Seems very backwards to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Yeah I stopped flying RC aircraft. I decided to fly RC ultralights instead, way fewer legal hurdles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
GG close USA. It really is amazing how out of step with the rest of the world the FAA is getting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:GG close USA. Pfft, it wouldn't be the USA unless this gets dragged out in the courts for a few years. Hopefully someone can call the FAA on their backwards standards here. BabelFish fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Yeah I stopped flying RC aircraft. I decided to fly RC ultralights instead, way fewer legal hurdles. I wish this were ironic...
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
In other, less frustrating news, someone managed to fly a goddamn glider at over 500 miles per hour  :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7gL9uA-McY
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 19:47
|
|