|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Can you quote the part where it "recommends it where possible" because the number 1000 doesn't show up at all in that document except for an altitude. So again, it seems like you looked up the real answer then didn't like it and tried to stick a huge number in to make it sound impossible. Answer this: PT6A posted:OOCC, just for shits and giggles, can you briefly explain the requirements to transit Class B or C airspace that exists around most major cities, and the corresponding weather minima? In your opinion, how would this affect your bugfuck insane fantasy of autonomous drone flight within urban areas on a consistent basis?
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Answer this: Answer how helicopters currently exist if they are impossible and illegal to land in a city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Answer how helicopters currently exist if they are impossible and illegal to land in a city. do you realize how unconvincing you sound with this whole pretending not to be able to read or answer questions gimmick you didn't correctly read fishmech's post and latched on to a misunderstanding that you tried to force through, now you're just using the most basic strawmen - what is the point of posting like this? are you trying to convince yourself and only yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Quibbling over regulatory details is, IMO, besides the point. Regulations can be changed, after all. What can't be changed, on the other hand, is the horrendous infrastructure requirements and economics involved. Personal self-driving helicopters for everyone has exactly the same problem as personal self-driving automobiles for everyone - it's taking an inherently inefficient transportation system which demands inordinate amounts of infrastructure and pilot organization, and then pretending that "automation" is a magic wand that makes all the problems go away. Like, sure, someone can probably scrounge up a big enough space to safely land one of these, at least in less dense areas. But if these are ever going to be anything more than toys for the ultra-rich (they won't), then there's going to need to be a lot more than just one landing spot in any given area. Sure, you could clear out automobile parking lots, but these mini-helicopters will certainly require a larger footprint than cars would (and therefore will fit fewer vehicles in the same parking area). And while they could theoretically land on roofs and stuff, putting that into practical use requires significant infrastructural buildout because building roof entrances usually aren't intended to be open to the public. Meaningful amounts of traffic will require the establishment of fixed sky routes with traffic management, defined takeoff and approach directions for each and every business, and so on - even in the air, you can't just have craft flying whichever way they want to go willy-nilly. And on and so forth. That's just scraping the surface of the numerous difficulties and costs involved in practical implementation. And for all that trouble, what advantage do you actually get from it? The name "flying cars" is apt, because that's really what you end up with: keeping almost all of the problems involved in automobile transit, while demanding almost as much dedicated and planned infrastructure - much of which has to be built out from scratch. Oh yeah, and it's way more dangerous even if everything works right. Can't forget that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:do you realize how unconvincing you sound with this whole pretending not to be able to read or answer questions gimmick Because it's not my job to answer detailed zoning questions. If you asked me about the technical zoning requirements of a pencil sharpener I couldn't do it off the top of my head. But helicopters clearly exist and fly now already, there is no reason that should not be the case in the future. Nor any reason that could not be updated in the future with changing technology. Uber claims they are opening uber air in 3 cities in the next 4 years. And mexico already has air taxies in multiple cities with voom. So apparently multiple groups of experts thought it was possible, and some guy making up a 1000 foot requirement doesn't negate that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because it's not my job to answer detailed zoning questions. If you asked me about the technical zoning requirements of a pencil sharpener I couldn't do it off the top of my head. But helicopters clearly exist and fly now already, there is no reason that should not be the case in the future. Nor any reason that could not be updated in the future with changing technology. They use pre-existing helipads that have appropriate safety zones. The thing people took issue with is the idea that you can have a helicopter land in a regular residential area and just pick people up like it is a regular taxi. That sort of idea will guarantee that innocent bystanders are killed. No one thinks the idea of helicopters or helipads is impossible, like wtf lmbo
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:They use pre-existing helipads that have appropriate safety zones. The thing people took issue with is the idea that you can have a helicopter land in a regular residential area and just pick people up like it is a regular taxi. That sort of idea will guarantee that innocent bystanders are killed. No one thinks the idea of helicopters or helipads is impossible, like wtf lmbo So you’re saying that the issue people have is that they think the technology isn’t viable because they can’t build enough safe helipads?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because it's not my job to answer detailed zoning questions. If you asked me about the technical zoning requirements of a pencil sharpener I couldn't do it off the top of my head. But helicopters clearly exist and fly now already, there is no reason that should not be the case in the future. Nor any reason that could not be updated in the future with changing technology. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Can you quote the part where it "recommends it where possible" because the number 1000 doesn't show up at all in that document except for an altitude. So again, it seems like you looked up the real answer then didn't like it and tried to stick a huge number in to make it sound impossible. You clearly haven't read the document. There are dozens of illustrations of neccesary clear airspace and restrictions on height of potential obstructions in the flight path, it's recommended for safety that you avoid any of those obstructions being in those paths if possible. And those paths are typically 800 feet or more beyond the basic landing point. Why do you keep freaking out about ghosts of your own invention? ElCondemn posted:So you’re saying that the issue people have is that they think the technology isn’t viable because they can’t build enough safe helipads? Not "think", it's know. Unless you expect some bizarre program of tearing down vast areas of cities to create safe landing/takeoff areas and associated flight paths, and additional expensive projects to attempt to retrofit a ton of buildings to support proper pads and all the access and safety equipment necessary. Even in a city like LA where all buildings over certain height limits must have an emergency helipad on the roof, they do not necessarily meet the standards for regular passenger use. fishmech fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
Then it should be easy, not difficult to show where you got your claims from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because it's not my job to answer detailed zoning questions. it certainly is if you're trying to nitpick badly read misinterpretations of other people's statements about landing zone regulations. you got yourself into this argument, it's bad form to try to bluff your way out of it Owlofcreamcheese posted:But helicopters clearly exist and fly now already, there is no reason that should not be the case in the future. the point you are missing is that there are real regulatory hurdles to just putting helipads everywhere. we agree helicopters exist, that is something we can both agree on. now, why do you think helipads are relatively scarce and limited to airports and building rooftops? any ideas? Owlofcreamcheese posted:Uber claims they are opening uber air in 3 cities in the next 4 years. uber is constantly full of poo poo. uber has very little credibility since they promise things that never appear Owlofcreamcheese posted:And mexico already has air taxies in multiple cities with voom. those are just helicopters, oocc. those are just chartered helicopters, which have existed for decades Owlofcreamcheese posted:So apparently multiple groups of experts thought it was possible, and some guy making up a 1000 foot requirement doesn't negate that. i ask you again, do you think you are convincing anyone here? your argumentation is extremely anemic and based mostly around your manufactured or real inability to grasp someone's point or read a post correctly. do you recognize this deficiency in your ability to make any point at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Quibbling over regulatory details is, IMO, besides the point. Regulations can be changed, after all. It's not just "quibbling over regulations", it's taking the time to understand why those regulations are in place to begin with. When I previously said "the rules are written in blood", I wasn't kidding. Just about every little procedure and rule out there is either to prevent death or because someone died. Even if those regs can be changed, it isn't going to happen until there is an understanding of why they were there to begin with and some form of mitigation exists. The rest of your post is great, I just want to make sure we're not falling for this Silicoon Valley conceit that "red tape is always bad and unnecessary".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you’re saying that the issue people have is that they think the technology isn’t viable because they can’t build enough safe helipads? The technology isn't commercially viable for low-cost regular travel usage. Building enough safe helipads to accommodate regular commuter use would represent a considerable infrastructural expense and a massive reduction in throughput compared to existing transportation methods. Helicopters (even small electric ones) require a much larger ground footprint for safe operation than a comparable ground behicle does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
i feel like discussing helipad regulations is a bit too advanced for the current level of discourse and first we have to agree that helicopters exist please quote if you agree that helicopters, are real
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The technology isn't commercially viable for low-cost regular travel usage. But have you considered that
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
luxury handset posted:i feel like discussing helipad regulations is a bit too advanced for the current level of discourse and first we have to agree that helicopters exist Figuring out the exact specifics of where they can build tiny helipads is stupid, go back in time and ask me the exact details of how cell phones would work when they need deals to build 40 thousand cell phone towers and how the exact locations would be negotiated and I couldn't do that either. But once the technology was there the answer was "they will hire someone to figure that out".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Figuring out the exact specifics of where they can build tiny helipads is stupid, go back in time and ask me the exact details of how cell phones would work when they need deals to build 40 thousand cell phone towers and how the exact locations would be negotiated and I couldn't do that either. But once the technology was there the answer was "they will hire someone to figure that out". Cell phones don't carry people hundreds to thousands of feet into the air and potentially crash into populated buildings below you numbskull. Now answer this loving question: PT6A posted:OOCC, just for shits and giggles, can you briefly explain the requirements to transit Class B or C airspace that exists around most major cities, and the corresponding weather minima? In your opinion, how would this affect your bugfuck insane fantasy of autonomous drone flight within urban areas on a consistent basis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Figuring out the exact specifics of where they can build tiny helipads is stupid, go back in time and ask me the exact details of how cell phones would work when they need deals to build 40 thousand cell phone towers and how the exact locations would be negotiated and I couldn't do that either. But once the technology was there the answer was "they will hire someone to figure that out". "look, i can't possibly answer your questions now even in the most cursory way, but when this fluff technology which probably won't ever be viable hits the market then i won't be able to answer your questions then either" master of rhetoric, folks
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Then it should be easy, not difficult to show where you got your claims from.  Here's an example indicating how to ensure a safe flight path for situations where a straight in landing is constrained by buildings and ground clutter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Now answer this loving question: The answer to that asking for exact regulatory details is a gish gallop type technique where no one in this thread could answer detailed regulatory questions even for everyday objects, and we both know that if I amazed the crowd and pulled out some perfect answer for exactly how it'd satisfy each of your demands that you'd just move on immediately to a new one Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
this doesn't say anything remotely like you were claiming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Figuring out the exact specifics of where they can build tiny helipads is stupid, go back in time and ask me the exact details of how cell phones would work when they need deals to build 40 thousand cell phone towers and how the exact locations would be negotiated and I couldn't do that either. But once the technology was there the answer was "they will hire someone to figure that out". Cell towers don't need to be physically accessible to the public, and you don't need fifty of them within walking distance of every grocery store. It's a far simpler problem. Of course, you didn't actually think it through before making the comparison - like a bitcoiner, you just needed anything that you could point to as you handwave problems away with "I'm sure someone else will figure out how to overturn the laws of physics so my sci-fi dreams can come true".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's a far simpler problem. It's a simple problem because someone solved it already. If I demanded you work out every single exact regulatory detail and land deal for cell phones you couldn't have done that either. Especially since many regulations changed over the last 30 years because of cell phones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:this doesn't say anything remotely like you were claiming. Yes it does. You just made up some bizarre version of it to sob over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
nobody's asking you to become a registered expert in flight path regulations oocc, they're just asking you to do a little bit of research before you make a claim and it's really not a good look at all to complain about how hard it is to understand what you're trying to say before you say it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
What the gently caress have I done
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The answer to that asking for exact regulatory details is a gish gallop type technique where no one in this thread could answer detailed regulatory questions even for everyday objects, and we both know that if I amazed the crowd and pulled out some perfect answer for exactly how it'd satisfy each of your demands that you'd just move on immediately to a new one This is a loving lie and you know it. There are plenty of people in this thread who understand aerospace regulations quite well, and you know this. Look, we all know the truth - having to actually answer any of the detailed questions posed to you will clearly expose the fact that your Silicon Valley wet dreams aren't possible and that the vast majority of folks trying to do so are wrong. You aren't even an actual tech bro, you work in a school district in the midwest setting up and maintaining equipment. Why do you unfailingly carry water for every tech rear end in a top hat with a PR department?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a simple problem because someone solved it already. If I demanded you work out every single exact regulatory detail and land deal for cell phones you couldn't have done that either. Especially since many regulations changed over the last 30 years because of cell phones. I'm not talking about regulatory details. I'm talking about physical and logistical limitations. If you needed one cell tower for every single cellphone customer in a given area, then it wouldn't be a simple problem. There's no amount of wheeling and dealing that can make that easy. Having a few helipads is no big deal. But when you start talking about one-person-per-vehicle anywhere-to-anywhere personal transit, that's exactly the kind of footprint you're asking for. Yuli Ban posted:What the gently caress have I done This is OOCC's gimmick, pretty much all tech discussions end up like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Oocc doesn't need to come up with actual proofs. hes more of an ideas man
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:nobody's asking you to become a registered expert in flight path regulations oocc, Who cares though? If the technology matures and there is demand for it either current regulation will be found to cover it and someone will have a full time job making the actual deals on landing zones or the current regulations will be insufficient and there will be new regulations. Just like every technology ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Who cares though? If the technology matures and there is demand for it either current regulation will be found to cover it and someone will have a full time job making the actual deals on landing zones or the current regulations will be insufficient and there will be new regulations. Just like every technology ever. what if i told you that technology is developed in response to regulation and there's nothing in giant sized quadcopters that seems to indicate it would require less regulation around safety buffers for landing zones also why did you quote the part where i was making fun of you for complaining that actually supporting your argument was too hard Unoriginal Name posted:Oocc doesn't need to come up with actual proofs. hes more of an ideas man it is generous to call him an ideas man, plural. he really only has the one idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Having a few helipads is no big deal. But when you start talking about one-person-per-vehicle anywhere-to-anywhere personal transit, that's exactly the kind of footprint you're asking for. What I don't understand is why you people always turn the argument into an extreme? The idea was never "one-person-per-vehicle anywhere-to-anywhere personal transit". The real idea is to have automated point to point transport through the air, the benefits being that you don't need to charter a helicopter and pilot making it both more affordable and on-demand like taxi services. Also since the aircraft are theoretically smaller, lighter and more nimble (because of the recent advances in multi-rotor flight systems) you would be able to build landing pads for them in places you couldn't with traditional helicopters. But sure, lets just pretend like what we're talking about is a flying car that fits in my garage. luxury handset posted:what if i told you that technology is developed in response to regulation and there's nothing in giant sized quadcopters that seems to indicate it would require less regulation around safety buffers for landing zones You'd be wrong if that's your argument, certainly regulation is a big factor in mass adoption of new technology but you definitely have it backwards. I used to work for over a decade in the automotive industry relating to connected vehicles and I can tell you with certainty that a big part of the process is developing the regulation during the development process. The regulations don't exist until the technology is built and/or being built. This is also true of tech like cell networks, the whole E911 stuff I think is just as important and impactful as flight regulation so it's ridiculous to claim that it was all figured out before there were thousands of cell towers in production. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What I don't understand is why you people always turn the argument into an extreme? The idea was never "one-person-per-vehicle anywhere-to-anywhere personal transit". that is the "taxi" part of "flying taxi" a "taxi" is a typically single occupant vehicle for hire that travels from any point to any other point on the transportation network without requiring you to control the vehicle that's what taxis, do ElCondemn posted:You'd be wrong if that's your argument, certainly regulation is a big factor in mass adoption of new technology but you definitely have it backwards. I used to work for over a decade in the automotive industry relating to connected vehicles and I can tell you with certainty that a big part of the process is developing the regulation during the development process. The regulations don't exist until the technology is built and/or being built. all your vehicles still had seatbelts, safety glass, anti lock brakes, etc. why? regulations Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:you work in a school district in the midwest setting up and maintaining equipment. This is like the 8th time you have done this weird doxxing thing. Is it really your trump card in every single thread? It's not even a good slam, I don't even have an embarrassing job. I have like a heartwarming job. Next try to bring up I have pet a cat on every encatted continent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:that is the "taxi" part of "flying taxi" Well then I guess I should tell the water taxi in my city to shut down, because they aren't single occupant and they don't go from anywhere to anywhere... maybe you're just nitpicking semantics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Well then I guess I should tell the water taxi in my city to shut down, because they aren't single occupant and they don't go from anywhere to anywhere... maybe you're just nitpicking semantics? when you're not a tourist those are called "ferries" also: luxury handset posted:a "taxi" is a typically single occupant please come up with something more substantive if you want to continue to vacantly boost empty tech promises. don't try to pick a semantic fight and then accuse me of being a nitpicker, jeez. i believe you're better than this
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:all your vehicles still had seatbelts, safety glass, anti lock brakes, etc. why? regulations Oh boy, let me tell you about the decades before you were born where these regulations didn't exist! But certainly you've done your research and found that things like seat belts were technologies that were developed and then after a long time became mandatory due to regulation, not the other way around. luxury handset posted:when you're not a tourist those are called "ferries" Call them flying ferries if that makes you feel better then? Seems like you're still arguing against your strawman instead of what I described. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
i feel like you are going as far out of your way as possible to try to misunderstand my explanations because it is a personal quest for you to cheerlead implausible consumer technology, so i'm just going to say good luck to you and i hope you see your flying taxis in the next thirty years
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Well here's my take on all this: Passenger drones will indeed take to the sky. It's as inevitable as contemporary-set games becoming indistinguishable from cyberpunk— the advance of technology is just going to make it happen eventually. We will even likely see some aerial "roads" in a few cities, most likely in Arabia and the far East. Drone taxis will never become a dominant means of transport. It requires too much infrastructural changes and it's not the most efficient means of getting around. It will be a fun novelty, so to answer someone else— yes, people will take passenger drones just because it's awesome, especially if a ride-sharing scheme can get the price down to a level proles can afford. But awesomeness never outweighs practicality, utility, convenience, or common sense. Stealth helicopter technology can reduce the noise to a more manageable level, but they'll never be silent and that's why people won't want them flying overhead all the time. They'll only ever be short range. Basically, if you want to get somewhere nearby really quickly but don't want to wait on traffic and want to waste your money on something besides public transport that is at least somewhat cool, catch a drone. The only way this will ever be affordable to the middle class is if said drones are automated. And the tech for full automation isn't quite here yet (because full vehicular automation is indistinguishable from artificial general intelligence), which means such schemes will have to be even shorter range to be viable in any way. It's certainly much easier to automate flying, but that doesn't mean there are no problems in the sky. Right off the bat, you have to deal with skewed depth perception, clouds, birds, insects, updrafts, downdrafts, mirages, and that's before you've even started moving in any particular direction. The kind of "autopilot" necessary to make it work is the sort that doesn't exist yet. And then there's regulations. I can see the FAA allowing drone taxis to fly, but they almost certainly won't look like the over-exposed death traps they are right now. They will be forced to remain at a particular altitude and speed, only leaving that altitude when absolutely necessary (hence why automation would make the controllers' jobs so much easier), will have an emergency back-up pilot at least until AI is sufficiently advanced (which raises costs tremendously because gently caress me it's not easy to become a licensed pilot), and will have to be inspected after almost every flight. And I bet some cities will ban them from flying over them. So all those futuristic images of glittering starscrapers surrounded by flying cars? Switch them out for pastoral farmland instead. Dunghills are futuristic, right? But once all of that is solved, then and only then will we have our society of pastel shirt-wearing suburbo-bourgeois dads bringing their wives, two and a half kids, and their family dogs out to postcard-worthy locations in their flying cars for some robot-flipped burgers. Until Johnny 5 crashes capitalism. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This is like the 8th time you have done this weird doxxing thing. Is it really your trump card in every single thread? It's not even a good slam, I don't even have an embarrassing job. I have like a heartwarming job. Next try to bring up I have pet a cat on every encatted continent. gently caress off with your bullshit "I'm rubber, and you're glue" bullshit. You've talked about this repeatedly, you've demanded my job title at my employer and I only bring it up to point out, once again, that the only loving experience you have when it comes to aerospace is when you jerk off to Wired. You're the only one who's made the barest hint that it's an embarrassing job, not me. You've also repeatedly selectively quoted people, leaving out anything that you find inconvenient. That's not how this poo poo works. Answer the loving question: PT6A posted:OOCC, just for shits and giggles, can you briefly explain the requirements to transit Class B or C airspace that exists around most major cities, and the corresponding weather minima? In your opinion, how would this affect your bugfuck insane fantasy of autonomous drone flight within urban areas on a consistent basis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
I think we should bring back dirigibles, they could use the same navigation tech as drones but have larger cabins and could work like bus/train service. It would still require landing pads but I think it's a better investment infrastructure wise than smaller drone landing pads, which could still be used as a platform for any automated drone system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:53
|
|