Lily – Drone camera
495 comments
[deleted]
That's really, really nifty. Was wondering when a "point and shoot" drone would hit the market.
I really want one but I've grown wary of pre-ordering products that haven't been manufactured yet...
I really want one but I've grown wary of pre-ordering products that haven't been manufactured yet...
Thank you Nadya! We are shipping in February 2016 and will be sending out frequent updates. Stay tuned at www.lily.camera.
That is one of the first videos I've seen in a long time where I've thought "wow we can do that now?"
[deleted]
Thank you! This is just a glimpse of what one can do with Lily. Check out our website www.lily.camera for more information.
The submission is literally a link to the website.
go bears. i just placed my order.
This is some of the best marketing i've seen in a long while.
Just in case it's not obvious: I'm not complaining or being sarcastic, this is honest praise.
Just in case it's not obvious: I'm not complaining or being sarcastic, this is honest praise.
Brilliant video. Felt the need to watch it twice through in quick succession.
Wow! Preordered, but used my AMEX in case it turns out to be VaporWare.
[deleted]
Out of curiousity, what does your AMEX card offer if this is VarporWare?
Amex allows you to dispute charges very easily. Their dispute resolution process is slanted in favor of the cardholder rather than the merchant.
Is this a reason that many merchants don't accept AmEx?
Partially, yes. But Amex also charges higher transaction fees, which come out of the merchant's profits. Between the two, and the fact that only ~20% of people have an Amex, many merchants decide Amex isn't worth the trouble.
Re: shortstuffsushi
Generally, merchants don't take AMEX because it's expensive to do so. The fee rates are usually higher (~3.5% vs ~2.5% and there is a monthly access fee as well.
Generally, merchants don't take AMEX because it's expensive to do so. The fee rates are usually higher (~3.5% vs ~2.5% and there is a monthly access fee as well.
Additionally, Amex provides both the credit as well as credit card processing for their customers instead of splitting the business with thousands of banks. So when a merchant exceeds whatever shadiness threshold is set by Amex they are banned from accepting all Amex cards vs. cards issued by $yourbank. So there is incentive for the merchant provide good customer service.
Oh, well AMEX in general is the most liberal with consumer-protection. If it ends up being fake, or the end product is nothing like the description, or whatever, AMEX just credits you with no questions asked. They also do lots of cool stuff like automatically doubling warranties and such.
Here's a hands-on video with a prototype: http://resourcemagonline.com/2015/05/hands-on-with-the-lily-...
This is cool. I've been dreaming about something similar. In my mind though it would be smaller and could hitch a ride on your shoulder.
I imagine that one problem is that if it's too small, it will be unstable in wind... So since they need a certain amount of weight for stability anyway, might as well devote it to big batteries (rather than being small and dense).
You're right. I wait for the day when we can make the batteries smaller / motors more powerful.
This is when these things will find their true purpose:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41blwh4qNWL._SL500_.jp...
This is great. Now, we're just waiting for better batteries: stretching out 20 minutes of flight time across a day or even morning of skiing, kayaking, etc. is going to be difficult. I guess you can carry batteries with you.
Especially at the rate that batteries degrade. It'll be no time before you're getting 3-4 minutes per charge!
Battery is not removable.
That's horrible and possibly a deciding factor. I guess it had to be done in order to make it waterproof.
I concur, you really need the possibility of multiple battery loads in order to get full value out of this stuff.
Can you do non-conductive power transmission at reasonable weights and efficiencies? I mean, my toothbrush does it, but I can't speak to the charging rate.
Can you do non-conductive power transmission at reasonable weights and efficiencies? I mean, my toothbrush does it, but I can't speak to the charging rate.
Wireless power transmission can only be implemented using alternating current through induction. Very hard to implement this in any meaningful way for battery powered digital devices.
These are cool, but...
1) 20 minutes is great if your sole purpose is getting video, but not if your sole purpose is surfing (let's say). A surf session might be 2 hours. Taking a break to put your dead flying camera away in the middle of it isn't ideal.
Still there could be work around for this at some point.
2) Air space. The real problem. If you're surfing (again) or skiing you'll annoy everyone with the sound of your drone.
Still for the more adventurous who get to surf or ski alone, this does look pretty awesome, but will never be as ubiquitous as the GoPro.
1) 20 minutes is great if your sole purpose is getting video, but not if your sole purpose is surfing (let's say). A surf session might be 2 hours. Taking a break to put your dead flying camera away in the middle of it isn't ideal.
Still there could be work around for this at some point.
2) Air space. The real problem. If you're surfing (again) or skiing you'll annoy everyone with the sound of your drone.
Still for the more adventurous who get to surf or ski alone, this does look pretty awesome, but will never be as ubiquitous as the GoPro.
This drone does not seem at all to be optimized for surf. It even says in the FAQ to be cautious when putting it in salted water.
But yes, 20 minutes is really short, it's its major default. I suppose it was a necessary sacrifice to make this kind of product at this time.
But yes, 20 minutes is really short, it's its major default. I suppose it was a necessary sacrifice to make this kind of product at this time.
Charging base where it could land and somehow automatically change batteries (or switch with another drone?) would solve some of this. Hopefully battery tech will pick up a lot in the next 10-20 years!
It's waterproof, but still the lens will get wet. How did they solve that?
Also, does it have built-in collision avoidance?
Also, does it have built-in collision avoidance?
In the video they looked apprehensive for a moment when lily landed in the river next to the kayak. Or maybe that was just me feeling apprehensive for them.
Serious question. Is this not a thing being sold already? The design is really nice and the video is really well done... the waterproof seems maybe a new thing.
I have seen multiple promo videos for various drones offering same "follow me" feature.
Here's one I found in few seconds https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
The 3d mapping on this one is amazing.
I have seen multiple promo videos for various drones offering same "follow me" feature.
Here's one I found in few seconds https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
The 3d mapping on this one is amazing.
I wonder how this handles obstacles. The trails we ride are not wide open ski slopes, or rivers, often times they are tight/wooded trails. Would like to see how it handles "close following".
Lastly, the part in the video where the guy just tosses it into the river was definitely mind-blowing.
Lastly, the part in the video where the guy just tosses it into the river was definitely mind-blowing.
This is the big reason people don't buy these types of drones (this one certainly isn't the first of it's kind).
It doesn't have obstacle avoidance or it will make a massive deal of it.
It doesn't have obstacle avoidance or it will make a massive deal of it.
Intel last keynote demoed very capable drones. They're showing it off, it won't be long until it hits the market. They named the components RealSense, a miniature kinect I guess. Nice demo at 4:55:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us0BqJvsF9k&t=295
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us0BqJvsF9k&t=295
Now shipping in mobile phone size - http://www.pcworld.com/article/2907352/intel-shrinks-realsen...
Shame the dev kit only has Windows support.
Shame the dev kit only has Windows support.
Confirms my thoughts, it really is a miniature Kinect-like kit.
RealSense uses projected IR and thus doesn't work outdoors.
(edit: because short-range and little ambient IR are required)
(edit: because short-range and little ambient IR are required)
Thanks for the tip. Are there any portable technology that would work outdoors ?
Vision works for animals, and a lot of people are working very hard to do it for computers. Google "UAV visual SLAM" for examples.
LIDAR works already but is heavy, power hungry and expensive. Not good for these small vehicles.
LIDAR works already but is heavy, power hungry and expensive. Not good for these small vehicles.
Yeah, I pictures a Google Drone laughing.
stereo vision, structure from motion, animals use both
Except the end of that video shows it working in a forest... https://youtu.be/Us0BqJvsF9k?t=6m14s
OK, that's cool. I stand corrected. Clearly it can work outdoors in some circumstances. IR texture projectors get washed out by ambient IR from the sun. Thus the choice of a shady forest for the very nice demo. People have also used Kinect outdoors in the evening, etc.
But in the general case you can't rely on this approach because sun.
But in the general case you can't rely on this approach because sun.
> because sun.
That's a fair point. So RealSense will probably work at night, in a shady forest (like the demo) or maybe the shady side of a mountain, but as soon as the sun is involved IR becomes unusable. I don't suppose you could switch the other side of the visible spectrum and do UV cameras, could you? Having your data reduced to one dimension per pixel really makes the AI easier.
That's a fair point. So RealSense will probably work at night, in a shady forest (like the demo) or maybe the shady side of a mountain, but as soon as the sun is involved IR becomes unusable. I don't suppose you could switch the other side of the visible spectrum and do UV cameras, could you? Having your data reduced to one dimension per pixel really makes the AI easier.
There's a lot of UV in sunlight too. Hence sunscreen. Many birds can see it. Some birds have patterns on them that are only visible in UV. Fun facts.
I probably have no clue what I am talking about, but wouldn't it be sorta like steering forces?
Seek A Avoid B
In your case, a ton of Bs in terms of leaves, branches and etc.
I guess it would need a wide scan to detect if there is a path either vertically or horizontally.
Seek A Avoid B
In your case, a ton of Bs in terms of leaves, branches and etc.
I guess it would need a wide scan to detect if there is a path either vertically or horizontally.
Well, (A) has a tracking device. All the (B)s don't. If they did, then yeah, this would work.
Right?
Right?
Yeah but I am thinking it has some sort of an scanner, sorta like self-parking cars do :).
So once it Avoids (Steers away) B it can continue to Seek (Steers toward) A with the tracking device.
Obviously depends on how well the scanner to pickup obstacles work. You would need some sort of a heat map to detect leaves or branches.
So once it Avoids (Steers away) B it can continue to Seek (Steers toward) A with the tracking device.
Obviously depends on how well the scanner to pickup obstacles work. You would need some sort of a heat map to detect leaves or branches.
It is a hard robotics problem. Saying that "it would need a wide scan" is a vast underestimation. Try looking up some papers on obstacle avoidance. Also, consider the costs of sticking the additional sensors on the robot, processing that data in realtime, and still powering the whole thing.
I am guessing the biggest problem is the noise. Yeah, it's easy to figure out if there is a giant wall standing in front of you, but what about snow that constantly blocks its lens? Some leaves may be attached to tree so it might be required to circumvent, but some might not even be worth circumventing if it's just a piece of leaf falling.
maybe someone can pull it off with ultra sound? Those can be pretty cheap.
Probably won't have much resolution for leaves. I've used ultrasonic transducers for a college class project almost 15 years ago. Ultrasound worked great for hard surfaces like walls, but softer materials like clothing reduced its range of detection. Snow covered trees, I think will have a similar signature that would be hard to detect except at close range. With a UAV, it could be done, but it'd have to be moving pretty slow I think. You'll probably have better luck with some sort of optical system.
I guess the drone wouldn't be able to launch from the water if it had landed upside-down?
(As a concept, this is amazing - excited to see how well it works in practice.)
(As a concept, this is amazing - excited to see how well it works in practice.)
Waterproof will be amazing safety for kitesurfing and surfing in general, quadcopters are super cool, but you don't want to drop one in salty water. There are already techie stuff for kiters, we use the Woo device and gopros a lot.
Most areas have a club to keep members under control (irresponsible kiting can be dangerous to people not in the sea, unlike surfing) ... our club is keen on getting Woos, GoPros, webcams, internet enabled wind-o-meters etc... Hope they decide to get one of these!!
Most areas have a club to keep members under control (irresponsible kiting can be dangerous to people not in the sea, unlike surfing) ... our club is keen on getting Woos, GoPros, webcams, internet enabled wind-o-meters etc... Hope they decide to get one of these!!
I can't imagine that propellers play nicely with kites...
if you could but a beacon of the leading edge of the kite and setup a NO GO zone between the remote and the kite's beacon that would solve that issue.
Sounds good in theory, but in practice kites can move really fast when manoeuvring or doing tricks. No guarantee that the drone would always avoid you successfully. You'd have to stay aware of where it is and where it's going, which would probably interfere with your kiting significantly.
The biggest showstopper for me on this is the hugely disappointing top speed (40 km/h). I'm an alpine skier (ex-racer) and the only times I go that slow is on transport stages. This thing literally wouldn't be able to keep up with Usain Bolt running the 100m. It needs at least twice the top speed.
Usain Bolt does around 38 km/h
Yeah, but I bet he accelerates faster.
Edit: he accelerates from standstill at 9.5 m/s^2. I couldn't find data on what drones do.
Edit: he accelerates from standstill at 9.5 m/s^2. I couldn't find data on what drones do.
Drones usually accelerate quite rapidly (electric motors and all).
Well electric motors can accelerate rapidly, but if they're pulling something heavy, all you'll get is rapidly spinning electric motors and a slowly rising object.
Still, that's zero to 95% of top speed in one second (or 5 meters).
Not for 20 minutes.
That's actually pretty speedy for a quad, especially to remain stable. If you want to race at 100MPH and have gyro-stabilized video you should get a helicopter and a camera crew.
I for one would prefer the aerial robot following me to not be traveling at 60MPH. That's asking for a serious injury.
I for one would prefer the aerial robot following me to not be traveling at 60MPH. That's asking for a serious injury.
Not to mention that the speed (+-) is variable by the wind speed.
It's not hard to make a quad fly 150km/h - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO85qrlUqkw.
Obviously gets quite dangerous in populated areas like ski slopes.
Obviously gets quite dangerous in populated areas like ski slopes.
Well, I would imagine a lot of your speed is downward right? Then it's a matter of a controlled decent really. I'd guess that would increase the top speed of the device as it's really just falling out of the sky and steering.
It's electronically limited to 40 km/h, so I don't think so.
Maybe you can send it ahead of you and instead of following you it just shoots as you come towards it?
Wonder if you can buy a few and tell them to follow each other.
The FAQ says they're working on having multiple cameras follow one person
This is the true hacker mentality right here
You could probably just duct tape the tracking device to another drone. Looping them together like ants would be cool! :D.
[deleted]
Yeah. I kiteboard and I would love to make some images using Lilly. But I'm pretty sure eventually Lilly may crash into the lines or kite.
Same. Also curious about the max wind speed it can handle
Ugh thinking of that gave me shudders. Kiting is dangerous enough without these things flying around, I would definitely give someone a piece of my mind if they started flying a drone in a busy spot.
I wonder how well it will work for surfing. Probably great for small crumblers and open faces; probably not so great at the Right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N_-vxfz4uw . Can you imagine how sick it would be to get this thing to follow in a tube at Teahupoo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7w... !!
do you surf? Have you ever experienced the push of air that develops from a closing / collapsing tube?
yes, yes [i assume you mean either getting spit out, or closed out on]. drones are starting to make inroads here too, but it is still mainly remote stuff, taken from afar and manually controlled by someone on the beach. something like this at jbay would be amazing.
I see it the other way around. This could help humans handle obstacles, at least if it could launch itself automatically and when it's a bit smaller so that it's really easy to carry around.
African American males could carry it. Then, when police was nearby it could launch itself. Maybe it would be triggered by the sound of sirens or if there is a website that tracks police cars, maybe it could launch every time they are near. Or maybe an apple watch could detect fear from differences in pulse and then launch it. Maybe some other trigger
A future, self launching, slightly smaller version of this could be a great protector of civil rights.
African American males could carry it. Then, when police was nearby it could launch itself. Maybe it would be triggered by the sound of sirens or if there is a website that tracks police cars, maybe it could launch every time they are near. Or maybe an apple watch could detect fear from differences in pulse and then launch it. Maybe some other trigger
A future, self launching, slightly smaller version of this could be a great protector of civil rights.
This is a colossally stupid idea. How is this better than someone having a cellphone? Are you always holding it outstretched on your hand, anticipating a cop to drive by any second? Or can it crawl out of your pocket to defend your civil rights?
Or perhaps mounted on top of an ACLU baseball hat?
This is not a bad idea.
Women could carry it if they run at night and if they don't make it home it could fly to a police station.
Parents could send them out with their kids.
Women could carry it if they run at night and if they don't make it home it could fly to a police station.
Parents could send them out with their kids.
[deleted]
That would enable the truest form of helicopter parenting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent)
I heard the phenomenal term "curling parenting" the other day, where the kid is the stone and the parents are the two people frantically working to reduce the friction in front of it.
It's been enabled already...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240860/Father-build...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Police do not react well to being filmed. What will likely happen is that your drone will be confiscated as "evidence" or destroyed. Its not as if cell phones do not exist to fill the same role here.
The ACLU makes an app that streams the video recording to an Internet server in real-time at the best possible quality given your data speed. It will also upload the full video when possible without additional action.
Im sure you can do that with a phone. Im not sure what the drone adds to the equation.
> I wonder how this handles obstacles.
According to the creators v1 doesn't handle obstacles at all due to time and cost. I'm sure a later version can be made to do so; I feel like it should be far easier to do in a 3D space versus a flatted space like ground vehicles.
According to the creators v1 doesn't handle obstacles at all due to time and cost. I'm sure a later version can be made to do so; I feel like it should be far easier to do in a 3D space versus a flatted space like ground vehicles.
Relatedly, I wonder what would happen if you turn it on and then walk inside a building...
> rivers
I'm a rower so fortunately I won't have the obstacles issue. In fact, these could be great for rowing coaches who can put the controller in the boat then get close up to the rower/crew without needing oversized launches that wash everyone else down.
20 mins might be a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable.
I'm a rower so fortunately I won't have the obstacles issue. In fact, these could be great for rowing coaches who can put the controller in the boat then get close up to the rower/crew without needing oversized launches that wash everyone else down.
20 mins might be a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable.
I'm very impressed by the capabilities. I've seen 'follow me' drones before, but I don't know if I've seen any that are waterproof or as compact as this. And the smiling face on the front is a nice touch.
It's still hard to part with my money (even at 50% off) when the ship date is next year though. I've been burned by various kickstarter projects that get delayed ad infinitum.
It's still hard to part with my money (even at 50% off) when the ship date is next year though. I've been burned by various kickstarter projects that get delayed ad infinitum.
I've been burned by various kickstarter projects that get delayed ad infinitum.
Me too. I've decided that there are no new things that I need so much that I can't wait until the thing is actually shipping. In many cases I've been quite happy waiting until a v2 release when the early bugs and quirks are worked out.
Me too. I've decided that there are no new things that I need so much that I can't wait until the thing is actually shipping. In many cases I've been quite happy waiting until a v2 release when the early bugs and quirks are worked out.
This is exactly why I've grown wary of pre-orders.
Even with huge savings for being "an early backer" - I've found I get more for my money (and sometimes anything for my money) if I wait until an improved "v2" ships a few months after initial release.
Even with huge savings for being "an early backer" - I've found I get more for my money (and sometimes anything for my money) if I wait until an improved "v2" ships a few months after initial release.
From the FAQ:
"What is your policy on refunds?
If you decide to cancel your pre-order before Lily ships, we will provide a full refund to you."
Assuming of course that they don't run out of funds before they ship.
This isn't a slight on this project specifically but there is a risk that any project which isn't yet in production won't get that far...
This isn't a slight on this project specifically but there is a risk that any project which isn't yet in production won't get that far...
And if you believe that, read up on the drama with https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pirate3d/the-buccaneer-...
TLDR; during development of the printer, a number of things have changed (including a noticeable reduction in print volume). Refunds were offered August of last year, and the vast majority of refund requests are still pending (and currently half a month behind their own deadline for the latest update.
Not that I have any knowledge on whether the people behind Lily have better or worse communication and management skills, but just because they're happy to offer refunds doesn't mean they'll offer them promptly.
TLDR; during development of the printer, a number of things have changed (including a noticeable reduction in print volume). Refunds were offered August of last year, and the vast majority of refund requests are still pending (and currently half a month behind their own deadline for the latest update.
Not that I have any knowledge on whether the people behind Lily have better or worse communication and management skills, but just because they're happy to offer refunds doesn't mean they'll offer them promptly.
Kickstarter is different than a direct purchase. Kickstarter maintains they aren't a store so when things don't happen to plan you're kind of on your own. With a direct purchase you can do a chargeback easily and get your money back one way or the other.
> With a direct purchase you can do a chargeback easily
Not after 90 days you can't.
Not after 90 days you can't.
I'm curious how it homes in on the tracker.
Without a human operator assessing risk, what's to stop the drone from accidentally flying into someone and cutting them up with its blades?
There is typically not enough force in the rotation of the blades (they are designed to be very light) to do more than hurt a little bit.
I can't speak for the Lily blades, but I have a couple of drones a little larger and the blades are harmless - they stop as soon as they detect obstruction and they are flexible/not sharp. It won't cut anyone.
I just got the DJI Phantom 3 and got hit by the blades after a collision. Sliced up my arms -- didn't require stitches, but 10 days later i still have evidence that the blades aren't totally harmless.
There are plenty of gory images on forums of people who foolishly think this is the case and are proven otherwise!
I have NEVER seen a controller that would "stop as soon as they detect obstruction" like you say. In reality the flight controller is likely to do the opposite. Once it detects that the current speed of the blade is not enough to provide the desired lift, it will INCREASE the speed.
Telling people the blades are harmless is very irresponsible.
Telling people the blades are harmless is very irresponsible.
The electronic speed controllers we use in RC have a loop time of a few milliseconds and are fully programmable. Some of them are capable of sensing the current going into the motor. You can also monitor the voltage instead of/in addition to the current. It's easy to cut the throttle when there is an unexpected power surge.
I personally haven't seen this technology in DIY multirotor parts, but I know that the AR.Drone has what they call "cut-out detection". They use it to prevent damage to the craft rather than humans, but the technology could be tuned for this as well.
I personally haven't seen this technology in DIY multirotor parts, but I know that the AR.Drone has what they call "cut-out detection". They use it to prevent damage to the craft rather than humans, but the technology could be tuned for this as well.
The most popular low end quadcopter, the Syma X5C, has this. The blades are flexible and stop almost instantly when obstructed. This is great for preventing breakage when you hit a tree. I've stuck my finger in there intentionally without even mild pain.
If a $60 device has it I bet the multi-hundred and thousand dollar devices will not have trouble.
If a $60 device has it I bet the multi-hundred and thousand dollar devices will not have trouble.
I see multiple comments saying that the blades are harmless, but a quick search through google photos seems to imply otherwise to me. Not to mention the force of this thing dropping on your head after it clips a nearby branch, or has a system failure.
I suppose the answer is that the owner needs to be responsible with its usage. The example footage seemed fairly reasonable use-cases (no bystanders).
I suppose the answer is that the owner needs to be responsible with its usage. The example footage seemed fairly reasonable use-cases (no bystanders).
'harmless' drone blades are the exception, if they even exist. Note that drones designed to operate indoors have some form of protection for the blades (Parrot drone, for instance).
In addition, 'cheap' blades have sharp edges due to the manufacturing process. Some drone owners recommend sanding them to get rid of those, to minimize injuries.
In addition, 'cheap' blades have sharp edges due to the manufacturing process. Some drone owners recommend sanding them to get rid of those, to minimize injuries.
I could think of a pretty much harmless blade design that MIGHT work (soft blades), but they'd be woefully inefficient AND they would only work for those super-ultra-light micro/nano drones.
Anything else is not harmless. Even a tiny quadcopter can easily cut your skin, because the plastic is hard and sharp. Think of it as one of those plastic picnic knives, except not that sharp --- BUT rotating very, very fast.
Anything else is not harmless. Even a tiny quadcopter can easily cut your skin, because the plastic is hard and sharp. Think of it as one of those plastic picnic knives, except not that sharp --- BUT rotating very, very fast.
Yeah, those blades are NOT harmless. They will cut you up on the thinner skin bit and do some serious bruising on the thicker skin. Also, anything around the head is asking for losing any eye or something else.
I've been building and flying quads for years now and Anything over the tiny indoor ones commands a LOT of respect from me due to experience.
The idea of these things autonomously following you is cool but a HUGE liability.
Unless they have some major obstacle avoidance on board they you basically could never safely use this around other people and honestly you shouldn't even use it around yourself.
I've been building and flying quads for years now and Anything over the tiny indoor ones commands a LOT of respect from me due to experience.
The idea of these things autonomously following you is cool but a HUGE liability.
Unless they have some major obstacle avoidance on board they you basically could never safely use this around other people and honestly you shouldn't even use it around yourself.
Video made me want to have a more active life. I thought "cool!" but then I imagined my video output would be hours of me typing, browsing HN & Reddit.
Somebody should do a spoof video of their marketing video that shows exactly that.
Same concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VudWv9pQNdE
Looks like an episode of Peep Show.
Season 9 coming this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peep_Show_episodes#Ser...
[deleted]
Somebody should make Office Space 2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/
Sad realizations are the best inspiration.
But really, working in internet tech, there's no excuse not to get out more often. Internet connections are everywhere and portable computing is absolutely viable.
But really, working in internet tech, there's no excuse not to get out more often. Internet connections are everywhere and portable computing is absolutely viable.
google NOLS, outward bound, or "mountaineering course"
Yeah. "It could follow me whilst I mow the lawn!"
One feature (or use case) that I would like a follow-me drone for is path-lighting.
That is, let's say I'm going on a walk in the dark and I don't want to use a flashlight or wear a headlamp - I've thought of a drone flying 8-10 feet up, a few feet ahead of me, shining a light to light my way.
Since the Lily people seem to be here answering HN comments, I wonder, how far off is your product from doing that ?
That is, let's say I'm going on a walk in the dark and I don't want to use a flashlight or wear a headlamp - I've thought of a drone flying 8-10 feet up, a few feet ahead of me, shining a light to light my way.
Since the Lily people seem to be here answering HN comments, I wonder, how far off is your product from doing that ?
Duck tape and led torch (flashlight).
You'd rather use an expensive, noisy drone that works for twenty minutes than a $15 headlamp that runs for hours?
Sorry, what? How on earth would this be better than a headlamp, apart from the "look at my drone, my drone is amazing" part?
Well right now it's totally impractical, but if it floated silently, it would be pretty amazing. It could even light the path that you need to follow to help you navigate, and it wouldn't cause you to blind anyone you turned to talk to.
"We choose not to do these things because they are practical, but because they are cool!"
> "look at my drone, my drone is amazing"
This is actually a fairly compelling reason to do things.
This is actually a fairly compelling reason to do things.
True dat. But then the lamp part is just extra weight that also drains electricity from the batteries.
...while keeping the user perpetually in the spotlight.
It can also carry my backpack. Like my own army of air sherpas.
I am inclined to use a headlamp for this almost always.
However, if you are walking with one or two other people, their light depends on the direction of your head. And also on your relatively close proximity to them.
I dunno. It has occurred to me several times.
However, if you are walking with one or two other people, their light depends on the direction of your head. And also on your relatively close proximity to them.
I dunno. It has occurred to me several times.
A 'headlamp' doesn't seem that useful. A 'search spotlight', like the police helicopters, could be more interesting.
Wow. This is purely amazing! Definitely ordering one.
Please leave the scrolling behavior alone already!
Nice. We were doing sailing last week and was quite hard to figure the whole activity with a GoPro, because I was focusing only on what I was doing, but my fellows trimming the sails were not that much in the video.
So I was thinking of a drone to film us from the side or above, but our skipper thought that no drone could handle the 15-20 knots with 30knts gusts winds we were sailing in.
So I was thinking of a drone to film us from the side or above, but our skipper thought that no drone could handle the 15-20 knots with 30knts gusts winds we were sailing in.
There are definitely drones that can fly way faster than 30 knots, but they are not waterproof, and the ones I've seen are rather dumb, they don't follow you.
Here's a drone that can fly at 100 mph (87 knots):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5uDf9i_Yc
Here's a drone that can fly at 100 mph (87 knots):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5uDf9i_Yc
That's oddly scary to watch for some reason. I'm not sure why?
Maybe due to the fact drones are primarily used for war at the moment...
Maybe due to the fact drones are primarily used for war at the moment...
Primarily? I'd highly doubt that. Small multirotors and model aircraft like these are far more ubiquitous than the machines weighing upwards of 2,000 kgs which are used by the military.
Regardless of form-factor the military is the primary player in the drones industry. The vast majority of operations and spending are classified.
I was thinking more about the future applications of high-speed small drones when they become ubiquitous. Even if it is simply reconnaissance.
I was thinking more about the future applications of high-speed small drones when they become ubiquitous. Even if it is simply reconnaissance.
I don't think multirotors are used for war, except perhaps for reconnaissance.
Drone is way too generic of a term. Do you know of any military application of a multicopter?
Well, is not about the speed of the _drone_ but being able to fly in a 20knts wind, with 30, maybe more, gusts. Which means in order to keep course it needs to know the wind speed and compensate. It's been done ( for auto-boats ) but I doubt this drone has this.
Last time on Hintertux at 3500m we had also strong winds while snowboarding. I'd give it a test nonetheless!
Last time on Hintertux at 3500m we had also strong winds while snowboarding. I'd give it a test nonetheless!
Right, but all wind is to a drone is a shifting reference frame. In order to stay still in a 20 knit wind, the drone would need to be able to have a top speed of, at least, 20 knots.
It actually is about the drone being able to fly faster than the wind. If it can do it, it can go in any direction it wants (though slower against the wind).
Damn, that's impressive. I want to know the top speed and what kind of wind it can handle.
Just idle speculation, what happens when 30 follow-me drones are on the slopes at the same time? Will they all be able to avoid each other?
The minute drones like these start shipping they'll be banned from all ski resort faster than you can say pow.
Also, with a top speed of 40 km/h this isn't able to keep up with anyone who's past the rookie stage skiing/snowboarding. So their marketing is very misleading, either by intention or because these guys don't know shit about skiing.
Also, with a top speed of 40 km/h this isn't able to keep up with anyone who's past the rookie stage skiing/snowboarding. So their marketing is very misleading, either by intention or because these guys don't know shit about skiing.
Anyone going faster than about 40km/h isn't really doing anything worth filming anyway, other than ski racers.
All the interesting stuff for filming on the slopes happens at relatively low speeds - park, moguls, jumps, butters, etc.
All the interesting stuff for filming on the slopes happens at relatively low speeds - park, moguls, jumps, butters, etc.
If you're going any slower than 40 km/h the only thing you'll be doing in a terrain park is falling on your face. This [1] cable-driven terrain park "for children and adults" pulls you at 40 km/h. If you're looking at landing anything bigger than a 360 you'll need to be going closer to 60 km/h. Ski racers are not happy until they're going (a lot) faster than 90.
[1] http://www.al.no/en/html/aktiviteter/vinter/ski_snowboard_ca...
[1] http://www.al.no/en/html/aktiviteter/vinter/ski_snowboard_ca...
I'm a level 3 snowboard instructor in Canada, and I would say I infrequently go over 40km/h. It's only when I stand still on a groomer and "go fast", or for the run-in for the L/XL jumps.
Have you actually measured your speed though? Because the difference in speed sensation between a snowboard and a car (or bicycle) is just unbelievable if you haven't measured it.
The pull rope I linked above is for kids with small/medium jumps, and that's 40 km/h.
The pull rope I linked above is for kids with small/medium jumps, and that's 40 km/h.
Yep, sometimes we race with GPS to see how fast we can go.
80 km/h on a snowboard is fast.
80 km/h on a snowboard is fast.
That's interesting. Way back when I was a ski racing kid (about 14) we once did a speed test where we closed off 400m of one of the children's slopes and put a photocell at the bottom, and we would hit 90+ km/h on that thing. Mind you, this was in racing gear with racing skis, but that was a flat-ass slope. The fastest we ever clocked in a race was around 120, when I was 18, in the worldcup downhill course in Åre.
Yep, having two planks and two edges on the ground is a huge advantage.
Like GoPro, just 10 times better?
Related drone camera projects on kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?term=camera+dr...
Some of these projects are crazy. They could be straight out of the South Park episode "Go Fund Yourself".
These campaigns are essentially people just asking you to buy them a drone:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1430324424/drone-scouti...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1802912897/drone-build-...
I wasn't aware campaigns of these sorts actually existed. Probably because I have always stuck to the front page of kickstarter.
These campaigns are essentially people just asking you to buy them a drone:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1430324424/drone-scouti...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1802912897/drone-build-...
I wasn't aware campaigns of these sorts actually existed. Probably because I have always stuck to the front page of kickstarter.
Kickstarter has fewer projects of this kind than the other crowdfunding platforms.
I thought they are not allowing them completely, but apparently not. Yet in general, Kickstarter has higher quality content than other platforms.
I thought they are not allowing them completely, but apparently not. Yet in general, Kickstarter has higher quality content than other platforms.
I see someone like Gopro acquiring these guys
"The new introspectiveness announced the demise of an established set of traditional faiths centred on work and the postponement of gratification, and the emergence of a consumption-oriented lifestyle ethic centred on lived experience and the immediacy of daily lifestyle choices."
If my generation was called the "me" generation, how would you describe this generation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation
If my generation was called the "me" generation, how would you describe this generation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation
Like GoPro, just 10x better?
Impressive. One typo in the video. It should say 120 fps at 720p. When I saw the text I wondered why anyone would film in 720p.
Good point but storage capacity is a reason to use 720p
You're probably pretty unlikely to hit capacity when it can only fly for 20 minutes.
I don't do anything particularly serious, but I always shot my drone footage at 720p. It's quicker to copy onto my PC and quicker to upload to YouTube, and YouTube doesn't give you significantly higher quality on 1080p than 720p anyway.
Would be interesting if you could have a bunch of these shooting from different angles, positioned so that they don't shoot each other.
Basically it's like having your own cameramen, so you can have spectacular camera angles without involving huge crews. This could be cool for TV shows, documentary and indie films.
Basically it's like having your own cameramen, so you can have spectacular camera angles without involving huge crews. This could be cool for TV shows, documentary and indie films.
The FAQ says they're working on having multiple cameras follow one subject.
Reminds me of http://flynixie.com/ - this one seems a lot more robust, less "snap a quick shot and come back".
This reminded me of the Sphero Selfie bot April Fool's joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaR4X2iJo6M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaR4X2iJo6M
If they had made this look like a Star Wars Probe Droid I believe the Internet may have actually broken.
Wonder what kind of payload it can carry is :D (I imagine that was part of a trade off for battery life)
Did anyone else get nervous when he threw it off the bridge?
"Come on Lily... power up, POWER UP!"
"Come on Lily... power up, POWER UP!"
Oh goody more vaporware for HN :-(. I get the concept, the ultimate selfie movie, but I fear for the future of youtube's fails collection :-)
the next generation of selfie
Does this actually exist? Looks neat, but I want to know if preorder money is being used to develop the product that I'm preordering.
This is my number 1 concern. There are so many vaporware hardware projects now-a-days that I'm hesitant to pre-order. I feel like I'd rather just wait because by the time this is eventually released, there may be 2-3 other products that do the same thing, only better.
It's like Kickstarter, without the accountability of even the comments section!
It's finally happened, the robots are here. The future we were all promised!
20 minute flying time is pretty bad - kind of delegates this to a "We want this picture" or "We need this shot" type of thing, not "Turn it on follow mode and let's see what we get after our walk/game/session" which would be a lot more useful
That's what the current energy density of lithium polymer batteries roughly is on a drone with this size props and weight. Not much that can be done aside from hoping for better battery tech!
[deleted]
The video looks cool and everything, but I don't really understand the mentality around these kind of hands-off 'follow me' drones. If you want high-quality aerial cinematography, you need a lot more than just an autonomous drone in your general vicinity. Does this thing really have the intelligence needed to correctly frame and compose shots?
Why does it need to be high quality? Mom and dad aren't exactly pro photographers and they still enjoy taking pictures.
Just look at the design of the thing, it's clearly more for play than work.
Just look at the design of the thing, it's clearly more for play than work.
Mom and dad probably aren't into extreme sports or spending $500 on toys either, though. Which is why I think in a lot of these new drone ideas are disconnected from their target audience.
What? Parents have been buying GoPros as Christmas presents for their kids to film their skiing down a blue square run at Stratton in droves. The last time I was at a resort like that it seemed like every other 13 year old kid had a video camera to capture their day.
I don't want to see the drones flying at the mountain when I ski, but the blocker is definitely not lack of parents with money willing to blow it on stupid toys for their kids.
I don't want to see the drones flying at the mountain when I ski, but the blocker is definitely not lack of parents with money willing to blow it on stupid toys for their kids.
Awesome website
Thats totally the Mario 64 camera :)
If you live in or near Toronto, I have started a timeshare for a Lily - https://www.tilt.com/campaigns/lily-drone-timeshare
You may want to put a better description in your tilt page. You are assuming everyone visiting it know what that device is.
This is really, really cool.
That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.
There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.
There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
Agreed. I'd be satisfied with nothing less than a mid-air explosion into fine particulate matter upon engine failure. wipes drone gook off face
This is a big, big worry of mine. I'm considering doing commercial work with drones, and the major thing holding me back is the risk of injuring others with these things. The DJI Phantom, and Inspire, could kill someone if they fell from high enough. And I can tell you from personal experience, the software is simply not even CLOSE to bug-free enough for me to be worry free.
The more I think about it, the more I think, the risk of flying these things in populated places just isn't worth it.
The more I think about it, the more I think, the risk of flying these things in populated places just isn't worth it.
Seems like a good place to put Extreme Drone Crashes - Compilation 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9rnTk6FBzs
hehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9rnTk6FBzs
hehe
Reddit's defaults, for some reason, includes 'wtf' which frequently has gore pictures. One of which was someone whose face encountered a drone.
I wonder if a heavier-than-air airship design would be safer. A balloon with helium or even hydrogen would let such a device fall slowly with engines off, and motors would let it fly up and maneuver around swiftly enough.
Safer maybe, but nowhere near as swift and agile as a multirotor, and much more susceptible to wind.
Why, it can still be multi-rotor, and even capable of bigger payload with the same battery.
The air drag from the balloon will be an issue. OTOH the motors could be run at low power when cruising and at high power when speedy maneuvers are required.
The size will definitely be bigger. But if we talk about professional-grade drones (for video reporting, etc), they are large and expensive as they are. Improved safety and thus easier time getting allowed in to a worthy event might be more important than a lean package.
The air drag from the balloon will be an issue. OTOH the motors could be run at low power when cruising and at high power when speedy maneuvers are required.
The size will definitely be bigger. But if we talk about professional-grade drones (for video reporting, etc), they are large and expensive as they are. Improved safety and thus easier time getting allowed in to a worthy event might be more important than a lean package.
Could the airship configuration be a recovery mechanism? IE, instead of having a parachute or airbag to soften the landing, have compressed helium release into an airship and then continue powered flight with whichever motors remain?
When I did RC planes, not even automated drones, the common repeated expression was, "spectators are almost always a bad idea."
Edit: which makes for a lonely hobby.
Edit: which makes for a lonely hobby.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature of cars, bikes, and can openers, too.
Unfortunately, currently we probably make do with a few less nines on all these items.
Unfortunately, currently we probably make do with a few less nines on all these items.
Cars and bikes are directly controlled by humans, and in the case of an emergency, then can perform necessary maneuvers to reduce the damages. Not saying that always happens, but for the most part it does.
A drone that loses an engine falls out of the sky and lands on top of anything that is below it, and as of right now, there are no evasive maneuvers that can be executed. Especially for drones that are being used to record large public gatherings, things like multiple engines or parachutes should be absolutely mandatory, at least by the organizers of the event.
Needless to say, I'd bet it'll take one or two insurance claims until they are.
A drone that loses an engine falls out of the sky and lands on top of anything that is below it, and as of right now, there are no evasive maneuvers that can be executed. Especially for drones that are being used to record large public gatherings, things like multiple engines or parachutes should be absolutely mandatory, at least by the organizers of the event.
Needless to say, I'd bet it'll take one or two insurance claims until they are.
Fair enough!
I even suppose that parachutes or stability with 1-2 engines lost might not be "mandatory". The cost of insurance of unequipped craft flying on a major event would be so high that nobody would even try that.
I even suppose that parachutes or stability with 1-2 engines lost might not be "mandatory". The cost of insurance of unequipped craft flying on a major event would be so high that nobody would even try that.
The front fork on your bike is almost certainly not six-nines reliable. If it breaks, you're not doing any evasive maneuvers. Ditto for car electronics. I'd wager that cars fail at a rate higher than 1:million, potentially leaving the driver effectively with no control (literally no control if drive-by-wire, no effective control for many people if power steering and breaking cut out).
Well, also look closely at the most common failure modes for a front fork: (1) the handle bars wiggle out of alignment, which still allows you to brake and stop safely; (2) the axle nuts are loose, in which case you probably won't even notice unless you hit a bump, as the dropouts for removing the front wheel point toward the ground; (3) the steering locks in a particular direction, in which case you still can brake safely and stop. Catastrophic failure of the welds or metal itself is extremely rare, without some advance warning like wobbling or creaking.
To my knowledge, no commonly sold cars are exclusively drive-by-wire for the braking system. If you lose all control in a car, you can turn off the ignition and forceful application of the brakes allows you to stop, even if you lose the power assistance.
By contrast, the most common failure mode for a drone in the air is... it falls out of the sky. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. There is good reason that flying objects should be held to a higher standard of safety.
To my knowledge, no commonly sold cars are exclusively drive-by-wire for the braking system. If you lose all control in a car, you can turn off the ignition and forceful application of the brakes allows you to stop, even if you lose the power assistance.
By contrast, the most common failure mode for a drone in the air is... it falls out of the sky. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. There is good reason that flying objects should be held to a higher standard of safety.
Great, no problem. Your next bike is going to cost $9,500.00. Will that be cash, credit, or PayPal?
One motor suddenly failed
Maybe drones need to start to incorporate parachutes to slow down the fall in case of problems like these, or maybe even airbags to ease the crash. Not that it would make it 99.9999% reliable, but it should be better than nothing. And also won't completely thrash your drone when it crashes.
edit seems nine_k already commented with a similar idea
Maybe drones need to start to incorporate parachutes to slow down the fall in case of problems like these, or maybe even airbags to ease the crash. Not that it would make it 99.9999% reliable, but it should be better than nothing. And also won't completely thrash your drone when it crashes.
edit seems nine_k already commented with a similar idea
Drones of this size are cheap enough that the extra weight and cost of engineering of safety devices generally isn't worth it. It's easier to fix or replace parts.
Are you factoring in your personal liability for killing someone in that equation?
The comment that mentioned parachutes was talking about how a drone crashed at an event and almost injured people. My personal homeowners liability policy covers things like hitting someone with a shopping cart in the grocery store and hurting them, it probably would also cover a drone, but if you don't have insurance it could expensive real quick.
The comment that mentioned parachutes was talking about how a drone crashed at an event and almost injured people. My personal homeowners liability policy covers things like hitting someone with a shopping cart in the grocery store and hurting them, it probably would also cover a drone, but if you don't have insurance it could expensive real quick.
Notice I said "drones of this size". While the propellers could still cause some damage, these kind of things aren't going to kill anybody, so let's not be overdramatic. As for potential dangers to other people, the solution to that is not a technical one, it is simply to not fly over or near to people. Just like we don't drive our cars on the sidewalk.
You don't think a device that weighs over 2lbs falling from 40' could kill someone?
And that seems like it's being pretty generous. In most "quadcopter crash" videos I've seen on YouTube the drone was much higher. Sometimes even hundreds of meters.
And that seems like it's being pretty generous. In most "quadcopter crash" videos I've seen on YouTube the drone was much higher. Sometimes even hundreds of meters.
Even if it's possible, it's incredibly unlikely compared to an automobile accident.
If there were as many drones (of that size & rotor size) overhead as there are vehicles on the road, I'd still expect to have zero to single-digit fatalities from drones every single year--at least from "falling out of the sky onto people's bodies."
Perhaps there are more likely cases where the drone is the indirect cause, like breaking someone's windshield and causing a fatal car accident.
If there were as many drones (of that size & rotor size) overhead as there are vehicles on the road, I'd still expect to have zero to single-digit fatalities from drones every single year--at least from "falling out of the sky onto people's bodies."
Perhaps there are more likely cases where the drone is the indirect cause, like breaking someone's windshield and causing a fatal car accident.
We live in a society with motor vehicles. They are here to stay. It doesn't matter what their safety record may be or under which parameters they are operated. Drones are an entirely separate issue. We do not live in a society with drones. Period. Now if we would like to introduce them into our society it doesn't matter what laws or regulations are established for their safe operation without on-board fail safes their introduction is unlikely. How do I know? I'll just pose this question: Are you OK with any drone dropping out of the sky and landing on top of your new born infants soft little squishy skull? Find me a person that will say yes to that question.
Nobody is okay with that, it's an asinine question.
Am I okay with my new born infant's soft little squishy skull living in a world with drones, which occasionally drop out of the sky?
Yep.
And we do live in that world, actually. They've already been "introduced," as you put it.
Am I okay with my new born infant's soft little squishy skull living in a world with drones, which occasionally drop out of the sky?
Yep.
And we do live in that world, actually. They've already been "introduced," as you put it.
Not even apples and oranges. I know that they can still fly safely with only two motors if they are opposing. They may be so safe that it won't be for years to come but eventually after enough mad mothers are up in arms about somebody losing an eye or it getting sucked into an airliner jet that they're going to start heaping on the restrictions. One of the concerns with using them for deliveries at least in a city like Los Angeles is that people will try and shoot them down.
Already been introduced(bad term)? So 1 in 3 households have a drone in the U.S.? OK 1 in 4? You can always count on this statistic- 1 in 10? Nah? Surely 5% of Americans own or use the services of a drone then right? Yeah then they haven't been introduced yet
Already been introduced(bad term)? So 1 in 3 households have a drone in the U.S.? OK 1 in 4? You can always count on this statistic- 1 in 10? Nah? Surely 5% of Americans own or use the services of a drone then right? Yeah then they haven't been introduced yet
I believe a jet engine can handle this with no issues. They're tested to pass birds through with no issues.
Really? I didn't know that. That flight out of New York where "Captain Sully"? made the first successful water ditch of a commercial airliner in the history of aviation had a flame out from geese, but that was an entire flock.
They're so small I doubt they'd have much of an impact on light aircraft either.
They're so small I doubt they'd have much of an impact on light aircraft either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage#Jet_engin...
For the large bird test, the engine is allowed to shutdown.
For the large bird test, the engine is allowed to shutdown.
Cars kill 40k people per year in the US. Yes a falling drone "could kill someone" however falling coconuts actually kill a lot of people each year. [1] If you want 100% safety in life, build a bunker and never go outside.
[1] http://diaryofnumbers.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-by-coconut....
[1] http://diaryofnumbers.blogspot.com/2010/11/death-by-coconut....
Are you willing to take a propeller to the face?
The cool thing about sidewalks is that they are elevated and it takes some effort to hop on to one and run over pedestrians (especially when there is a protective lane of parked cars). Drones, on the other hand, are poised to fall on people, with no barriers.
The cool thing about sidewalks is that they are elevated and it takes some effort to hop on to one and run over pedestrians (especially when there is a protective lane of parked cars). Drones, on the other hand, are poised to fall on people, with no barriers.
I've taken a propeller to the face from a motor similar in strength to the consumer "drones", and it was spinning full throttle. I really don't recommend this. I got lucky it didn't hit my eye (came close). End result was some 4 scratches across the cheek on the left side but no permanent scarring.
In my case it didn't occur when I was flying the quadcopter but rather when I was bench testing the ESCs (yes, I knew abstractly I should remove the props before doing this but I got lazy after a while of testing and eventually it bit me).
Having said all of this I mostly agree with the grandparent post (though I do recognize that a 2 lbs drone could, theoretically, kill someone) in that the solution to this as a safety issue is primarily just don't fly a quadcopter over anything you wouldn't feel comfortable crashing it into (basically don't fly over people or valuable property it could potentially damage). As long as you stick by this rule of not flying over anything you're not afraid to crash it into you already have a good (if not inexpensive) failsafe, which is just cut the throttle completely.
In my case it didn't occur when I was flying the quadcopter but rather when I was bench testing the ESCs (yes, I knew abstractly I should remove the props before doing this but I got lazy after a while of testing and eventually it bit me).
Having said all of this I mostly agree with the grandparent post (though I do recognize that a 2 lbs drone could, theoretically, kill someone) in that the solution to this as a safety issue is primarily just don't fly a quadcopter over anything you wouldn't feel comfortable crashing it into (basically don't fly over people or valuable property it could potentially damage). As long as you stick by this rule of not flying over anything you're not afraid to crash it into you already have a good (if not inexpensive) failsafe, which is just cut the throttle completely.
Of course not, where did you get that idea? I don't think drones should ever be operated in close vicinity to people, especially if those people are bystanders uninvolved in the operation of said drone. Well yes, but the slight elevation of the sidewalk isn't the sole reason drivers don't run over pedestrians. The barriers are hopefully in the discipline of the pilot.
[deleted]
The "follow me" feature of newer drones seems to encourage people to fly near themselves and presumably others.
It's very unlikely to kill someone, or even seriously injure them. You should be at least as worried about playing baseball or riding a bicycle around people.
depends where you fly. A 2-5+ kg drone, even if the props aren't spinning is gonna do serious damage if it drops from the sky and hits someone on the head. With spinning CF props you can easily slice someone up pretty bad
The battery packs on those things have quite a bit of heft to them, hit anything at terminal velocity and it's gonna be pretty devastating.
Terminal velocity for these things will not be terribly high.
Probably on the order of 120 MPH or 55.8 meters per second. The drone weighs 1.2 Kilograms. The kinetic energy on impact would be 1800 Joules give or take. A 357 Magnum generates about 873 Joules.
The energy we are talking about is not insignificant. I'm actually in favor of allowing people to fly drones with as little restriction as possible but let's not pretend there aren't some risks.
The energy we are talking about is not insignificant. I'm actually in favor of allowing people to fly drones with as little restriction as possible but let's not pretend there aren't some risks.
How do you figure 120mph? It's ~1kg and I would guess has a higher surface area relative to mass than a person whose terminal velocity is about 120mph.
In any event, it takes a person 8s to get close to terminal velocity — that's a drop of 300m or so.
The energy involved is certainly non trivial but energy is not the whole story. The densest, heaviest pieces will be the battery and motors.
In any event, it takes a person 8s to get close to terminal velocity — that's a drop of 300m or so.
The energy involved is certainly non trivial but energy is not the whole story. The densest, heaviest pieces will be the battery and motors.
Not if the safety device is reusable.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/djis-dropsafe-parachu...
In order to make flying aerial drones safer, DJI, maker of popular quadcopters like the Phantom 2, is currently developing a parachute system called DropSafe, which can be deployed instantly in a case of emergeny
In order to make flying aerial drones safer, DJI, maker of popular quadcopters like the Phantom 2, is currently developing a parachute system called DropSafe, which can be deployed instantly in a case of emergeny
One parachute-for-drone is already being Kickstarted (at least).
But the issue is the effective minimum height for a parachute to be any use.
But the issue is the effective minimum height for a parachute to be any use.
Quadcopters can also be saved if only one motor fails using only the 3 other motors and an algo: http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/new-algorithm-can-save-a...
Yes!! Much better than a parachute, that needs altitude to work.
Patent-pending.
Recent research has had controlled landing on 2 motors in real robots (and one motor in simulation only). The main trick is to spin the whole vehicle around the z axis (up-down) very fast, and modulate the speed of the remaining rotors to apply forces at different places around the centre of gravity. IIRC the one-rotor version didn't work on a real robot due to limits on the frequency response of the real-world motor controller.
Sounds plausible but I haven't read about this before and would like to know more, do you have a reference handy?
In regards to turning on the z-axis to be able to land with engine failure, I believe User is referring to Autorotation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
No, it's not autorotation. Here's a lovely demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0FrCaogcs&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek0FrCaogcs&feature=youtu.be
I thought autorotation was only useful if you're moving ahead very fast (high ground speed) while also falling. Is that right? Most drones are essentially hovering much of the time.
Spinning the drone so fast that the modulation is usable doesn't itself sound very safe to me.
It's an upgrade from "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky" to "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky spinning at X0 RPM, and the sharp blades are also spinning at X00 RPM"
It's an upgrade from "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky" to "expensive rock with sharp blades falling out of the sky spinning at X0 RPM, and the sharp blades are also spinning at X00 RPM"
But a drone with a parachute falling into a pack of racing bicyclists sounds like a really bad idea as well, doesn't it? The larger issue seems to be the possibility of drones crashing into people who are involved in an activity that requires 100% concentration.
You could make the same argument against driverless cars.
The problem is these drones often have prop guards that would make them a lot safer to fly, but you almost never see the prop guards on a drone do you? Any other safety gear would be stripped by operators just like that. It hurts their flight time and performance after all.
Use drones with more than 4 rotors.
Exactly. If you are flying over people AT ALL you should be using an octocopter at least.
What about an hexacopter with opposing rotors (Y configuration)?
It provides some redundancy, but 8 motors is better in that area IMHO.
Y6 is barely controllable if one of the rotor fails but still able to land without much hassle. Hexa in normal configuration handles motor failure better. If you want real redundancy go for X8 or normal octo - 16 rotor copters would be even better but these are pretty rare.
it can still drop from the sky, you are just getting a bit more redundancy on motors/props but doesn't help if they all stop due to something else
Yes, a critical failure of the flight controller or power system can still cause it to fall from the sky. I've never had that happen personally and I've logged a lot of hours on custom built quads.
If you are using alpha/beta FC firmware or your settings are still being tweaked you shouldn't anywhere near people anyway.
I've lost engines that resulted in nasty crashes. As I fly quads almost exclusively they are always nasty. As such, I never fly over or near people (other than myself).
I've read of full power loss, but never personally experienced it.
In any case I think I'd be more afraid of bad FC firmware that resulted in a fly-away event. Those are super dangerous as the machine just takes off into the air and away from you. That has the potential to be MUCH worse as the altitude they eventually fall from is significant. If you've never seen a full-power ascent of a multicopter then you're in for a surprise at the speed at which they can disappear while going straight up.
If you are using alpha/beta FC firmware or your settings are still being tweaked you shouldn't anywhere near people anyway.
I've lost engines that resulted in nasty crashes. As I fly quads almost exclusively they are always nasty. As such, I never fly over or near people (other than myself).
I've read of full power loss, but never personally experienced it.
In any case I think I'd be more afraid of bad FC firmware that resulted in a fly-away event. Those are super dangerous as the machine just takes off into the air and away from you. That has the potential to be MUCH worse as the altitude they eventually fall from is significant. If you've never seen a full-power ascent of a multicopter then you're in for a surprise at the speed at which they can disappear while going straight up.
Once you have redundancy in the powertrain, getting redundancy from a flight computer is relatively straight forward. At that point 3 rotors on one side of the craft or multiple computers have to all fail simultaneously to cause a real loss of control, and even then algorithmic changes can be made to the flight computer to allow semi-controlled landings with multiple prop failures.
I would think a multi-FC voting system, like what the shuttle used, would be the way to go for FC redundancy.
Mix that with a dual power system and 6 or 8 motors and I think you get MUCH better redundancy and fault tolerance.
And while you are at it perhaps a disconnected drogue chute that deploys if a watchdog signal is lost. Not something that is large, just enough to slow the decent to non-dangerous speeds.
Mix that with a dual power system and 6 or 8 motors and I think you get MUCH better redundancy and fault tolerance.
And while you are at it perhaps a disconnected drogue chute that deploys if a watchdog signal is lost. Not something that is large, just enough to slow the decent to non-dangerous speeds.
that would be a much safer setup but don't see these consumer drones implementing all that!
A consumer follow-me quad with a youtube camera launched via kickstarter? Probably not. A future DJI aerial photography product with a 4000-8000 price tag? Absolutely. If Amazon ever intends to deploy these for actual package delivery instead of just PR they'll need redundant computers with a voting system, fault tolerant flight control algorithms with some kind of fault case detection and some kind of failsafe parachute / alarm system to slow down descent and alert anyone on the ground of an incoming object with 16+ razor sharp carbon fiber blades.
To say nothing of things like active sonar/lidar avoidance and a secondary navigation system of some sort for when GPS is unavailable.
To say nothing of things like active sonar/lidar avoidance and a secondary navigation system of some sort for when GPS is unavailable.
Absolutely, for the higher end. What scares me is these consumer drones with inexperienced pilots/autonomous tech without proper failsafes. I'm pretty sure they will be banned from ski slopes etc pretty quick.
Optical flow can hold pretty stable when GPS is unavailable, other types of CV like SLAM even better.
Optical flow can hold pretty stable when GPS is unavailable, other types of CV like SLAM even better.
"What scares me is these consumer drones with inexperienced pilots/autonomous tech without proper failsafes."
For people who are into building and flying multirotors in a hobbyist capacity-- this is the nightmare we live everyday since DJI showed up.
Optical flow can hold position pretty well-- but will they be able to figure out how to navigate by it!?
Optical flow can hold position pretty well-- but will they be able to figure out how to navigate by it!?
For autonomous navigation you need SLAM and some AI. We're not there yet but won't be too long. But yeah it won't be safe in crowded areas
Not to mention what will happen when I have drone, you have a drone, and our roads cross...
I was walking down Hollywood Blvd one day when they suddenly shut the street down for about 5 minutes to do a fly-by RC helicopter shot. This was a few years before lightweight drones and cameras were on the market and this helicopter reminded me of a flying lawnmower! As it whizzed by me and thousands of other people, I was pretty sure it could easily have taken off a limb.
I have a fairly cheap drone with a built-in camera and, no doubt, it could cause a scratch or bruise if it hit you at full speed, but luckily it's nothing like they used to be.
I have a fairly cheap drone with a built-in camera and, no doubt, it could cause a scratch or bruise if it hit you at full speed, but luckily it's nothing like they used to be.
That is until your cheap drone hits a paraglider, or other light vehicle that is actually allowed to operate in this air space.
In most legislations I am aware of, RC flight requires an operator to be in control of the drone.
In most legislations I am aware of, RC flight requires an operator to be in control of the drone.
I would love Mythbusters to throw the biggest drone you can get into a jet engine. Pretty sure nothing, but some good entertainment would happen.
I'm fairly confident it would destroy the jet engine. The shrapnel from the drone is likely to blow the very tight tolerances between the compressor blades and the body of the jet engine, causing jams.
No need. A Canada Goose[1] can take out an engine; a flock can take out an airliner.[2] There are many drones larger than the geese, so I would expect this to be a distinct possibility.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_goose [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_goose [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
> usually weighs 2.6–6.5 kg
Flock of drones is unrealistic too.
Flock of drones is unrealistic too.
I believe NYT carried an article last year about an RC chopper flyer who got beheaded by his own chopper's main rotor. It happened in the Central Park. It was a large RC Chopper and something went wrong and he ended up get killed. He apparently liked to do some dangerous stunts apparently...
However I would think these drones' propellers are shorter thus less dangerous? Any ideas?
However I would think these drones' propellers are shorter thus less dangerous? Any ideas?
Not beheaded, though the blows did kill him, sadly.
But yes, the huge blades [1] compared to the small and softer wings of a quadcopter make a big difference.
[1] http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bA3wp9h3abI/maxresdefault.jpg (same model that killed him)
But yes, the huge blades [1] compared to the small and softer wings of a quadcopter make a big difference.
[1] http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bA3wp9h3abI/maxresdefault.jpg (same model that killed him)
These little quads use much smaller propellers and they run on smallish batteries. I've got a cheap quad and it's so light you can chuck it at someone as hard as you can and would only hurt them if it hit them in the eye. When I'm flying it anywhere that has even a chance of other people being around, I use the prop guards on it (at the expense of weight/flight time) so nobody would get smacked by a spinning rotor if it somehow ended up near them.
For the most part, these little ones can probably hurt you as much as being hit with a rogue frisbee in the park. No decapitations. The bigger ones (Phantoms and the like) are more autonomous and better at avoiding crashes. Still, it's always a possibility and if you think you have any business flying one, you will know not to do so in a manner that makes it likely to hit anyone.
I think of it like riding a bike or a motorcycle. When you ride a bike you are supposed to stay on the road but a lot of people (especially kids with smaller bikes) will sometimes ride on the sidewalk or through the park anyway. This isn't usually a big deal because they won't do any major damage in the unlikely event of a crash.
But an adult on a large bike or a motorbike will get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk because you can do a lot more damage and you're probably moving a lot faster. As an adult on a big bicycle or motorcycle, you're obligated to only ride it in such a way that you don't put people at unnecessary risk.
I think of the little toy quads as the equivalent of kids' bikes and the Phantoms and larger video-centric copters like motorcycles. Sure, fly the toy in the house or in the park but if you're carrying cameras and gimbals and big battery packs and larger rotors, you really need to plan your shoots and locations to avoid the greater risk (IMO). It's a fair tradeoff for a fun hobby.
For the most part, these little ones can probably hurt you as much as being hit with a rogue frisbee in the park. No decapitations. The bigger ones (Phantoms and the like) are more autonomous and better at avoiding crashes. Still, it's always a possibility and if you think you have any business flying one, you will know not to do so in a manner that makes it likely to hit anyone.
I think of it like riding a bike or a motorcycle. When you ride a bike you are supposed to stay on the road but a lot of people (especially kids with smaller bikes) will sometimes ride on the sidewalk or through the park anyway. This isn't usually a big deal because they won't do any major damage in the unlikely event of a crash.
But an adult on a large bike or a motorbike will get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk because you can do a lot more damage and you're probably moving a lot faster. As an adult on a big bicycle or motorcycle, you're obligated to only ride it in such a way that you don't put people at unnecessary risk.
I think of the little toy quads as the equivalent of kids' bikes and the Phantoms and larger video-centric copters like motorcycles. Sure, fly the toy in the house or in the park but if you're carrying cameras and gimbals and big battery packs and larger rotors, you really need to plan your shoots and locations to avoid the greater risk (IMO). It's a fair tradeoff for a fun hobby.
He was flying a Trex 700-class stunt helicopter, with a large 1.6m diameter single rotor. He was using it for complex aerobatics - high accelerations, very high turn rates, very little respect for the gravity vector.
You can't do these sorts of things at all with human-sized helicopters - they're not maneuverable enough. In fact, the increase in maneuverability as high-powered single-rotor helicopters scale down is actually a problem for human reaction time. Model helicopters conventionally used a mechanical flybar in order to make the helicopter less responsive to inputs and more controllable. More recent innovations in flybarless electronics have enabled fly-by-wire control to substantially speed up responsiveness while still permitting stable flight when desired.
A single-rotor stunt helicopter is very different from a camera multirotor. A 1.6m carbon fiber blade vs a (usually plastic) 0.1-0.4m blade. A high-powered two-stroke engine vs a battery and motors.
And very importantly, the purpose of the two aircraft is entirely different. This type of helicopter uses collective and cyclic pitch oscillations, and a rudder. That's a completely different control scheme than a normal multirotor, which uses differential thrust. It lends itself to storing energy in the angular momentum of the blades at low collective pitches (running the rotor progressively faster while hovering), and then releasing it all in a maneuver by setting the pitch higher. That means the flat, strong carbon fiber rotor blades can be travelling at a tip speed of 400mph or higher. Even a very large camera-toting quadrotor is likely to have a (plastic, thin, bendy) rotor tip speed in the 100-150mph range - they're optimized for hovering battery life, and differential throttle has limited maneuverability, and the slower & larger the better. Being so much ligher per (disposable, easy to break) prop means that even at similar tip speeds the angular momentum is much diminished.
"Video footage has emerged of Mr Pirozek, who was a world-recognised aerobatic flyer, putting his Trex 700 helicopter through a series of remarkable tricks, including one that involves dropping the $1,500 model out of the sky by turning off the engines and restarting them just before the model chopper hits his head."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0wvXoZ9KYg
Lastly, "beheaded" seems to be a linkbait overstatement, and is considered dubiously by the medically inclined - even with all the power behind those blades, the skull is a very strong thing. The eyewitness comment was that there were wounds to his scalp, which tabloids turned into "cut off the top of his head" and then into "cut off his head". There were wounds to his scalp, but the ones to his throat are likely the ones that killed him. You don't need to sever the spinal column to slit a throat with a sharp blade.
You can't do these sorts of things at all with human-sized helicopters - they're not maneuverable enough. In fact, the increase in maneuverability as high-powered single-rotor helicopters scale down is actually a problem for human reaction time. Model helicopters conventionally used a mechanical flybar in order to make the helicopter less responsive to inputs and more controllable. More recent innovations in flybarless electronics have enabled fly-by-wire control to substantially speed up responsiveness while still permitting stable flight when desired.
A single-rotor stunt helicopter is very different from a camera multirotor. A 1.6m carbon fiber blade vs a (usually plastic) 0.1-0.4m blade. A high-powered two-stroke engine vs a battery and motors.
And very importantly, the purpose of the two aircraft is entirely different. This type of helicopter uses collective and cyclic pitch oscillations, and a rudder. That's a completely different control scheme than a normal multirotor, which uses differential thrust. It lends itself to storing energy in the angular momentum of the blades at low collective pitches (running the rotor progressively faster while hovering), and then releasing it all in a maneuver by setting the pitch higher. That means the flat, strong carbon fiber rotor blades can be travelling at a tip speed of 400mph or higher. Even a very large camera-toting quadrotor is likely to have a (plastic, thin, bendy) rotor tip speed in the 100-150mph range - they're optimized for hovering battery life, and differential throttle has limited maneuverability, and the slower & larger the better. Being so much ligher per (disposable, easy to break) prop means that even at similar tip speeds the angular momentum is much diminished.
"Video footage has emerged of Mr Pirozek, who was a world-recognised aerobatic flyer, putting his Trex 700 helicopter through a series of remarkable tricks, including one that involves dropping the $1,500 model out of the sky by turning off the engines and restarting them just before the model chopper hits his head."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0wvXoZ9KYg
Lastly, "beheaded" seems to be a linkbait overstatement, and is considered dubiously by the medically inclined - even with all the power behind those blades, the skull is a very strong thing. The eyewitness comment was that there were wounds to his scalp, which tabloids turned into "cut off the top of his head" and then into "cut off his head". There were wounds to his scalp, but the ones to his throat are likely the ones that killed him. You don't need to sever the spinal column to slit a throat with a sharp blade.
So: Basically, he was doing something tantamount to juggling axes as a hobby, completely unlike FPV quadrotors. Deft skill he may display for a while, but nobody should be particularly shocked when conscious risk-taking like that ends in tragedy.
They still make those same gas-powered RC copters. The ones you have are designed to be slower, low powered electrics.
HyperBlimps are a lot safer, silent and mellower photography platforms than drones. Not quite as portable, and you need a tank of helium, of course. But equipped with solar panels they can stay up indefinitely, and built with transparent plastic they can be almost invisible in the sky.
http://hyperblimp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJYhTvBSu8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7edXU401o
http://hyperblimp.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqJYhTvBSu8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K7edXU401o
How do they handle wind?
From the FAQ: http://hyperblimp.com/#faq
>HOW DO THESE AIRSHIPS HANDLE IN WINDS?
>Hyperblimps, like traditional planes, can handle winds according to the speed of the ship. Our top speed as of July 10, 2010, is 40 mph, enabling a skilled operator to fly in winds of about 15 mph. We hope to be surpassing that speed soon. As for crosswinds, the ship is simply “crabbed,” just as a traditional plane is.
>HOW DO THESE AIRSHIPS HANDLE IN WINDS?
>Hyperblimps, like traditional planes, can handle winds according to the speed of the ship. Our top speed as of July 10, 2010, is 40 mph, enabling a skilled operator to fly in winds of about 15 mph. We hope to be surpassing that speed soon. As for crosswinds, the ship is simply “crabbed,” just as a traditional plane is.
I was flying drone in my street in India and it got stuck in electric cables (we have cables on poles).
I just got nervous and called few people and cracked down the drone.
Then decided never play with them in domestic living area.
I just got nervous and called few people and cracked down the drone.
Then decided never play with them in domestic living area.
As someone who has flown RC drones and heli for the better part of 5+ years now I generally find that there are 3 camps: 1) people who have never flown and assume the worst and often want unrealistic "guarantees" (see above), 2) those who fly, fly often and fly as safe as can be "guaranteed", 3) those who fly in an unsafe manner due to inexperience or just general carelessness.
I've always tried to fly responsibly at all times. I am cognizant of weather, people/pets, surroundings and right-of-way in the sky. Nothing in life is guaranteed 99.9999% of the time. Is it OK for me to levy a 99.9999% guarantee on you, that you drive perfect and responsible (no radio, no food, no phone, no talking, no distractions - period)? No. That's not life in general - we don't live in a bubble. Well at least the general population doesn't.
I am fine with sane safety measures put forth... Certifications, registrations, etc. But this is a hobby like many others. People own many kinds of recreational hobby gear that can endanger the operator or surrounding people - yet, they're accepted because people think they understand them. Most don't, however, understand simple engine operation - yet drive cars.
All mechanical vehicles have the guarantee to fail at some point or another and, yes, someone is 100% guaranteed to get hurt at some point in time. But, please don't ruin my hobby because you choose not to understand it.
I've always tried to fly responsibly at all times. I am cognizant of weather, people/pets, surroundings and right-of-way in the sky. Nothing in life is guaranteed 99.9999% of the time. Is it OK for me to levy a 99.9999% guarantee on you, that you drive perfect and responsible (no radio, no food, no phone, no talking, no distractions - period)? No. That's not life in general - we don't live in a bubble. Well at least the general population doesn't.
I am fine with sane safety measures put forth... Certifications, registrations, etc. But this is a hobby like many others. People own many kinds of recreational hobby gear that can endanger the operator or surrounding people - yet, they're accepted because people think they understand them. Most don't, however, understand simple engine operation - yet drive cars.
All mechanical vehicles have the guarantee to fail at some point or another and, yes, someone is 100% guaranteed to get hurt at some point in time. But, please don't ruin my hobby because you choose not to understand it.
I fall into camp 3. I have a DJI Phantom that I crashed into my neighbor's yard due to my own incompetence and inexperience.
I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers.
Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people flying for the first time everyday there are going to be accidents. If manufacturers can reduce the harm caused by these accidents then they'll have a much easier path for FAA regulations and public acceptance.
For users, they get the ease of mind that crashes won't be catastrophic for their drone and a reduced chance that they'll inadvertently hurt someone.
I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers.
Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people flying for the first time everyday there are going to be accidents. If manufacturers can reduce the harm caused by these accidents then they'll have a much easier path for FAA regulations and public acceptance.
For users, they get the ease of mind that crashes won't be catastrophic for their drone and a reduced chance that they'll inadvertently hurt someone.
Is the 'hands-off' recovery not good on the DJI platform? I've always used OpenPilot FCs so have no idea how well the DJI FC works, but the OP hardware will fully recover from stupidity if you let go of the controls (while not in acro mode).
Fail safe works reliably in my experience - but it doesn't save from risky flight in the first place. I think YMMV, but I've yet to have an in-flight failure that resulted in crashing or losing control. That being said I'm overly cautious about inspection and maintenance of the craft I own.
I'm not disillusioned though - it will happen, I'll lose an ESC mid-flight and I'll have to deal with trying to guide an uncontrollable aircraft that I may not have line of sight on. Pretty much next to impossible to guarantee anything in that situation.
I'm not disillusioned though - it will happen, I'll lose an ESC mid-flight and I'll have to deal with trying to guide an uncontrollable aircraft that I may not have line of sight on. Pretty much next to impossible to guarantee anything in that situation.
You can buy a gun. You can still (barely) buy model rockets. You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken).
I want proper insurance, liability, etc. when things fail, and good risk management.
I don't want stupid safety.
I want proper insurance, liability, etc. when things fail, and good risk management.
I don't want stupid safety.
Well, you knocked those straw men down. I guess that settles it. Drones are exactly like windows aren't they?
> You can buy a gun.
In the US maybe, I can't.
> You can still (barely) buy model rockets.
In the US maybe, I can't.
> You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken).
In the US maybe. Safety glass is really not very dangerous, and it's standard.
In the US maybe, I can't.
> You can still (barely) buy model rockets.
In the US maybe, I can't.
> You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken).
In the US maybe. Safety glass is really not very dangerous, and it's standard.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the point you are trying to make. The problem I have with it is, it seems by your own admission, you're somewhat hypocritical. You'd like for someone else, a la the manufacturer, to provide a guarantee that you can be lazy and not take precautions so that you don't have to worry about a $1300 radio controlled vehicle that flies doesn't hurt someone else?
I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.
There are many things that didn't start out with any guarantees of implied safety - and many things that are assumed safe, when not operated safely, are inherently very risky / unsafe.
Finally, there are easily many tens of thousands of hobby grade drones out there - flying daily, operating (for the most part) safely (again partially dependent on operator). How many deaths have occurred to date?
Something that really bothers me is that when I first started flying the general reaction I had was of excitement - although I was generally no less cautious. The RC craft I flew drew interest and excitement from bystanders and it was generally a good experience. Now, I am overly cautious when flying anywhere near public areas. I've received comments about how I should "go somewhere else", even when I was flying in an area where there were no people, but someone decided to seek me out since they saw the craft from remote. And I've generally just tried to stay out of places I know would be potential hazards if there was a malfunction where I lost control.
Do I still fly in "tight" locations? Yes - I do. I've flown my neighborhood to assess storm damage for my neighbors knowing that there are people - but in those situations I always fly with prop guards and try to fly over houses, not over sidewalks or roads. And then there's the artistic side - I like taking shots of architecture and some of those situations require thoughtful planning or waiting for an area to clear.
I can't help other people's ignorance and I will say that you flying untethered with no experience is not something DJI or I should have to worry about - that's your choice and risk to weigh. If I was your neighbor I'd have a frank conversation with you about your actual skills and ability to ascertain risk.
In my opinion golf is far more risky than flying "drones" (I prefer RC quad-copter, but to each their own). I play golf, I love it. I'm not going to stop playing because you hit golf balls off your deck into your neighbors yard and then expect Titleist and Callaway to fix your bad decision.
I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.
There are many things that didn't start out with any guarantees of implied safety - and many things that are assumed safe, when not operated safely, are inherently very risky / unsafe.
Finally, there are easily many tens of thousands of hobby grade drones out there - flying daily, operating (for the most part) safely (again partially dependent on operator). How many deaths have occurred to date?
Something that really bothers me is that when I first started flying the general reaction I had was of excitement - although I was generally no less cautious. The RC craft I flew drew interest and excitement from bystanders and it was generally a good experience. Now, I am overly cautious when flying anywhere near public areas. I've received comments about how I should "go somewhere else", even when I was flying in an area where there were no people, but someone decided to seek me out since they saw the craft from remote. And I've generally just tried to stay out of places I know would be potential hazards if there was a malfunction where I lost control.
Do I still fly in "tight" locations? Yes - I do. I've flown my neighborhood to assess storm damage for my neighbors knowing that there are people - but in those situations I always fly with prop guards and try to fly over houses, not over sidewalks or roads. And then there's the artistic side - I like taking shots of architecture and some of those situations require thoughtful planning or waiting for an area to clear.
I can't help other people's ignorance and I will say that you flying untethered with no experience is not something DJI or I should have to worry about - that's your choice and risk to weigh. If I was your neighbor I'd have a frank conversation with you about your actual skills and ability to ascertain risk.
In my opinion golf is far more risky than flying "drones" (I prefer RC quad-copter, but to each their own). I play golf, I love it. I'm not going to stop playing because you hit golf balls off your deck into your neighbors yard and then expect Titleist and Callaway to fix your bad decision.
>I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.
Well, not that I agree with the need for what he says, but what you describe is easily solved:
People WOULD pay $2300 on a Phantom if the "upgrades to safety and ignorance factors" were compulsory and so every drone on the market had to bear that extra $1000 in its cost.
Well, not that I agree with the need for what he says, but what you describe is easily solved:
People WOULD pay $2300 on a Phantom if the "upgrades to safety and ignorance factors" were compulsory and so every drone on the market had to bear that extra $1000 in its cost.
Some people would, but many others would simply be priced out of the market (and/or build their own from individual components which have none of the required safety upgrades)
I hope that most people flying these things show the same level of care and consideration that you do -- but as the barrier for entry lowers, I doubt that will be the case. I am concerned that as the number of careless casual users increases, the public outrage will be directed at the technology itself rather than the inexperienced pilots.
But you do require a license to drive around a car, while this "hobby" does not require anything of that sort. Which is why it is questioned a lot. I belong to camp 2 as well, but i can understand why it might be a cause of concern for many.
I won't dispute that, but there are many dangerous hobbies that require no license. I'm also not against the thought of some level of certification or licensing. The problem is that would fall, again, on vendors until the government formulated a universal standard. And while it would be good to help provide better understanding of flight and operation it would likely not do much for failure scenarios.
There are the two similar, but very different scenarios: 1) controller crashes RC aircraft into person because of negligent flying, or 2) loss of control due to hardware failure crashes RC aircraft into person
Both are real scenarios with cars and scenario 2 isn't accounted for during license testing. What people need to understand is that these devices shouldn't be outright banned because of impending accidents. Yes, those will be unfortunate - but the hobby has good recreational and business use cases in my opinion.
There are the two similar, but very different scenarios: 1) controller crashes RC aircraft into person because of negligent flying, or 2) loss of control due to hardware failure crashes RC aircraft into person
Both are real scenarios with cars and scenario 2 isn't accounted for during license testing. What people need to understand is that these devices shouldn't be outright banned because of impending accidents. Yes, those will be unfortunate - but the hobby has good recreational and business use cases in my opinion.
I have a drivers license. I can drive a car. However, even I know I'm not the best driver in the world. In fact, I'm probably below average. I just drive so little.
A drivers license is a bad example.
A drivers license is a bad example.
I'll take a drone that flies itself over one controlled by a human any day. Humans suck at this stuff. It should be possible to make it very safe if it's automated.
And the fun factor would be: 0
I've been flying RC for ~16 years, on and off, and the rules for operating an RC aircraft safely have always been the same.
DO NOT FLY NEAR PEOPLE.
It's that simple. No functioning machine can ever be inherently safe, safety is the result of continuous exercise of good judgement. When operating a large nitro powered helicopter, featuring 700mm long carbon fibre knives that spin at 2000rpm, controlled by an imperfect operator, through an imperfect electronics system, powered by an unreliable motor I am aware that it is an intrinsically dangerous object, and I only fly it in controlled areas, without bystanders who could get hurt.
And it annoys me to no end when I see some idiot crashing his DJI into a building (no flying within 400m of a built-up area - don't fly near people), or a new guy with a t-rex or raptor helicopter flying near people in a park in the middle of town (Don't fly near people!) Or someone who should know better like a model aero club member flying over the pits or the viewing area or the carpark (don't fly near/over people!)
I actually want something like the machine described in the article, because I want to be able to film myself skiing, without the horribly cliched helmet cam, but unless I can get something small enough that it CANT hurt someone in a collision, or something with very robust collision avoidance, I can't use it. Ideally both, because even with perfect collision avoidance, something else could still break.
DO NOT FLY NEAR PEOPLE.
It's that simple. No functioning machine can ever be inherently safe, safety is the result of continuous exercise of good judgement. When operating a large nitro powered helicopter, featuring 700mm long carbon fibre knives that spin at 2000rpm, controlled by an imperfect operator, through an imperfect electronics system, powered by an unreliable motor I am aware that it is an intrinsically dangerous object, and I only fly it in controlled areas, without bystanders who could get hurt.
And it annoys me to no end when I see some idiot crashing his DJI into a building (no flying within 400m of a built-up area - don't fly near people), or a new guy with a t-rex or raptor helicopter flying near people in a park in the middle of town (Don't fly near people!) Or someone who should know better like a model aero club member flying over the pits or the viewing area or the carpark (don't fly near/over people!)
I actually want something like the machine described in the article, because I want to be able to film myself skiing, without the horribly cliched helmet cam, but unless I can get something small enough that it CANT hurt someone in a collision, or something with very robust collision avoidance, I can't use it. Ideally both, because even with perfect collision avoidance, something else could still break.
Driving my car to work seems inherently much more dangerous than operating this drone, and we've found reasonable ways to insure against those accidents.
Life is inherently dangerous, and almost every technical innovation is first met with objections with how it will cause loss of life. The danger of accidental personal injury from drone is probably an order of magnitude lower than the danger of accidental personal injury from discarded banana peels.
> I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
Then you want the technology not to exist, which I think is a terrible shame. It's like crying "fire hazard" around a Tesla. If you want a hobby device to rant against, try scooters, those things are much more deadly and rightly deserve to be taxed and regulated. [1]
The Lily drone if it actually performs anything like that video, is pure awesome, and absolutely the future. If it can be made quiet enough and compact enough it replaces everything from the cinematographer at your wedding, to the selfie.
It also probably looks good in black with a nice white pin-stripe, with the letters N-Y-P-D, floating around Times Square, and running no-knock warrants. 10 - 15 generations along actually, this thing is quite terrifying, for completely different reasons than 'OMG it will fall on me'.
[1] - http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-most-dangerou...
Life is inherently dangerous, and almost every technical innovation is first met with objections with how it will cause loss of life. The danger of accidental personal injury from drone is probably an order of magnitude lower than the danger of accidental personal injury from discarded banana peels.
> I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
Then you want the technology not to exist, which I think is a terrible shame. It's like crying "fire hazard" around a Tesla. If you want a hobby device to rant against, try scooters, those things are much more deadly and rightly deserve to be taxed and regulated. [1]
The Lily drone if it actually performs anything like that video, is pure awesome, and absolutely the future. If it can be made quiet enough and compact enough it replaces everything from the cinematographer at your wedding, to the selfie.
It also probably looks good in black with a nice white pin-stripe, with the letters N-Y-P-D, floating around Times Square, and running no-knock warrants. 10 - 15 generations along actually, this thing is quite terrifying, for completely different reasons than 'OMG it will fall on me'.
[1] - http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-most-dangerou...
Can't really find this on the site but does it have any sort of collision avoidance? What if I am running on a sidewalk and it runs into a tree branch above?
> I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
I take it you don't drive, or allow yourself to be driven, right?
I take it you don't drive, or allow yourself to be driven, right?
If the whole drone fleet can be made safer than the percentage of cars that drones replace (e.g. by making deliveries), than a case can be made for drones on safety grounds alone, giving zero weight to convenience and economics.
[deleted]
Why don't these things carry automatic emergency parachutes?
Optional add-on:
http://www.dji.com/product/dropsafe
http://www.dji.com/product/dropsafe
Cars kill 40k people per year in the US. Lets not forget "drones" have been around for 50+ years they were previously called "RC Helicopters" and "RC Airplanes" and have a pretty darn good safety record.
"I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees"
99.9999%
Things are amazing, and nobody's happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E
99.9999%
Things are amazing, and nobody's happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E
Nobody is happy because these things mean nothing, honestly. Who cares about the credit card(s)?
There are people starving to death on the one side of the planet while there are others who don't know what to do with their money on the other. I'm not saying everyone should be driving Ferrari's but in 2015 there shouldn't be people without shelter, food or basic medical safety lying around. If we as a society solve THIS problem then, everybody will much more happy than it is today.
There are people starving to death on the one side of the planet while there are others who don't know what to do with their money on the other. I'm not saying everyone should be driving Ferrari's but in 2015 there shouldn't be people without shelter, food or basic medical safety lying around. If we as a society solve THIS problem then, everybody will much more happy than it is today.
I wonder if it could it be possible to have a canister of compressed hydrogen that will inflate a balloon large enough to slow down the fall, if the acceleration goes beyond a certain threshold, like .5g or something?
I'd agree with you in that drones are pretty dangerous in cities.
But for the case of filming extreme sports, like bike races or skiing, the sport is likely inherently MUCH more dangerous than whatever could happen because of the drone, especially if the drone isn't directly above the athletes. Your bike/skiis/etc. aren't anywhere close to 99.9999% safe.
That is pretty unreasonable. Are 2-ton trucks and cars dangerous on the open road? Are they 99.9999% reliable?
The max speed is 40 k/h - I'm no expert cyclist, but what happens when you go 60, 70, 80 down a long hill? Can the Lily catch up to you, and up until how far? What happens if it can't?
It would get left behind. It looked like there is a little handheld GPS/wifi beacon used for follow me. My guess is RTL (return to launch) as a failsafe once you get outside wifi range
Finally a drone with elegance and purpose. A truly consumer oriented drone. Like it. Will wait for the v2.0 :)
It's impressive, no doubt, but I wonder about the actual utility of the device.
My main concerned is the 20m battery life/record time - that is pretty limiting. If I were to use this to record myself snowboarding (like the video shows), that would be a problem. Here in Colorado a typical blue rated mountain run is easily 20m from top to bottom, esp. if you aren't gunning it the whole way. When I ride alone I can maybe go top to bottom in slightly under 20m but I'm flying and really pushing it the whole time, I wonder if the drone could even keep up in that situation (speed would be over 25mph almost the entire time).
Pretty cool but I personally think there is much bigger market for a device designed to record kids playing hockey, basketball, soccer etc... imagine a tripod that tracks your kid, that would be way way more killer and useful for most people and probably a ton cheaper as you could use a smartphone as the camera.
Technically it's impressive as hell, I just don't know about how practical is in actual use.
My main concerned is the 20m battery life/record time - that is pretty limiting. If I were to use this to record myself snowboarding (like the video shows), that would be a problem. Here in Colorado a typical blue rated mountain run is easily 20m from top to bottom, esp. if you aren't gunning it the whole way. When I ride alone I can maybe go top to bottom in slightly under 20m but I'm flying and really pushing it the whole time, I wonder if the drone could even keep up in that situation (speed would be over 25mph almost the entire time).
Pretty cool but I personally think there is much bigger market for a device designed to record kids playing hockey, basketball, soccer etc... imagine a tripod that tracks your kid, that would be way way more killer and useful for most people and probably a ton cheaper as you could use a smartphone as the camera.
Technically it's impressive as hell, I just don't know about how practical is in actual use.
There is a tripod that automatically tracks you. I get ads for it on YouTube all the time. http://www.gizmag.com/soloshot-automated-tripod/25453/
Thanks, that's an awesome product, never seen this before! Very cool.
More info here: http://shop.soloshot.com/
More info here: http://shop.soloshot.com/
I haven't been able to figure out how these work. GPS alone wouldn't give the resolution and responsiveness required. It doesn't seem to be CV-based either, since there's often no line of sight of the tracking device. Perhaps the tripod has two directional signal strength sensors so it can tell if the beacon is to the left or right, and move in order to keep the beacon centered.
The popular theory is that it's a RTK differential GPS system: base station in the tripod transmitting correction information to the remote unit. The explains the warmup time, the accuracy, as well as the big price tag.
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73083/how-doe...
http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73083/how-doe...
This was my question on Stack Exchange! I was so angry because I was so curious how this worked, but I was downvoted to hell.
I have no clue why you got downvoted, but then again, I fail to understand the Stack Exchange system and community in general.
Ha! I found your question a couple months ago after youtube hit me with the soloshot ad, and I couldn't figure out how it worked. Despite being downvoted, it still ranks fairly high on the SERP for "how the hell does the soloshot work, their site is useless".
I guess Stack Exchange isn't the place for discussion, just question and answers only
This is by requirement line of sight. So indeed a cheap radio frequency tracker should be able to do the job. There are just minor issues with multipath and transmitter power.
EDIT: The included antenna is a wifi-like omnidirectional antenna, so I guess it's just using GPS. The precision is greatly improved due to large distances (linear precision is amplified into angular precision by O(distance) )
EDIT: The included antenna is a wifi-like omnidirectional antenna, so I guess it's just using GPS. The precision is greatly improved due to large distances (linear precision is amplified into angular precision by O(distance) )
That 25 mph is not all horizontal, and any downward movement would mean less power drain from the drone. Though I'd definitely agree that the battery life is a pretty big problem.
I'm sure they will also sell a Lily branded external battery that can be kept in your backpack and used to recharge it.
I'm sure they will also sell a Lily branded external battery that can be kept in your backpack and used to recharge it.
Maybe, but the FAQ states the current battery isn't replaceable. So it seems more likely they'd have to come out with an entire new unit in order to have external batteries.
It doesn't seem like something they're interested in for the launch.
It doesn't seem like something they're interested in for the launch.
Removable batteries would likely also hamper the ruggedness (IP67 rating).
Since they're using the upfront pre-order money to cover manufacturing costs, I would bet enough feedback from customers (or even speculative customers) asking for a 30 min minimum would have enough impact for them to source different batteries or reduce weight. Features like this can make or break a flashy new product like Lily.
Multicopters have this time limitation in general. They don't have great flight times due to the power density of the batteries. It's the main limiter of the platforms really.
I had to read your post several times that by 'm' you meant minutes. Without that it makes the Colorado ski resorts seem a little less impressive.
A bigger issue to me is what do you do with Lily after it has run out of battery. I don't think I want to carry it for the rest of the day on the ski fields, mountain biking, trail running or anything else, it is fairly cumbersome. And I wonder how tough it is when it is in a back pack and I fall and land on it.
Very cool device and it would have a lot of practical uses, but not sure it will ever be that useful for the masses.
Very cool device and it would have a lot of practical uses, but not sure it will ever be that useful for the masses.
20 minutes should be plenty for skiing, and should cover more than one descent in most cases.
The airspace is going to be pretty hilarious at Killington on a weekends if half the people with GoPros upgrade to drones.
The airspace is going to be pretty hilarious at Killington on a weekends if half the people with GoPros upgrade to drones.
My rock climbing friends and I have been watching the drone market. 20m in rock climbing just wont cut it at all :\
A bigger issue is that drone power consumption goes down as they go faster. Even if 20m at 25MPH is fine, you'll actually get less than that if you go slower. Hovering uses a lot of power.
"When I ride alone I can maybe go top to bottom in slightly under 20m but I'm flying and really pushing it the whole time, I wonder if the drone could even keep up in that situation (speed would be over 25mph almost the entire time)."
Where do you ski? 20 min at 25 mph implies an 8.3 mile long run.
Where do you ski? 20 min at 25 mph implies an 8.3 mile long run.
The FAA doesn't appear to have any guidance on automated flying: e.g., it doesn't say anything (at least in a 1m search) about a human pilot. (I was surprised by this.)
So long as you stay within recreational use guidelines (e.g., don't upload videos to YouTube), you should be fine.
So long as you stay within recreational use guidelines (e.g., don't upload videos to YouTube), you should be fine.
Why would uploading to YouTube necessarily be a problem? Most people don't make profit from YouTube uploads.
There are a lot of drones that can do pretty much all of these things already, or you can build your own using an open source flight controller like ardupilot.
The main job here (which they have done well) is turning it into a mass consumer product, easy to use package. DJI has done a pretty good job for prosumers on it but this is another notch up.
Like the waterproofing!
Video suggests a higher level of autonomy than I think they have right now (obstacle avoidance, automatic landing on your hand) but a year might be enough to cram it in there.
I think we will see many more consumer drones like this.
The main job here (which they have done well) is turning it into a mass consumer product, easy to use package. DJI has done a pretty good job for prosumers on it but this is another notch up.
Like the waterproofing!
Video suggests a higher level of autonomy than I think they have right now (obstacle avoidance, automatic landing on your hand) but a year might be enough to cram it in there.
I think we will see many more consumer drones like this.
Very cool. I always thought mounting a camera on a drone is the way to take photos when out but this is totally amazing the way it follows you.
What if you throw it off a bridge only to realize that its out of charge.
Are there lightweight drones that can fly continuously with just solar power? If not how far off are we?
Their video of "actual footage" is 100% edited after they shot it. That is NO way actual unedited footage.
Also. https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
Also. https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
When I first saw, it reminded me of the 1997 Flubber house robot. For its size, Lily takes just video. It would be good if there is some more smartness and can be used indoors. Just like the house robot.
I've been designing, building and flying model airplanes and later helicopters since I was ten years old. I've always flown in the context of a registered flying club and carry one million dollars insurance for my activity.
I continue to be horrified by what is happening with these multicopters. People fly them outside of controlled environments and with a total lack of consideration towards others or their property.
The vast majority of these things are cheap hobby-grade toys with laughable "safety" features. I own RC helicopters costing in excess of $3,000 and use a radio that costs well over $1,000. I still consider them dangerous toys not to be flown outside of club controlled environments.
What sucks is this morons are going to kill somebody and this will ruin the hobby for those of us who have been responsible flyers for decades.
I continue to be horrified by what is happening with these multicopters. People fly them outside of controlled environments and with a total lack of consideration towards others or their property.
The vast majority of these things are cheap hobby-grade toys with laughable "safety" features. I own RC helicopters costing in excess of $3,000 and use a radio that costs well over $1,000. I still consider them dangerous toys not to be flown outside of club controlled environments.
What sucks is this morons are going to kill somebody and this will ruin the hobby for those of us who have been responsible flyers for decades.
While acknowledging the fact that drones being operated by "morons" do not amount to safe. Could you fill me in on what safety features a 3k copter offers over one of these smaller and arguably less threatening drones. Googled a couple "high dollar" copters most seemed to be in range of ~4kg range with large fixed carbon fiber blades as opposed to (in this particular case) a 3 pound object with collapsible polycarbonate blades. Honestly seeing this trend of "automated" drones the only human controlled factor of idiocy would be removed in part due to the automated nature of this drone, this would seem to favor a trend towards safer operations.
I think you missed my point. Real model flight enthusiasts will only fly their birds at RC clubs. Clubs impose structure, safety rules, etc.
In other words, even if you are flying total crap the probability of hurting anyone or causing property damage is greately reduced.
To anser the other part of your question. A $3K heli has significantly better electronics and mechanics when compared to something like a DJI quad. And, of course, there's the fact that it has excellent autorotation with full control on the way down.
Yet, again, the point is we don't fly over people, roads or buildings and we have far more experience flying than most drone buyers.
In other words, even if you are flying total crap the probability of hurting anyone or causing property damage is greately reduced.
To anser the other part of your question. A $3K heli has significantly better electronics and mechanics when compared to something like a DJI quad. And, of course, there's the fact that it has excellent autorotation with full control on the way down.
Yet, again, the point is we don't fly over people, roads or buildings and we have far more experience flying than most drone buyers.
It would seem we are missing each other's. "Club's impose structure, safety rules etc" given this and other automated drones the imposition of structure and safety rules is/can be written into the software. There has been mention of providing no-fly zones that people could register and given a companies interest in brand preservation the drones would respect the no-fly zones as long as untampered with. However, I do understand the risk to life issues that need to be confronted. I just wouldn't leap to the conclusion that there is a mass of people buying drones, acting irresponsibly, and inciting a heavy regulation of all hobby level flying.
Responsible model airplane enthusiasts are members of the American Modelers Association. They, among other things, interface with the FAA and other regulatory agencies on our behalf. We get regular reports on relevant regulation, meetings and negotiations. Believe me, it doesn't take a mob of people to create problems for AMA members.
No software today can do what a reponsible human being flying at a club does. It's the equivalent of letting people take off and land full scale airplanes and helicopters from anywhere, fly at any altitude, in any manner they wish and without traffic control. In other words, unthinkable.
I do not fly over people or property. Software cannot make that decision for me. And software certainly cannot restrict people buying a $300 quadcopter from flying it above a group of kids at the park or over a crowd elsewhere. It is a simple matter of individual responsibility and consideration for the wellbeing of others. I choose to fly at a club because after 30 years of experience flying (and, yes, crashing) all kinds of model aircraft I know these things can fail anywhere, any time and for a million different reasons. It is beyond irresponsible to fly these things in uncontrolled airspace.
No software today can do what a reponsible human being flying at a club does. It's the equivalent of letting people take off and land full scale airplanes and helicopters from anywhere, fly at any altitude, in any manner they wish and without traffic control. In other words, unthinkable.
I do not fly over people or property. Software cannot make that decision for me. And software certainly cannot restrict people buying a $300 quadcopter from flying it above a group of kids at the park or over a crowd elsewhere. It is a simple matter of individual responsibility and consideration for the wellbeing of others. I choose to fly at a club because after 30 years of experience flying (and, yes, crashing) all kinds of model aircraft I know these things can fail anywhere, any time and for a million different reasons. It is beyond irresponsible to fly these things in uncontrolled airspace.
Pretty cool..! You need a british guy in your team that can pronounce Aluminum like Johny Ive and you sell like crazy.
what if you realize its out of battery after you throw it off. Starting the rotors before throwing would make the user feel more confident.
It would be cool if the remote in your pocket had a "Call 911!" button. So like, if I was out snowboarding, and saw an avalanche coming, I probably wouldn't be able to call 911. But this little drone is a good deal above me and the avalanche/murderer/shark/whatever, it could call 911 for me, and when they recovered it, it would have video of what happened to me. It could even fly towards a preset location (known ranger station), broadcasting along the way if there is no cell signal available.
A fun idea but in an avalanche the chances of you reaching your pocket before being entombed in snow is pretty low.
Assuming you were still alive under the snow for a brief period of time you could hit the button then.
And if you weren't it could detect your heartbeat through a smartwatch and know you're in trouble.
obviously this is a less general approach; but i'd think the software could detect with reasonable certainty when it's subject was suddenly covered by snow.
A drone could detect loss of communication with the pocket device (snow or falling into the ocean should be enough to do that) and start some recovery/emergency sequence. E.g. stop + try pinging the device, if there's still no reply automatically call 911 with an emergency and GPS location. Is there a 911 REST API? :)
It could also automatically trigger some sort of warning on a high-enough acceleration detection. Enough Gs that it's likely that you've broken an arm - send out several emails to other people who you've marked as being with you. Enough Gs that it's likely that you just feel a fifty feet - dial 911 directly.
Agreed. I also want a drone that can carry and emergency supply kit and drop it to me like Katniss if I get into trouble. If I'm running through the Grand Canyon and get bit by a snake it can drop/deliver snake anti-venom to me. Could also go over to a ranger or resupply station and bring other supplies.
In an avalanche you can't call anyone to save you. It will take them too long to reach you, and you'll suffocate before they can reach you.
The chances of survival drop severely after 15 minutes of burial.
The only people that can save you in an Avalanche are the people in your group.
Source: Canadian ski patroller.
The chances of survival drop severely after 15 minutes of burial.
The only people that can save you in an Avalanche are the people in your group.
Source: Canadian ski patroller.
What if the drone has a 2-3m acuracy of the position? At least in ski resorts the bystanders can immediately rescue the person. Off tracks, it often happens that 1 person is aside of the snow corridor.
While not a bad idea, I think the existing avalanche rescue gear is better suited.
That level of accuracy would be hard to achieve. Most radio signals (eg. BTLE) don't travel well through water (eg. snow).
Additionally, if you've ever dug someone out in the field (or practiced doing so) it takes a lot of effort to move snow. Being within three meters isn't good enough.
Additionally, if you've ever dug someone out in the field (or practiced doing so) it takes a lot of effort to move snow. Being within three meters isn't good enough.
"At least in ski resorts the bystanders can immediately rescue the person" - someone who has never been in or experienced an actual avalanche.
No they can't.
No they can't.
Maybe avalanche wasn't the best example, but still, a robotic lassie seems like it would have uses!
The drone would hopefully though still be hovering above you so would help any people in your group find you faster
I thought they already had these specifically for avalanches, minus the drone. Some sort of tracking beacon that you can carry around, that will lead them to your body.
yeah, but this could be more general use case, like a robotic lassie!
They do, and if you ski the alpine backcountry without one then you must have a death wish.
Avalanche safety is one use case where, as with defibrillators or hospital pagers, I think people will continue for a long time to use simple, rugged, and purpose-built devices with very low probability of failure rather than introducing a million new failure modes by using e.g. a cell phone or flying drone.
Avalanche safety is one use case where, as with defibrillators or hospital pagers, I think people will continue for a long time to use simple, rugged, and purpose-built devices with very low probability of failure rather than introducing a million new failure modes by using e.g. a cell phone or flying drone.
Awesome stuff, guys!
Hey Henry! We had calculus BC together at Westview. Congratulations, this looks great. -Eric S.
Just a personal gripe, but I hate it when websites don't work without the pointless www. in front of their domain.
I just text a friend to visit https://lily.camera and he'll never see it, because it doesn't exist.
I just text a friend to visit https://lily.camera and he'll never see it, because it doesn't exist.
While I agree they should make www redirect, its not pointless. If you serve sub domains or plan on serving them, www as your primary helps differentiate cookies.
Point taken. But I doubt this sales page will be implementing subdomains anytime soon, if ever.
> its not pointless
It is entirely pointless to not redirect. There's no reason the URL posted shouldn't redirect to the www version.
It is entirely pointless to not redirect. There's no reason the URL posted shouldn't redirect to the www version.
List of previous similar products:
https://www.airdog.com
http://hexoplus.com
https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
http://www.airmind.co
https://www.airdog.com
http://hexoplus.com
https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
http://www.airmind.co
Thanks for these! Prices/status for reference:
EDIT: Found Lily release date...
Status Release Price
----------- --------- ------------
AirDog* Pre-Order Q3 2015 $1,295
HEXO+* Pre-Order Sept 2015 $1,299
IRIS+* Available Now $750
Mind4* Kickstarter Failed $900-$1,489
Lily Pre-Order Feb 2016 $519-$1,019
*Note that all but Lily require a $300 GoPro camera.
EDIT: Found Lily release date...
Amazing. Lily is like half the price of the rest. Where did you get the $ price? Right now it's $500, no real options, right?
The price just seems unbelievably low compared to all the other options.
The price just seems unbelievably low compared to all the other options.
It is low because that's a preorder price. They need the money so they can order in bulk from the factory.
In any case, I don't believe that's the entire cost of the unit, I think that's just 'put x dollars down to be put on the preorder list' and you just might have to pay the full amount later.
In any case, I don't believe that's the entire cost of the unit, I think that's just 'put x dollars down to be put on the preorder list' and you just might have to pay the full amount later.
They dont require a gopro, you can use $75 Xiaomi that is ~equal to 3+silver. Lily stated video parameters match xiaomi perfectly.
Link?
One more option: http://www.staaker.com/
I'm not a web designer: just wondering, how does someone go about designing a website with such animations as you scroll? I know there are a lot about these days; are they all custom, or is there some tool chucking all these out?
with anything there are a lot of ways to do it. This is sort of a parralax type of animation. There are many librarys that handle this, but one way is to (at a certain place on the site) decouple the scroll from actually moving further down the page, and use it as the keyframe engine for the animation.
This is a basic overview, but if you are interested google keywords like "parralax" and "parralax animation"
This is a basic overview, but if you are interested google keywords like "parralax" and "parralax animation"
At 10"x10"x3", you're going to need really big pockets!
Dawn of the personal drone/robot/servants. I'm wondering if it's able to navigate around tree branches or corners without slamming into anything as opposed to the wide open spaces they show.
Correction
Lily - Quadcopter camera
It is annoying that everyone started calling Quadcopter a "drone", which is a very generic term. Flippin non-tech marketing peeps. -_-
It is annoying that everyone started calling Quadcopter a "drone", which is a very generic term. Flippin non-tech marketing peeps. -_-
I don't think that's a correction. You are being more specific, but Lily is definitely "an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously"...which is what a drone is[1].
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone
Since you have referenced dictionary.com, a very authentic source for tech terminology, I would like to argue why a plane is not called "vessel" in everyday usage?!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vessel
I applied to YC with a speech interface for drones, one application of which would be hands-free operation of selfie drones like this. E.g., if you're mountain biking you probably don't want to take one hand off the handlebars and try to press the button on the remote that means "Switch to leading shot". Instead, you'd just talk into your earbud: "Switch to leading shot" or "Climb to 100 feet", or more complex cinematographic instructions like "Pan from me to tracker B"
Especially in the extreme sports selfie video genre, hands-free operation would be a big advantage.
Especially in the extreme sports selfie video genre, hands-free operation would be a big advantage.
Reliability needs to be way higher then what we're currently seeing with google now and siri due to the inherit danger of what ur controlling.
For specific domains, like drone control, you can achieve much better accuracy then you typically see in "dictation"-style speech recognition. You can use a statistical language model that represents the things you're most likely to hear.
For example, Google & Siri kind of need to be able to handle anything I throw at them: "What is Ke$ha's new album?" "What year was the Hardy Boys book 'Hunting For Hidden Gold' written?" They may use a language model that favors grammatical language, that is: "What is Ke$ha" is a more likely speech recognition hypothesis than "What hiss kush ball", but they still need a big model to represent that.
For drone control, you have much more constrained language, which helps recognition accuracy significantly. The model can tell the recognizer that if it heard "Go <unsure> 100 feet" that the <unsure> word is most likely to be a direction like forward/back/left/right/up/down, and not "neutrino".
It's a lot like the way that Norvig uses n-grams to illustrate writing a spelling corrector: http://norvig.com/ngrams/ch14.pdf Having a model lets you fix errors in the input.
Having constrained language and a good model is often critical to creating a successful speech interface.
For example, Google & Siri kind of need to be able to handle anything I throw at them: "What is Ke$ha's new album?" "What year was the Hardy Boys book 'Hunting For Hidden Gold' written?" They may use a language model that favors grammatical language, that is: "What is Ke$ha" is a more likely speech recognition hypothesis than "What hiss kush ball", but they still need a big model to represent that.
For drone control, you have much more constrained language, which helps recognition accuracy significantly. The model can tell the recognizer that if it heard "Go <unsure> 100 feet" that the <unsure> word is most likely to be a direction like forward/back/left/right/up/down, and not "neutrino".
It's a lot like the way that Norvig uses n-grams to illustrate writing a spelling corrector: http://norvig.com/ngrams/ch14.pdf Having a model lets you fix errors in the input.
Having constrained language and a good model is often critical to creating a successful speech interface.
Interesting idea. I think the biggest challenge would be to filter out noise (i.e wind blowing on the microphone). But in a limited domain such as this you can do aggressive filtering and get fairly good results in very harsh environments.
Really cool idea. Now I have a strange urge to break out the ArduCopter.
Really cool idea. Now I have a strange urge to break out the ArduCopter.
I have an early test at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhBa11gdbeU
Great, more trash in our fields and streams.
Tweeted Lily support about Obstacle Avoidance. Sadly no - it doesn't steer clear of electric wires, branches and buildings.
I'm going to start building 'No Drones' signs and selling them to ski resorts in anticipation of how annoying these will be when every 13 year old has one.
I can't help but imagine a time when, instead of smartphones or wearables, it's not uncommon to have a little drone that flies around after you.
The target market is vloggers. They would love a device that automatically videotapes what they're saying as they're walking around Boston Common or somewhere else.
Shared on Facebook and sadly showed up as "Home page - Lily" with no meta description. If you're looking for more people to share and click, try fixing your meta tags so when people share it shows full a good teaser of the product is.
I have wanted this for so long. I wish it had longer flight time but I still orderd this immediately, before the trailer even finished
Awesome, but my experience with current-gen pseudo-autonomous UAVs, these questions immediately come to mind:
Can it follow you around the corner of a building without clipping it?
Can it avoid bumping into a tree?
Will it climb above the trees to follow you through a wooded area?
Can it avoid getting tangled in an overhead utility line?
Can it follow you around the corner of a building without clipping it?
Can it avoid bumping into a tree?
Will it climb above the trees to follow you through a wooded area?
Can it avoid getting tangled in an overhead utility line?
https://www.lily.camera/terms
Purchaser agrees to stay clear of anything in the range of the UAV, or anything it could possibly collide with such as power lines, buildings, other UAVs etc.
Purchaser agrees to stay clear of anything in the range of the UAV, or anything it could possibly collide with such as power lines, buildings, other UAVs etc.
Where would we be without you? Reading the terms like we all should be doing!
As if there is a place where it can't possibly collide with anything! Oh, your Lily divebombed into the ground? Well, you shouldn't have launched it near the ground!
Perhaps I should have been more verbose. The information being asked is nowhere to be found through the official channels. The only mention of collisions and objects is in the terms document. I believe it's safe to assume the Lily doesn't have that and they made sure to add clauses that shield them against such claims (that it failed to avoid collisions).
I just tried to contribute with relevant information and got two sarcastic replies in return. Well done, folks.
I just tried to contribute with relevant information and got two sarcastic replies in return. Well done, folks.
I read Zezima as being sincere, and Grue3 as being sarcastic towards the terms of service, not towards your helpful comment.
There was a touch of sarcasm, but I didn't read it as being directed to you.
Thank you very much for pointing the clause in the terms out.
I sent an e-mail to the contact us link with the same questions I listed above, and the developers replied with this information and the note that the user can hit the center button on the wearable tag to put the UAV into hover mode to prevent collision.
Thank you very much for pointing the clause in the terms out.
I sent an e-mail to the contact us link with the same questions I listed above, and the developers replied with this information and the note that the user can hit the center button on the wearable tag to put the UAV into hover mode to prevent collision.
all the more reasons while these devices are so cool this just entry level gear. drones are not going to win acceptance until they do what you want and stay out of your way and out of harm.
Here is another one for you: If any of the above fails, what about spare parts availability?
A step along the way to the drone cameras from Bruce Sterling's "The Artificial Kid" coming to real life.
This seems kind of implausibly cheap for what it's offering.
$500 preorder vs $1000 later.
So either 1) they expect you to pay more later 2) they are selling the preorders at a loss (woo venture funding! do things that don't scale!) or 3) their markup will be huge (>100%) when they start making regular sales.
So either 1) they expect you to pay more later 2) they are selling the preorders at a loss (woo venture funding! do things that don't scale!) or 3) their markup will be huge (>100%) when they start making regular sales.
What happens when you have multiple lily's up at the same time? Is there any collision prevention?
One more way for narcissists to annoy naturalists.
This is a great step. Things I'd like to see:
- Real obstacle avoidance so it can work in urban areas so people could do news / tour guide broadcasts like some people are doing on Periscope these days. Rather than holding your phone up in front of you (which gives you a pretty shaky video), you could just tell it to follow you while you talk to it
- A sliding viewfinder that stays on your "face side" so you could see exactly what is being shot at all times.
- The ability to stream the video to another device (like your phone attached to an external HDD) would make it so you could shoot longer form stuff - maybe even complete solo movies, like some of those Assassin's Creed-esque parkour videos.
- Real obstacle avoidance so it can work in urban areas so people could do news / tour guide broadcasts like some people are doing on Periscope these days. Rather than holding your phone up in front of you (which gives you a pretty shaky video), you could just tell it to follow you while you talk to it
- A sliding viewfinder that stays on your "face side" so you could see exactly what is being shot at all times.
- The ability to stream the video to another device (like your phone attached to an external HDD) would make it so you could shoot longer form stuff - maybe even complete solo movies, like some of those Assassin's Creed-esque parkour videos.
[deleted]
Sorry, but I'll believe it when I see it being sold in stores. This has Kickstarter syndrome written all over it. Meaning, a really cool idea and flashy video, but it's in "pre-order" and there's no guarantee when it will actually ship. And even when it does, I'd rather wait for reviews to tell me how good it works rather than trust a marketing video.
I've wanted this for ages for run filming! Excited to see if tracking works well.........
Nice concept, I want something like that... but it says "shipping Feb 2016"... lot of things can happen during these 9 months.
Reminds me of the Kino from Stargate.
I'm a bit worried about that "throwing start".
What happens when the battery is low or when I give it a tad too much spin?
"Whoops, did I just lob my $500 gadget into solid concrete?"
Well, I suppose it probably has safer take-off modes, too. Can't wait until they shrink it down to tennis ball size.
What happens when the battery is low or when I give it a tad too much spin?
"Whoops, did I just lob my $500 gadget into solid concrete?"
Well, I suppose it probably has safer take-off modes, too. Can't wait until they shrink it down to tennis ball size.
There exist plenty of tiny camera drones, except those aren't autonomous. An advantage is that crashes are less prone to damage (less mass => less momentum and kinetic energy), and if they do get damaged, repairs are [typically] far cheaper.
I don't know about battery life, though, and that might be a large disadvantage of those. Also, fitting a GPS unit into one might be tricky.
I don't know about battery life, though, and that might be a large disadvantage of those. Also, fitting a GPS unit into one might be tricky.
This will truly revolutionize the selfie. I am joking!! Seriously this is truly going to sell like hot cakes. The film industry would probably love to use these more ... Good job guys!
Love the demo video, any idea what company/person did this?
The most exciting new products on HN is hardware in combination with software. it used to be mostly software and websites.
Here's a video of it being demonstrated for a Guardian journalist in Central Park:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2015/may/12/test...
I predict Silicon Valley lacrosse, soccer, baseball, football, and swimming leagues will find it necessary to include language in their 'spectator code of conduct' bylaws that restricts the use of these kind of drones at tournaments and games.
I suspect some sports will allow limited use during practice and scrimmages for training purposes.
I suspect some sports will allow limited use during practice and scrimmages for training purposes.
Since this looks like a drone that automatically follows you, how does it negotiate with other drones that are around them.
What if there is another person snowboarding on that slope with Lily? And he/she slides close to you?
What if there is another person snowboarding on that slope with Lily? And he/she slides close to you?
Loved the video. Really nice :)
Reminds me of http://flynixie.com
what happens when 10 skiers all release their lily cameras at the same time and womp it down a slope at variable speeds ?
This looks cool but $999 is a lot of money for something I might use a couple times a year. Maybe I'll be able to rent one sometime.
How fast can this go? Can I throw it out my car window and go down a street? A highway? What does it do when it's lost the homing signal -- hover? Land?
Perhaps a stupid question - but where are the collision avoidance sensors?
Lily looks cool - but flies where it wants ;)
Is it possible to control it manually using standard RC controller and RC modules (i.e. Frsky)?
Is it possible to control it manually using standard RC controller and RC modules (i.e. Frsky)?
If this Guardian video is any hint, this drone needs to be worked on to make it perform like advertised https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td5fZhGNz9M
I was ready to throw my money at this until I saw this. As a developer, I know the pains of alpha and beta demonstrations but this now seems more like a kickerstarter project than finished product. Getting this off the ground (pun intended) looks like its quite aways off.
Extremely well done on the marketing. I watched the video with my 2- and 2-year-old boys. After we watched it a few times (we all wanted to watch it again and again), the 4yo was talking about the features of the drone ("It has a camera!" "It lands on your hand!" "It's waterproof!"), while the 2yo kept repeating "Want one!" "Want one!" (which I don't think I was saying out loud myself).
I wouldn't preorder one at this stage (even if I had a spare $500 lying around), but this is one of the coolest gadgets I've seen in a while, and the marketing is top-notch.
I wouldn't preorder one at this stage (even if I had a spare $500 lying around), but this is one of the coolest gadgets I've seen in a while, and the marketing is top-notch.
It seems like the propellers get close to each other. Usually quadcopter propellers are spaced out much more than this to reduce vibrations. Does anyone know if they do something special?
Potential acquisition for gopro?
I like ZANO more actually :)
I found this in the Youtube video comments:
> Currently, Lily does not have any obstacle avoidance capabilities. We have found that most outdoor activities do not need obstacle avoidance because Lily can follow the user's path. But again, there are no guarantees that Lily will not hit anything while it is following you.
"no obstacle avoidance" o_O
> Currently, Lily does not have any obstacle avoidance capabilities. We have found that most outdoor activities do not need obstacle avoidance because Lily can follow the user's path. But again, there are no guarantees that Lily will not hit anything while it is following you.
"no obstacle avoidance" o_O
We've taken it out above because it now redirects to a porn site.