Tour of Austin, TX in Sphercial Panoramas taken from my Quad.


Mactadpole

Mactadpole

Member
I think it looks great. But where you are flying is a bit worrisome with a quad that has no redundancy. I would suggest an octo of some sort that will at least have a chance of staying airborne if you lose a prop, esc, or motor.i realize maybe you weren't directly over people or roads but you have no guarantee is going straight down. I do love the imagery though.
 

Bartman

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
looks great Robert. what is the software that you used to stitch the images together?
 

R

Robert Youens

Member
Glad you enjoy the imaging. On your octo, since you are so concerned for saftey can I assume that you have complete redundacy. Do you have dual and independant power systems (battery, power distribution grid, wiring, etc) to motors and flight control systems. Do you have dual receivers on the aircraft that swithch from one receiver to the other in the event of failure of the first. Do you have dual flight systems (example: twin wookong-M) and does each of your flight systems have backup Power Supplies, IMU's, Electronic Compass, and GPs systems. Do you have a back up transmitter, sitting within reach while you are flying tuned to your aircraft in the event of your first transmitter's failure. The primary failure point in a multirotor flight system is the circuitry between the pilots ears. The majority of professional flight systems are quads. There are very few reasons to fly hex are larger and safety is not one of them.
 


Bartman

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Robert Youens said:
Glad you enjoy the imaging. On your octo, since you are so concerned for saftey can I assume that you have complete redundacy. Do you have dual and independant power systems (battery, power distribution grid, wiring, etc) to motors and flight control systems. Do you have dual receivers on the aircraft that swithch from one receiver to the other in the event of failure of the first. Do you have dual flight systems (example: twin wookong-M) and does each of your flight systems have backup Power Supplies, IMU's, Electronic Compass, and GPs systems. Do you have a back up transmitter, sitting within reach while you are flying tuned to your aircraft in the event of your first transmitter's failure. The primary failure point in a multirotor flight system is the circuitry between the pilots ears. The majority of professional flight systems are quads. There are very few reasons to fly hex are larger and safety is not one of them.
Click to expand...

we've had enough discussions regarding redundancy so we can do without another one here at the moment. if you have real data that says the majority of pro systems are four-motor quads I'd like to see it.

thanks for the info on the software.
 

R

Robert Youens

Member
Mactadpole, my quad is custom built with wide safety margin on all components. It is powered by a 6S 22,000 mah battery, runs 18 inch props and has a flight time over an hour with a light camera system. Carrying two 24.7 mega pixel cameras with large 8mm fisheye lenses on both cameras on my pano gimbal it has 40 minute flight time. The flight time is long, because the system is very lightly stressed. Rigs getting 10 to 20 minutes flight times are typically much more stressed than mine.
 

R

Robert Youens

Member
I don't have real data on the prevalence of quads. I retract that statement. I agree lets keep the redundancy discussion from being further redundant.
 

Mactadpole

Mactadpole

Member
Definitely not looking to start a fight, just trying to look out for all of us. I do employ several of your suggested redundancy systems but I also only fly octo formats and don't fly in populated areas (although I admit I did in the early days). Do you employ all those systems? I sure hope so since you are flying in a heavily populated downtown area. One of those shots being within about 400 feet of a major freeway. If you do, why not take it one step further and use a format that also incorporates redundancy for prop, motor, and esc failure? It happens, and all those others systems you infer to use will do you no good if one part of those three primary drive components fails on a quad. I think we all agree that the greatest source of error is pilot error. We will have to agree to disagree on your last statement, "There are very few reasons to fly hex are larger and safety is not one of them." Unless, again, you can prove to me that your redundancy systems will save you from a prop, motor, or esc failure on your super heavy quad. If so, please share your break-through technology as it will be revolutionary to the industry.

I'm sorry Bart and everyone who does not feel the way I do and for my somewhat hostile tone, it just doesn't make sense to me in the current climate about drone usage to not apply all safety measures we have access to. I was just making a suggestion to a new member, who I see from his websites does aerial imagery commercially. I hope that shot at Riverside and Montopolis was from a full-scale aircraft as that is about 1.5 miles from Austin Bergstrom International Airport. Looks pretty low. Don't worry, I'm not a competitor. I don't even care about taking aerial imagery in this country.

My apologies again for voicing my opinion. Best.
 

R

Robert Youens

Member
Mactadpole, I started a thread to discuss aerial panoramas. The moderator of the forum needs to take care of off topic trolls like you. Signing off of Multi-rotor forums. Bye.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top