|
good post, i only have two points in responseYuli Ban posted: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. we will definitely see this technology deployed in places that are more desperate to present themselves as cutting edge, while also having a relatively lower standard for safety regulations Yuli Ban posted: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. chartered helicopters already exist for wealthy people and tourists looking to splurge, the question is if it will ever become practical for the middle class. probably not, barring some massive advances in battery technology, AI, and flight control infrastructure (as you note later in your post) the complicating factor here being that some portion of this airspace is going to be taken up by freight drones most likely since the regulatory hurdles for carrying small packages is far less in more "everything old is actually new" turnover, city planners of the 1950s and 60's were wild about the promise of helicopter commuting https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/PAS-Report-52.pdf https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/Heliport_dreaming-WP.pdf
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I only bring it up to point out, once again, that the only loving experience You bring it up a lot. It's really weird. quote:Answer the loving question: the answer is that class B and C airspace is only a short distance around an airport below 10,000 feet and that is why helicopters can currently legally fly in cities. And the additional answer is that widespread adoption of smaller air vehicles for various purposes is very obviously going to require rewriting of air traffic at lower altitudes even without manned vehicles and whatever the law is now is largely irrelevant to the future of drone technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
You sure don't like to acknowledge that you need an rear end load of clear space for each and every point you expect these things to land. Because wind exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You sure don't like to acknowledge that you need an rear end load of clear space for each and every point you expect these things to land. Because wind exists. So just to clear this up a bit, multi-rotor aircraft are more stable than traditional helicopters. The inherent stability of multiple rotors in conjunction with software also allows for finer control even in high-wind situations. Obviously there's a limit but pretending like it's exactly the same as existing technology is ignoring reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
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? If by "enough safe helipads" you mean "enough" to allow for arbitrary point to point travel including within dense residential neighborhoods; then yes that is correct. In later posts you seem to walk back towards a simple chartered helicopter thing, and no one is suggesting that such a thing is impossible, because that would be dumb, it already exists. What people took issue with is the idea that you can have a safe helipad anywhere you can draw a square with side length of 10 feet. Making the helicopter automated doesn't actually solve the issues of creating safe landing approaches, tough to swallow for some folks, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 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". It isn't stupid at all to think about what requirement there are to create safe landing zones, and it isn't something that necessarily require expertise either. It does require you to actually think about what would make it safe and feasible...you know before you start making claims that it obviously would be. The cell phone tower thing is just amazingly dumb as a response too. There are things to consider when putting up a cell phone tower and it is a fairly trivial problem to solve; the biggest issue are the aesthetics of the actual cell phone towers to mitigate NIMBYism. How to negotiate land deals and such is also a solve problem so you don't need to scratch your head on that one. And in fact, the helipad issue is also pretty trivial too! The problem (for you) is that the answer doesn't fit with your narrative. You can't have automated helicopters buzzing around and hope that a 10 foot square is going to be enough mitigation against crashes. You'll note again that no objection has been raised that indicates helicopters or helipads are impossible. Just the idea that you can have point to point taxis and that a 10 foot square zone would be good enough. But please, point out again that there do exist helipads in the world and therefore you don't get what the concerns might be over minimum size requirements. It's very elucidating. Edit: Owlofcreamcheese posted:the answer is that class B and C airspace is only a short distance around an airport below 10,000 feet and that is why helicopters can currently legally fly in cities. And the additional answer is that widespread adoption of smaller air vehicles for various purposes is very obviously going to require rewriting of air traffic at lower altitudes even without manned vehicles and whatever the law is now is largely irrelevant to the future of drone technology. Not only does this not answer the question posed, but it shows you don't know poo poo about the different airspace regimes. Like lmbo at 35 mile radius being "short" or your conclusion that's why helicopters can fly in the city....do you think helicopters aren't allowed in class b or something? What were you hoping to prove with this turdgem? At least do a little more than a cursory google and actually comprehend what is being relayed. Raldikuk fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Xae posted:"I know where you live and work" is super loving creepy and you should be perma'ed for it. What the gently caress are you even on about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So just to clear this up a bit, multi-rotor aircraft are more stable than traditional helicopters. The inherent stability of multiple rotors in conjunction with software also allows for finer control even in high-wind situations. Obviously there's a limit to the but pretending like it's exactly the same as existing technology is ignoring reality. Quad copters have existed for nearly 95 years. What point do you think you're making? They still need safety margins when landing because of wind among other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Quad copters have existed for nearly 95 years. What point do you think you're making? They still need safety margins when landing because of wind among other things. i'm pretty sure computers > wind is from digimon
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:If by "enough safe helipads" you mean "enough" to allow for arbitrary point to point travel including within dense residential neighborhoods; then yes that is correct. In later posts you seem to walk back towards a simple chartered helicopter thing, and no one is suggesting that such a thing is impossible, because that would be dumb, it already exists. What people took issue with is the idea that you can have a safe helipad anywhere you can draw a square with side length of 10 feet. Making the helicopter automated doesn't actually solve the issues of creating safe landing approaches, tough to swallow for some folks, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ OOCC says what he wants, I wasn't walking anything back, my point of view is that the technology to do this exists today and there are several companies in the field working to make it widespread. I think, like OOCC, arguing about there being a lack of helipads is a pretty trivial complaint. Helipads exist and more of them can be made so it seems silly to pretend like it's impossible to do that, I don't think it's as simple as painting a 10x10 square on the ground, but I think it's way cheaper and more feasible than building more roads and rails (which I also think we should do more of). Raldikuk posted:The cell phone tower thing is just amazingly dumb as a response too. There are things to consider when putting up a cell phone tower and it is a fairly trivial problem to solve; the biggest issue are the aesthetics of the actual cell phone towers to mitigate NIMBYism. How to negotiate land deals and such is also a solve problem so you don't need to scratch your head on that one. Oh boy, spoken like someone who's never worked with cell technology. Here's the thing, it's easy to hand waive the hurdles of existing technology but the reality is that building out our cell network infrastructure is as complex (and in a lot of ways more complex) as most utilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Quad copters have existed for nearly 95 years. What point do you think you're making? They still need safety margins when landing because of wind among other things. It's really clear you have no knowledge about the technology, the big advances are in electric motors, batteries, computing power, and the biggest I'd say is the massive improvements in IMU technology. IMU technology has seen massive improvement in the past couple decades in major part to cell phone technology. There's also a bunch of recent improvements in networking between microprocessors (think CAN bus) that has helped in building more responsive feedback loops with distributed components. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Helipads exist and more of them can be made so it seems silly to pretend like it's impossible to do that, I don't think it's as simple as painting a 10x10 square on the ground, but I think it's way cheaper and more feasible than building more roads and rails (which I also think we should do more of). No it's far harder to execute on mass demolition and roof to ground renovation projects to provide sufficient helipads, than it is to run more rail or even roads. ElCondemn posted:It's really clear you have no knowledge about the technology, the big advances are in electric motors, batteries, computing power, and the biggest I'd say is the massive improvements in IMU technology. IMU technology has seen massive improvement in the past couple decades in major part to cell phone technology. Please describe how any of that affects the existence of wind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:OOCC says what he wants, I wasn't walking anything back, my point of view is that the technology to do this exists today and there are several companies in the field working to make it widespread. I think, like OOCC, arguing about there being a lack of helipads is a pretty trivial complaint. Helipads exist and more of them can be made so it seems silly to pretend like it's impossible to do that, I don't think it's as simple as painting a 10x10 square on the ground, but I think it's way cheaper and more feasible than building more roads and rails (which I also think we should do more of). Yes, helipads and helicopters exist. No one has argued otherwise, congrats. No one is even arguing that the lack of a helipad at a location means one cannot be put there. You reject OOOC's claim of a 10 foot square so there's nothing really more to say about that since no one is arguing against the ability to build helipads at appropriate locations. ElCondemn posted:Oh boy, spoken like someone who's never worked with cell technology. Here's the thing, it's easy to hand waive the hurdles of existing technology but the reality is that building out our cell network infrastructure is as complex (and in a lot of ways more complex) as most utilities. Please elaborate on the extreme regulatory hurdles that would make it impossible to consider how you might buy land and build towers. Note I am not talking about the technological hurdles of the actual communications technology, since that isn't what was discussed, but how to buy the land and build towers. Do you honestly believe (as oooc does) that this problem would seem intractable prior to cellphones rolling out? Again, assuming the actual communications technology exists (just like quad copters have for decades) and we are just considering the actual problem of where to place the stuff. Cuz see the problem with the helipad example isn't that building helipads is super complicated therefore intractable; the problem is finding appropriate locations where it can be built to allow for safe operations. Building helipads is trivial; building a helipad in the middle of a dense residential area the size of a 10 foot square is not...because it is basically impossible if you want to do it safely. The problem there isn't the nature of the helipad, but the nature of the vehicle using the helipad. Edit: ElCondemn posted:It's really clear you have no knowledge about the technology, the big advances are in electric motors, batteries, computing power, and the biggest I'd say is the massive improvements in IMU technology. IMU technology has seen massive improvement in the past couple decades in major part to cell phone technology. The biggest issue historically hasn't been computing power though. The biggest problem is that those systems are hideously expensive and only serve a niche to allow for safe operations. Having more computing power means that the vehicle is easier to operate at lower training levels, but it doesn't change the mitigation factors involved in creating safe landing zones for said vehicles. Relying on batteries and electric motors for it just makes the issue of profit that much harder given the absolute poo poo energy density of batteries compared to traditional fuel sources; but that is a completely separate issue from the topic of creating safe landing zones. Raldikuk fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What the gently caress are you even on about? Constantly trying to bring up the fact you know where someone works to try to win arguments is super creepy and you do it extremely frequently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No it's far harder to execute on mass demolition and roof to ground renovation projects to provide sufficient helipads, than it is to run more rail or even roads. Right... fishmech posted:Please describe how any of that affects the existence of wind. Not my job to teach you how these things are essential to countering the effects of environmental conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Constantly trying to bring up the fact you know where someone works to try to win arguments is super creepy and you do it extremely frequently. You shared that info yourself, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Yes, helipads and helicopters exist. No one has argued otherwise, congrats. No one is even arguing that the lack of a helipad at a location means one cannot be put there. You reject OOOC's claim of a 10 foot square so there's nothing really more to say about that since no one is arguing against the ability to build helipads at appropriate locations. I definitely asked for clarification and there are people in this thread who are saying different. Raldikuk posted:Please elaborate on the extreme regulatory hurdles that would make it impossible to consider how you might buy land and build towers. Note I am not talking about the technological hurdles of the actual communications technology, since that isn't what was discussed, but how to buy the land and build towers. Do you honestly believe (as oooc does) that this problem would seem intractable prior to cellphones rolling out? Again, assuming the actual communications technology exists (just like quad copters have for decades) and we are just considering the actual problem of where to place the stuff. Yes, it was hard to build cell networks due to lots of factors including land rights and other city, state and federal regulations and laws. Raldikuk posted:Cuz see the problem with the helipad example isn't that building helipads is super complicated therefore intractable; the problem is finding appropriate locations where it can be built to allow for safe operations. Building helipads is trivial; building a helipad in the middle of a dense residential area the size of a 10 foot square is not...because it is basically impossible if you want to do it safely. The problem there isn't the nature of the helipad, but the nature of the vehicle using the helipad. Read the posts in this thread, people aren't saying what you're saying. We can both agree that it's not "easy" to find locations, but it's a lot easier and cheaper than building new roads and rails.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Right... Please, again, describe how a quadcopter having a better battery or motor or computer means that a gust coming up as it's landing, say, is no longer a concern so the cleared area and paths around it can be tighter. Hell why do battery and electric motor improvements even matter when most of them burn fuel? ElCondemn posted:
It is not easier to build a massive amount of safe helipads than to build more Rail or road dude. Sundae posted:You shared that info yourself, though. Remembering the past is evil!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Constantly trying to bring up the fact you know where someone works to try to win arguments is super creepy and you do it extremely frequently. The only person who's employer is known is mine. Quit loving lying. You've repeatedly said you work for some schools somewhere in the midwest. Quit loving lying. Therefore, I'm not telling anyone where you work or who your employer is. Quit loving lying. The only important fact here is that you have no loving experience in aerospace outside of jerking off to Wired. Quit loving lying. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Please, again, describe how a quadcopter having a better battery or motor or computer means that a gust coming up as it's landing, say, is no longer a concern so the cleared area and paths around it can be tighter. A helicopter uses its tail rotor to provide thrust through torque, if it wants to move in a direction it has to rotate the tail and use the tail rotor in addition to the pitch controls in the tail to adjust it's trajectory. Meanwhile a multi-rotor aircraft can make precise adjustments in six axes by just adjusting the amount of voltage (or more precisely adjust the frequency of the square wave) to each motor, and it can do it in milliseconds. Plus with the improvements in batteries, motors and computing power all of this can be achieved with higher voltages at higher speeds with lower weights which means way more control than a traditional helicopter. If that doesn't make it clear why it's able to withstand gusts of wind better I don't know what to tell you. fishmech posted:Hell why do battery and electric motor improvements even matter when most of them burn fuel? The ones I've been talking about are electric. fishmech posted:It is not easier to build a massive amount of safe helipads than to build more Rail or road dude. Who said anything about building a massive amount of helipads? Why would companies take on that kind of capital cost when they could start small and grow their customer base to pay for additional helipads? Seems like the same argument against electric cars, people were saying they weren't feasible because there weren't enough charging stations but they're pretty much everywhere now. fishmech posted:Remembering the past is evil! Trying to discredit people's opinions by appealing to authority is a stupid argument and doesn't make what they're saying wrong just because they aren't an aerospace engineer. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
And you do? Your first post in this thread is you claiming you work in 'food safety". but who cares anyway? weird bad doxxing based arguments are just weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Look, I've wanted my own personal helicopter ever since I could read Popular Mechanics. What I don't want is to go anywhere near this flying Cuisinart: http://www.ehang.com/news/146.html Autorotation? Nope! Gliding? Need to bail out? Hope the blades have stopped! It may have some kind of ballistic parachute system, but I haven't read that it does. Gotta hope the software is 100% bug-free as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:
Ask someone 30 years ago if putting up 40,000 cell phone towers all over the country that all need network connections faster than any that existed run to them so they could broadcast on frequencies that were assigned to other stuff to service devices that did not even exist yet all based on nonexistent technology. Was trivial or hard. You just get to pretend it was all super easy because it all happened and people did the effort to run thousands of miles of fiberoptics and change laws and buy spectrum rights and invent all the technology to build all 40,000 towers for the millions of phones people bought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:If that doesn't make it clear why it's able to withstand gusts of wind better I don't know what to tell you. the lower weight inherent in being a smaller vehicle with less moving parts and fuel means that it is more susceptible to wind forces than a traditional helicopter, being less massy per surface area. it could be a tradeoff, or even worse, given that helicopters can point their aerodynamic angles into the wind
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:A helicopter uses its tail rotor to provide thrust through torque, if it wants to move in a direction it has to rotate the tail and use the tail rotor in addition to the pitch controls in the tail to adjust it's trajectory. Meanwhile a multi-rotor aircraft can make precise adjustments in six axes by just adjusting the amount of voltage (or more precisely adjust the frequency of the square wave) to each motor, and it can do it in milliseconds. Plus with the improvements in batteries, motors and computing power all of this can be achieved with higher voltages at higher speeds with lower weights which means way more control than a traditional helicopter. Electricity does nothing to make the flight safer by the way. You need a massive amount of new helipads to sustain expansion in service by helicopters dude. Which means massive changes in the urban fabric to maintain safety. Which means your jerking fantasy about copters are unrealistic. Sorry that you get mad that people dare to consider reality though. Have you tried moving to r/deathtrapcopterfan? Seems like it would be more your speed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
Drone light shows are a good demonstration of how extremely terrifyingly stable drone flight is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mHDDG3FCjs
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:the lower weight inherent in being a smaller vehicle with less moving parts and fuel means that it is more susceptible to wind forces than a traditional helicopter, being less massy per surface area Yes, but we're still talking hundreds of pounds with an aerodynamic design. Unlike a plane or helicopter that has foils designed to use wind the only foil on a multi-copter is the rotor itself and that can all be mitigated by sub-second adjustments made possible by feedback from their IMUs. fishmech posted:Sorry that you get mad You caught me, I'm so mad right now! Good posting!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And you do? Your first post in this thread is you claiming you work in 'food safety". but who cares anyway? weird bad doxxing based arguments are just weird. You don't have professional experience, I do. Suck it up and deal with it. You're no different than an anti-vaxxer who claims to have "done their own research" in the face of doctors and scientists saying otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yes, but we're still talking hundreds of pounds with an aerodynamic design. Unlike a plane or helicopter that has foils designed to use wind the only foil on a multi-copter is the rotor itself and that can all be mitigated by sub-second adjustments made possible by feedback from their IMUs. You are making absolutely no sense dude. Again, multi rotor designs pre-date the invention of electronic television, it is known that they still require generous safety margins for helipads. No amount of you going "but the computer is faster" changes that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You are making absolutely no sense dude. Again, multi rotor designs pre-date the invention of electronic television, it is known that they still require generous safety margins for helipads. No amount of you going "but the computer is faster" changes that. Multi-rotor designs of the past didn't have the tech we have today, they're a totally different beast. Comparing high torque electric rotor systems with traditional gas motor systems really shows you have no idea why that's such a major change. It means that you can land more safely in confined spaces because of the amount of control you have, the regulations for helicopters have to include large safety margins because they aren't as precise as multi-rotor aircraft. I just don't get why this is so hard for you to understand, it's almost like you've chosen your position and nothing can convince you. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yes, but we're still talking hundreds of pounds with an aerodynamic design. Unlike a plane or helicopter that has foils designed to use wind the only foil on a multi-copter is the rotor itself and that can all be mitigated by sub-second adjustments made possible by feedback from their IMUs. it's not about control systems, but power. quadrotors are only possible because they use electric engines, which generally don't provide enough power to lift a bunch of weight. like the entire concept is inherently a lightweight vehicle, likely to be too small to carry a person without major advancements in battery and electric motor technology - otherwise we'd see electric helicopters because of the ease of maintenance with electric motors over combustion motors. and lightweight vehicles are simply more susceptible to wind force no matter how hard you can instantly lean into sudden wind gusts like if you could just upscale the design with current technology it would be a done deed, instead of all these variances of upscaling the design that are taking different forms to try to find the ideal point at which the thing is efficient enough to reasonably fly ElCondemn posted:It means that you can land more safely in confined spaces because of the amount of control you have, this is a big assumption on your part. your argument boils down to "instant computer reaction makes it safer to fly in the wind" but you're not thinking about whether or not the vehicle will be blown all over despite the computer being able to instantly tilt towards wind. in fact the more i think about it, the further you lean over the more lift you lose which is a bad thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe9O_AN8kE8
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You don't have professional experience, I do. The two things you have mentioned is that you are a factory worker and work in food safety. Why should I accept either of those things make you know anything about drones? Why do you think talking about people's jobs is a normal way to interact on internet forums at all? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Multi-rotor designs of the past didn't have the tech we have today, they're a totally different beast. Comparing high torque electric rotor systems with traditional gas motor systems really shows you have no idea why that's such a major change. Why do you keep acting like multi rotor helicopters aren't helicopters? You still need to provide wide safety margins at the point of landing. Jerking off about "more tech" doesn't change that. There is no major change here. You keep mistaking neat tricks in ideal conditions as meaning you can skip safety in worst case scenarios - safety margins are meant to meet the worst case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:it's not about control systems, but power. quadrotors are only possible because they use electric engines, which generally don't provide enough power to lift a bunch of weight. like the entire concept is inherently a lightweight vehicle, likely to be too small to carry a person without major advancements in battery and electric motor technology - otherwise we'd see electric helicopters because of the ease of maintenance with electric motors over combustion motors. and lightweight vehicles are simply more susceptible to wind force no matter how hard you can instantly lean into sudden wind gusts The battery and motor technology I think is there today, there are many examples of the tech providing ample flight time and thrust. It could certainly be better but the technology will improve. It's definitely true that lightweight craft are more susceptible to wind but aircraft can be and are being designed to withstand wind, that's why the recent designs look more like modern cars than traditional aircraft. luxury handset posted:like if you could just upscale the design with current technology it would be a done deed, instead of all these variances of upscaling the design that are taking different forms to try to find the ideal point at which the thing is efficient enough to reasonably fly I think the companies working on these problems have definitely been running into scaling issues, consumer level multi-copters are definitely not designed for high wind or heavy loads. But there's no reason these problems can't be overcome. luxury handset posted:this is a big assumption on your part. your argument boils down to "instant computer reaction makes it safer to fly in the wind" but you're not thinking about whether or not the vehicle will be blown all over despite the computer being able to instantly tilt towards wind. in fact the more i think about it, the further you lean over the more lift you lose which is a bad thing There are limits of course, but with more aerodynamic designs and the larger mass of passenger sized drones they should faire quite a bit better than a consumer drone you buy at best buy. In fact a couple friends of mine in the movie industry run these large octo-copters that do really well in adverse weather conditions, they're designed to not catch the wind. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The battery and motor technology I think is there today, there are many examples of the tech being there to provide ample flight time and thrust. It could certainly be better but it will get there. are there? the average quadrotor flight time is like 20 minutes, and that's with a tiny aircraft that only carries a camera... ElCondemn posted:It's definitely true that lightweight craft are more susceptible to wind but aircraft can be and are being designed to withstand wind, that's why the recent designs look more like modern cars than traditional aircraft. you, uh, you want it to look more like a traditional aircraft if you want it to be more aerodynamic, because aircraft care far more about aeronavigation and wind than ground based vehicles do... ElCondemn posted:I think the companies working on these problems have definitely been running into scaling issues, consumer level multi-copters are definitely not designed for high wind or heavy loads. But there's no reason these problems can't be overcome. there's no reason they can be, either ElCondemn posted:There are limits of course, but with more aerodynamic designs and the larger mass of passenger sized drones they should faire quite a bit better than a consumer drone you buy at best buy. In fact a couple friends of mine in the movie industry run these large octo-copters that do really well in adverse weather conditions, they're designed to not catch the wind. and they still use helicopters for capturing footage as well, because everything i've seen indicates helicopters are much better at handling wind than multirotors - because of a combination of weight and power. octorotors can be more wind resistant than quadrotors while also still being terrible at handling moderate wind conditions a helicopter would laugh at like, i just don't see how you can paradoxically create a lighter vehicle that is more wind resistant
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
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". 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. I don't understand why you're talking about point-to-point transport through the air as if it's a new technology. Helicopter taxi services have been around for literally half a century and aren't even all that expensive. The limiting factor isn't that you need to pay a pilot - it's the fact that in the urban areas where transport demand is highest, alternative forms of transportation already exist that can get you far closer to your destination for a much cheaper price. Replacing the pilot with an AI doesn't change those fundamental economics. And no, the primary limiting factor in helipad placement isn't the size of the helicopter. Failson posted:Look, I've wanted my own personal helicopter ever since I could read Popular Mechanics. Rotary-wing aircraft also pose hilarious levels of danger to bystanders in the case of an accident. Not just the obvious "plane falls out of sky on top of people", either. One NYC air taxi service shut down after a mistake during landing led to one of the rotors bumping something, causing a rotor blade to break off. It whirled across the roof - right through a crowd of passengers waiting to board - and then flew off the building, smashing some of the building's windows and breaking into large pieces, one of which landed on someone who was waiting at a bus stop a block away. Also, the copter itself ended up crashing upside down on the helipad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:are there? the average quadrotor flight time is like 20 minutes, and that's with a tiny aircraft that only carries a camera... I think we've gotten off the point, you seem to be talking about small consumer drones, I'm talking about large passenger carrying drones. Lightweight passenger drones can be as or more stable than equally sized traditional single/compound rotor designs because of their precise thrust control. A traditional single/compound rotor design is inherently more stable by design because of the gyroscopic precession and their variable pitch design, it also makes traditional designs way more mechanically complex. Software and IMUs are what make fixed multi-rotor designs viable. But regardless of all of this stuff I was just explaining the technology and why it could be better, I'm not making any claims as to whether anyone is going to be zipping around in flying cars next year. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I think we've gotten off the point, you seem to be talking about small consumer drones, I'm talking about large passenger carrying drones. i am also talking about large passenger carrying drones, and using the flight characteristics of smaller drones to talk about the difficulties inherent in simply upscaling the idea without efficiency enhancements which don't exist yet (which is why all the prototype multirotor passenger vehicles have different forms, they are experimenting with design to try to hit an efficiency target) ElCondemn posted:Lightweight passenger drones can be as or more stable than equally sized traditional single/compound rotor designs because of their precise thrust control. A traditional single/compound rotor design is inherently more stable by design because of the gyroscopic action and their variable pitch design, it also makes traditional designs way more mechanically complex. i have already said that this method of control does not imply greater stability in wind. you did not really address that point, you just said "well it's larger so it will be better" without really engaging with my "what if it's not good enough?" argument ElCondemn posted:Software and IMUs are what make fixed multi-rotor designs viable. repeating yourself is not a compelling form of argumentation. you keep saying this and i keep saying it's probably not good enough given that the ideal design of a multirotor passenger vehicle is something which is lighter than a traditional helicopter therefore more prone to being moved about by wind. i don't see a point in either of us continuing to repeat ourselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i have already said that this method of control does not imply greater stability in wind. you did not really address that point, you just said "well it's larger so it will be better" without really engaging with my "what if it's not good enough?" argument Well, I guess that's your opinion then. My understanding is that the precision you get from thrust control and six axes of adjustment at sub-second intervals makes dealing with things like weather or shifting loads easier, but if you disagree I'd love to hear why. As for your weight issue, I didn't address it because you seem to think comparing a consumer drone with larger passenger drones is a fair comparison. A full size passenger drone will have a lot more mass than a consumer drone, that should improve stability, that's all I was saying. I don't think posting a video of a consumer drone doing poorly in wind tells us anything. I can buy a 100 dollar drone and it will whip around and crash with just a breath but if I use a $20k octocopter it will perform significantly better. luxury handset posted:repeating yourself is not a compelling form of argumentation. you keep saying this and i keep saying it's probably not good enough given that the ideal design of a multirotor passenger vehicle is something which is lighter than a traditional helicopter therefore more prone to being moved about by wind. i don't see a point in either of us continuing to repeat ourselves Well, I don't think saying things like "there's no reason they can be" is a reasonable response to a claim. If I say "It's doable and here's why" saying "Yeah, but what if it isn't doable" isn't really moving the conversation forward, I'm not going to jump through hoops to try to explain this poo poo if you're just going to say "nuh uh".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Well, I guess that's your opinion then. My understanding is that the precision you get from thrust control and six axes of adjustment at sub-second intervals makes dealing with things like weather or shifting loads easier, but if you disagree I'd love to hear why. as i've repeatedly said, because any sort of a passenger scale quadcopter is inherently going to be lighter than a passenger scale helicopter, so any advantages you get in automatic response could be easily outweighed by, uh, weight ElCondemn posted:As for your weight issue, I didn't address it because you seem to think comparing a consumer drone with larger passenger drones is a fair comparison. i dont have much else to compare it to in terms of flight characteristics since passenger drones currently don't exist, and all the prototypes are tiny for obvious reasons, mostly that electric motors don't generate as much power as combustion motors so you have to save weight somewhere
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:30
|
|