Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 1039, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

None of this means anything. The performance problems I have with 6.x are in interactivity outside Develop - changing modules, selecting images, etc. Sometimes keystrokes take more than ten seconds before a response is seen. This is simple stuff like selecting an image in the grid with a mouse click or opening the import window.

I think it's a problem with 4k monitors. On the very same machine with the very same catalog, this mostly goes away with the 4k monitor disconnected. Speeds increase a factor of more than 10.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 16:59 UTC as 136th comment
In reply to:

NickyB66: Very interesting, not as simple as it first seems.

Just wished somehow the laws of aerodynamics could be broken so that silent flight (or very low noise flight) comes about. Guess it might need a new type of propulsion system for this.

Well, I've run many motors of this type (brushless outrunners) unloaded (no props) and they are nearly silent. Adding the props increases the sound level a factor of something like 100.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

Tequila MockingjayBird: so no gyroscopes and no self leveling mechanisms?

Not just accelerometers, but rate gyros (which are solid state devices) as well.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

NickyB66: Very interesting, not as simple as it first seems.

Just wished somehow the laws of aerodynamics could be broken so that silent flight (or very low noise flight) comes about. Guess it might need a new type of propulsion system for this.

The motors are nearly silent. Most of the noise comes from the aerodynamics at the tips of the propellers. The noise quantity is proportional to the fifth power of the blade tip speed. So, lighter devices combined with larger, slower-rotating propellers will be quieter.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

Which is sort of equally stupid as it doesn't account for horizontal velocity or thrust. I have planes that weigh 2kg and are entirely safe (low velocity, low ballistic coefficient gliders) and one that's under 1kg and can go over 50m/s straight down despite also have a very low ballistic coefficient.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/faa-task-force-drone-registration

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2018 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

"Unfortunately the task force recommendations may ultimately prove untenable by requiring the registration of smaller devices that are essentially toys and do not represent safety concerns. Based on its years of experience the AMA cautioned against unnecessarily encumbering the toy industry and urged the task force to consider several factors when determining the threshold at which UAS technology should be registered – including weight, capability and other safety-related characteristics. But, the recommendations do not reflect this comprehensive approach. The task force only considered weight, requiring any device up to 250 grams (0.55 pounds) to register. We believe weight should be only one of several factors considered when determining where the threshold should be for UAS registration."

In other words, a foam fixed-wing airplane and a quadcopter have the same limit despite having massively different terminal velocities. This is why I said they were only considered in a vacuum.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2018 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

No it's not, it's based on the idea that the object is falling in a vacuum. Of course, it can't fly in a vacuum so it's just stupid.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2018 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

djwuk: The spherical panorama mode sounds cool, hopefully the mavic will get that in a future firmware update. 16k ft! How are you going to get up and down in 20min?

No it's not. I was flying a large thermal glider that weighed less than 3 pounds, I was 10 miles from the nearest airport and I was in a booming thermal I had trouble flying out of. Others in my club regularly fly jets to over 2,000 feet a little over 5 miles from an airport. That's probably even safer because they always have the performance to fly out of any situation, including straight down at over 200 feet per second.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2018 at 00:50 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

That specific weight (250g) is already stupidly low and not based on physics at all, despite what the FAA thinks. Should have been more like 2.5kg.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

djwuk: The spherical panorama mode sounds cool, hopefully the mavic will get that in a future firmware update. 16k ft! How are you going to get up and down in 20min?

The 400 foot rule is just for part 107 pilots, not recreational pilots flying under the rules of a CBO like the AMA. I've flown at 3,000 feet (not a quad copter - still within visual line of sight).

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

Correct:

"Visual line of sight (VLOS) - Distance at which the pilot/operator is capable of maintaining visual contact with the sUAS and determine its orientation and altitude without enhancements other than corrective lenses."

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 19:19 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: I imagine that is will be the main consumer Mavic line. They will continue with the Spark line and the Mavic pro will get a 1-inch sensor and go up to about $1500.

That 4km range is probably more limiting than the flight time. You will never actually get 4km and it will have less than half (maybe 1/16th - inverse cube law) of the ability to get the signal through/around obstacles like trees or rocks.

It's illegal to fly beyond line-of-sight anyway.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Needs three things to interest me:

- Zoom lens
- No internet connection
- No exclusion zones

I can effortlessly buy numerous ones with no exclusion zones already.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 15:56 UTC

Needs three things to interest me:

- Zoom lens
- No internet connection
- No exclusion zones

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 15:32 UTC as 39th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: As a hobbyist photographer why should I care what the point & shoot crowd likes? I'm pretty sure those into the culinary arts don't care what people who eat at McDonald's think. No, everyone is not a "photographer" anymore than everyone is a chef because they know how to zap a Hot Pocket.

Phone cameras haven't improved in important ways in the last 5 years. They have the same tiny 2.5mm apertures they had 5 years ago along with the same lousy ergonomics, the same lack of a xenon flash and the same lousy or non-existent zoom range. In other words, they're similar to the throw-away fixed lens compacts of 10 years ago except with powerful processing built in. They remain stuck at being able to cover around 3% of my photography.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: As a hobbyist photographer why should I care what the point & shoot crowd likes? I'm pretty sure those into the culinary arts don't care what people who eat at McDonald's think. No, everyone is not a "photographer" anymore than everyone is a chef because they know how to zap a Hot Pocket.

^^^^

Yeah...that.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 15:29 UTC

Try using DOF control on something other than a simple single-person portrait. For example, I occasionally use it at places like zoos to shoot through the fence or wire mesh so that the wire cannot be seen in the image. I also use it for groups and for objects that aren't people.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 14:37 UTC as 188th comment | 1 reply

Potty pod has a better ring to it.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2018 at 20:53 UTC as 106th comment

Every time I read something like this, I'm grateful I've never joined a social media network.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 01:09 UTC as 113th comment | 1 reply
Total: 1039, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »