|
Trabisnikof posted:With how much payload? This whole argument is about cargo movement so just quoting magical numbers about an unburdened drone is silly. Marginal costs are huge factors for capital purchases (buying the thousands of drones required to cover even one city).
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
ante posted:So you're saying that the magic of RTK GPS can overcome wind gusts, machine vision that requires seeing everything in complete sphere is easier to accomplish than machine vision that only needs to be 360 degrees on a flat plane, and avoiding unexpected objects in the air (evasive maneuvers) is just as simple as avoiding stray dogs on the ground (stopping).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Yes, the google cars drive on the highways themselves, but they don't pull out of the driveway or drive into the Mcdonald's autonomously, the human needs to interact with it at certain points of the journey. All I said was a car is easier than a copter. The cars actually do pull themselves out of parking lots etc, Google just doesn't daily drive them like that. Those are still supervised by 2 engineers, right now they are auto-driving them on the freeway with 1 engineer. The way google deals with stuff like signs/snow that is,its not reading the road signs to know how fast its going, they use Google's databases. The LIDAR has decent water penetration. Then they compile all of the vehicles travel along a route to create an understanding of the route and what changes and how often. The statistics are pretty good in terms of mis-identification. All this software stuff helps UAS too. I believe we'll overcome both the pilot and driving AI issues. That pizza drone only had a 10minute total flight time with payload, so that's not realistic for commercial purposes. That's my basic argument is the fuel needs don't make sense for drone delivery on a consumer scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
I think the tech may be there in a few years, but the economics don't really make any sense. These drones are going to have a high loss rate. Current large scale UAVs have mishap rates on the order of 1 per 1000 flight hours. (source: http://www.ihst.org/Portals/54/Partners/India/4_King.pdf) Amazon during its peak receives ~300 orders per second. If one were to deliver all the orders by drone you would have a crash every 4 seconds. If even a small percentage of these mishaps result in death or serious injury the liability would be enormous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 11:03
|
|
|
Here's my dtf uhf finally mounted on my 9xr :
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
ante posted:
You do know that multirotors have a lot more sensor on them than gps right? They have gyroscopes, accelerometers, compasses, barometers, sonar etc. Those are the multicopters flying today. My apm 2.5 quad can loiter in 30kph wind gusts within a 1m box. It is cheap technology that is available right now. I think Amazon's drone delivery thing is a pure publicity stunt. But what they are proposing isn't that hard to see working. I think the biggest problem they would have would be people loving with the drones when they are landing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
mashed_penguin posted:
That's actually a lot better than I thought. I don't think anyone was saying that it wasn't possible, just that it's not as viable as land-based drones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
I'd imagine they would have a pretty big problem with people shooting them down for free stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
I'm just going to hate having drones trying to land on the sidewalk while I'm walking under it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Local document delivery currently carried out by bicycle couriers would be a more realistic niche for multirotors IMO. Has anyone any thoughts on the Blade 350 QX for a first time flyer? The goal would be to use it with a gopro to film so a stable loiter and orbit would be preferable. It's also frequently quite breezy where I am so any experiences of how It copes with this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSIvsjUdv9Q
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
ante posted:That's actually a lot better than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
If you can't see the difference between a UAV delivering crates of ammo to soldiers in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan and a UAV delivering pocky to shut-in neckbeards in the middle of a dense urban core I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
20 years ago, when GPS went operational, you might have said the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Oh, I missed the part where we were talking about what it's going to be like 20 years from now. You know, like it would have made sense to hypothesize in 1993 about what telephones of 2013 would look like, before anyone had heard the word "web browser". Delivery of products to the average civilian in the middle of a city by quadcopter drone is technologically feasible today, but logistically impossible. I'll be happy to come back to the discussion in 2034 though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
I think the difference is, and I apologize for getting all Ray Kurzweil here, poo poo is developing at much faster rate than it was in the 90s. It's easy to forget that 5 years ago everyone didn't have a smartphone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
ease posted:I think the difference is, and I apologize for getting all Ray Kurzweil here, poo poo is developing at much faster rate than it was in the 90s. It's easy to forget that 5 years ago everyone didn't have a smartphone. Yeah?!. Where's my hover board?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Oh, I missed the part where we were talking about what it's going to be like 20 years from now. You know, like it would have made sense to hypothesize in 1993 about what telephones of 2013 would look like, before anyone had heard the word "web browser".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:You're the only one talking about the future. UAVs are working making deliveries in many places around the world. Ground vehicles aren't. Actually, I'm pretty sure USPS and UPS do ground vehicle delivery everyday  Outside of a military context where are drone deliveries being done (and are they autonomous without pilot backup)? There are licensed ground autonomous vehicles in use legally in large metro areas. Its stupid to argue that the AI issues are going to be a big deal for either mode of transport. I'm arguing the energy costs of drone delivery hardly make sense for consumer purposes. I actually agree with the document currier via drone idea, because then the courthouse could have a dedicated drone landing spot, along with whatever law firms need the drones. As opposed to having to build a landing platform for your pizza/condoms. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, I'm pretty sure USPS and UPS do ground vehicle delivery everyday Maybe you aren't understanding. Not only have there been many many proof-of-concept deliveries with UAVs in controlled situations. UAVs are already being used to make deliveries! Matternet is running trials in Haiti delivering supplies to villages on a regular basis. They are refining their practices and want to roll their drone networks out in Africa and South America. UAVs were being used to delivery goods from a bakery and local shops in a few cities in China until the government shut them down recently. UAVs were delivering actual goods to real customers autonomously. Chinese company SFExpress is working with the government to run a nation-wide delivery network of drones by 2015. The US Army is using UAV helicopters to move around supplies in Afghanistan. I have addressed how UAVs could be integrated into the NAS. In comparison with the few (3?) urban areas with autonomous cars (that aren't 100% autonomous), UAVs are already covering thousands of times more miles than the cars and doing actual jobs whereas the cars are still testing. Maybe you just didn't know they were already being used? That's the only way I can understand someone thinking that something which doesn't exist will beat something that already exists to market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:I have no doubt (unmanned) ground vehicles will one day become a very popular. I'm sorry but matternet only had a 2 month trial, it isn't being used anymore. Also they only had 3 drones for that 2 month trial, not exactly a real-world deployment. Then there's this: The CEO of Matternet posted:"I think we are on the quadrocopter hype curve right now," Raptopoulos says. "We assume the tech is more ready for primetime than it actually is." Likewise the SFExpress was only a test and every single drone was monitored by staff the corrected its flight, so not fully autonomous either. Attached is a picture of the drone used by SFExpress, clearly not a realistic drone for actual deliveries. Meanwhile autonomous ground vehicles have logged millions of driving miles in fully autonomous mode in the real world, versus 2 months in Haiti (luckily no tall buildings left to run into) and a Chinese publicity stunt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Even if I accepted your arguments, and I don't, you still have only addressed half of that post, at most, and very little of my previous posts. You still have to address: 1 - The rest of the real-world uses I brought up. 2 - Demonstrated unmanned ground vehicle full autonomous operation (no human on board, route-finding by itself, completing a journey by itself in normal traffic). 3 - Demonstration of unmanned ground vehicle delivery of items. 4 - Addressed how an unmanned ground vehicle will move your package from the street to your doorstep. 5 - Addressed integration of ground vehicles into the existing regulatory structure of US roadways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Even if I accepted your arguments, and I don't, you still have only addressed half of that post, at most, and very little of my previous posts. 1 - There aren't actual real world uses of consumer drone delivery for me to refute. The military deliveries replacing helicopter deliveries isn't something that's comparable to consumer use...there aren't manned helicopters to replace with drones. Most of the other best examples of use cases are all areas with limited or no infrastructure. The opposite of a consumer environment. 2 - You realize none of the delivery drones demoed (except military) can do this? Even Matternet uses prepositioned beacons for navigation. Autonomous ground vehicles can do all the things you ask, they just don't do it unmanned for liability reasons (see #5). 3 - I don't know why I have to somehow prove you can fit a package into a ground vehicle. Meanwhile the only answer to the fact that no one (even matternet) gives flighttimes of +20 minutes with cargo is "oh well, technology will fix that". 4 - While a potentially complicated issue, I've accept delivery from drivers' cars before, so its not too different to meet the delivery vehicle on the street/parking spot for your asap delivery needs. 5 - They already are. In the US California, Nevada, and Florida already have a licensing and regulation process for autonomous cars, all the way from testing to public use. The vehicles are in LA traffic and are driving every day. Once the milage counts in testing are reached, they will begin fully autonomous consumer operation. I'm not arguing that UAV delivery won't have huge markets in underdeveloped areas, where a beacon is easier to build than a road. But in our cities and communities, we mostly have pre-outfit things for cars and land vehicles and when the infrastructure is already paid for, the cost is unbeatable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:1 - There aren't actual real world uses of consumer drone delivery for me to refute. The military deliveries replacing helicopter deliveries isn't something that's comparable to consumer use...there aren't manned helicopters to replace with drones. Most of the other best examples of use cases are all areas with limited or no infrastructure. The opposite of a consumer environment. 2 - Not true, a simple youtube search will show you the opposite. There are many proof-of-concepts. The Chinese delivery drones used only onboard GPS and sensors. In labs UAVs are able to fly through incredibly tight obstacle courses and small holes, fly tightly in formation, and avoid other moving objects. Can you show me anything similar for cars? You have already admitted that unmanned ground delivery is impossible because of liability issues. 3 - I don't need you to prove you can fit a box, jackass. You need to show a proof-of-concept like I have. Hint, this means a trail or test or anything beyond "yes they can neener neener." This is a helpful example of what a proof-of-concept is. 4 - Firstly, that's loving stupid, a UPS delivery window is like 6 hours. Not that it matters because you can't even show a proof-of-concept or a company pursuing these things, it's just all in your own head. Secondly, a UAV can land on your front porch or backyard or roof or balcony with today's technology, in 1 or 2 years they will be able to fly inside your house or apartment through an open window. 5 - Autonomous cars (that aren't autonomous because they require a human occupant) can be driven in 3 out of 50 states in 1 country out of 193 countries in the world. And as you say, a driver has to be onboard....so autonomous delivery by ground is not possible under those regulations and we're back to square one... Meanwhile the FAA is designating 6 zones for UAV integration into the National Air Space next year and UAVs fly everyday along the US boarder proving that UAVs can be integrated into the existing NAS very easily under full autonomous control with none of the same liability concerns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
This discussion is getting silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
You're right, I should have never gotten into this argument with a know-nothing who has never seen a multi-rotor in person, who has no apparent experience with RCs or UAVs of any sort, and who's claim to fame is "seeing a couple self-driving cars because I live near Mountainview."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:1 - There were several businesses in China operating drones for delivery until recently when the government shut them down. There were and are no businesses pursuing unmanned ground delivery vehicles, or unmanned ground vehicles for anything besides commuting. Maybe you have evidence that UPS or FedEx are looking into it? Please find a source that cites a company other than SFExpress as doing drone delivery in China? Since SFExpress's is just a marketing ploy like the rest (they were remotely piloted). I can't find any other companies doing it after a quick google. Vitamin J posted:2 - Not true, a simple youtube search will show you the opposite. There are many proof-of-concepts. The Chinese delivery drones used only onboard GPS and sensors. In labs UAVs are able to fly through incredibly tight obstacle courses and small holes, fly tightly in formation, and avoid other moving objects. Can you show me anything similar for cars? You have already admitted that unmanned ground delivery is impossible because of liability issues. Are you seriously trying to argue that videos of what can happen in a fully 3d imaged lab where an IR matrix is projected over the entire flying space is meaningful proof of concept for real world use? Instead, I point you to all the videos of autonomous cars driving, which is exactly the equivalent thing shown in all the drone videos. I didn't say liability was impossible, just that in testing engineers are required because they're actually operating in the real world. Find me someone operating completely autonomous UAVs in an urban area. Vitamin J posted:
All that video actually shows, is that someone has strapped some books to the bottom of a UAV. It actually doesn't show a delivery, navigating an urban environment, range, or consumer handoff. That's not much of a proof of concept. Also, that company hasn't made a single delivery yet. Vitamin J posted:4 - Firstly, that's loving stupid, a UPS delivery window is like 6 hours. Not that it matters because you can't even show a proof-of-concept or a company pursuing these things, it's just all in your own head. Secondly, a UAV can land on your front porch or backyard or roof or balcony with today's technology, in 1 or 2 years they will be able to fly inside your house or apartment through an open window. I was talking about getting food etc delivered. In the neighborhood I used to live in, it was pretty common for a delivery driver to call you because they were double parked in the street and then you'd go to the car and make your transaction. All of your arguments about how great AI is getting applies to both platforms, and it doesn't really address the fundamental range/weight/duty cycle issues. Even if you solve the last 100 feet problem, which I still think drones are at an infrastructure disadvantage over, it still doesn't fix the fact that flying is a space/weight constrained transport method and you'll need more drones to overcome that. Vitamin J posted:5 - Autonomous cars (that aren't autonomous because they require a human occupant) can be driven in 3 out of 50 states in 1 country out of 193 countries in the world. And as you say, a driver has to be onboard....so autonomous delivery by ground is not possible under those regulations and we're back to square one... Meanwhile the FAA is designating 6 zones for UAV integration into the National Air Space next year and UAVs fly everyday along the US boarder proving that UAVs can be integrated into the existing NAS very easily under full autonomous control with none of the same liability concerns. No, what I'm saying is that the path to consumer autonomous vehicles is so steady that regulations are already in place in the US and other countries (UK and Japan for example). We are already building the regulatory infrastructure for individuals to own and operate autonomous cars, as opposed to where we are with drones where they are outright banned in many locales and only beginning to have a regulatory structure for business use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:
 Are you really this dense? The cars are fully capable of autonomous navigation, they just need a dude in the driver's seat for liability reasons. This is a temporary caveat. By the same token, fully autonomous commercial UAVs are illegal in the US. This is also a temporary situation until the regulations can be updated. Your unwillingness to concede that point shows such a ridiculous bias that I can understand why D&D hates you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
This is the fun swarm video we've all probably seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzuL60V9ng At the very beginning you can catch the amazing cameras used for the off-drone calculations, but that's just a matter of shrinking components. I want some sharper image style novelty decoration using those things. Screw usefulness, I want a fountain of drones in my living room for when the boss comes by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Please find a source that cites a company other than SFExpress as doing drone delivery in China? Since SFExpress's is just a marketing ploy like the rest (they were remotely piloted). I can't find any other companies doing it after a quick google. quote:Are you seriously trying to argue that videos of what can happen in a fully 3d imaged lab where an IR matrix is projected over the entire flying space is meaningful proof of concept for real world use? Instead, I point you to all the videos of autonomous cars driving, which is exactly the equivalent thing shown in all the drone videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3senT_91wcw quote:I didn't say liability was impossible, just that in testing engineers are required because they're actually operating in the real world. Find me someone operating completely autonomous UAVs in an urban area. Want to talk about true UAVs? They operate out of US airbases around the world from the Middle East to Africa and in Europe and Asia, these airbases are located in population centers. Recently a Predator operating for boarder security crashed into Lake Ontario, which I think you'll find it surrounded by some of the densest urban populations in North America. They operate out of Florida for Coast Guard use and operate out of the biggest cities in California. They operate out of NYC quote:All that video actually shows, is that someone has strapped some books to the bottom of a UAV. It actually doesn't show a delivery, navigating an urban environment, range, or consumer handoff. That's not much of a proof of concept. Also, that company hasn't made a single delivery yet. Secondly, I wanted to mix it up. I've already posted many examples that you must have missed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDtsTQNGfWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjnORMxwoZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luF1BH6FAT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5PgKlRFr8s quote:I was talking about getting food etc delivered. In the neighborhood I used to live in, it was pretty common for a delivery driver to call you because they were double parked in the street and then you'd go to the car and make your transaction. quote:No, what I'm saying is that the path to consumer autonomous vehicles is so steady that regulations are already in place in the US and other countries (UK and Japan for example). We are already building the regulatory infrastructure for individuals to own and operate autonomous cars, as opposed to where we are with drones where they are outright banned in many locales and only beginning to have a regulatory structure for business use. Vitamin J fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
ante posted:
e: I got this av before GM declared bankruptcy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
You don't seem to even understand the difference between a UAV and a fully autonomous UAV (as you cite one as proof of the other) so I don't really know what the point of trying to have a discussion about the profitability of fully autonomous UAVs for mass consumer shipping versus other means. What's a commercially available multi-copter with a 30m+ flight time while carrying a 1kg payload? I'm honestly curious what size they are. Edit: I must once again point out that 1/2 of your videos are publicity stunts (the copters have flight times of less than 15m) and the other 1/2 are planes not multicopters. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You don't seem to even understand the difference between a UAV and a fully autonomous UAV (as you cite one as proof of the other) so I don't really know what the point of trying to have a discussion about the profitability of fully autonomous UAVs for mass consumer shipping versus other means. The brilliance of UAVs is they can be both. The very nature of their flight controllers allows them to fly autonomously or with human input. Ideal for sending them off to do jobs by themselves or taking them over at specific points in the journey. The jobs we're talking about do not require human input though (except for ground vehicles), and as I've shown on-board sensors now have the capability to fly the UAV all by themselves. Don't think your moving of the goalposts is going unnoticed, either. Hobby MRs can get upwards of 40-70 minutes at light flying/hovering. Obviously that goes down with payload and wind. These are using off the shelf hobby components. http://diydrones.com/group/arducopterusergroup/forum/topics/multi-rotor-endurance-factors http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1914582 http://forums.openpilot.org/topic/8884-what-is-the-longest-multirotor-flight-time/ This commercial drone boasts up to 90 minute flight times: http://www.cartogalicia.com/cartouav/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=66&lang=en All of these examples use Lipo batteries but some newer tech is coming out that will offer even better energy density. These examples all have fixed-pitch blades which are extremely inefficient compared to the new variable pitch multi rotors that are coming out that even have autorotate/glide capability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:
The highest maximum payload of all those drones you linked is 300g. Kinda proving my point here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Can we stop making GBS threads up our RC thread with silly arguments about delivery drones. Make a new thread in gbs2.1 and go to town  I found a new place to fly on the weekend that has tons of potential. I also chased dirt bikers with my wing. Sadly the only battery I forgot to charge was the gopro battery  I did run into an issue though that I am seeing a decent amount of 2.4 video interference if anyone is using a 2.4 rc transmitter nearby which makes sense. I've been using 2450mhz. Has anyone found a 2.4ish band that isn't used by spektrum gear? I guess I could try them all but that is a lot of 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The highest maximum payload of all those drones you linked is 300g. Kinda proving my point here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:In labs UAVs are able to fly through incredibly tight obstacle courses and small holes, fly tightly in formation, and avoid other moving objects. Can you show me anything similar for cars? You have already admitted that unmanned ground delivery is impossible because of liability issues. No. No no no no no no no nooooooooooooooo Vitamin J posted:You are a year or two out of date at least. Modern UAVs can do this with on-board sensors. The experiments using external sensors are helpful for developing algorithms and fine tuning. No they loving can't. Those labs where they demo the quads playing tennis and flying through loops and poo poo are not even remotely a real-world scenario. The quads aren't even doing the processing on board. The entire space is a motion-capture stage bathed in infrared light and modeled to millimeter accuracy. The quads and every single important item have retroreflective markers on them, and there is a rack of servers out of the frame doing all the motion analysis and processing and radioing movement commands. Please show me a system that can generate a real-time 360-degree map of its environment at sub-millimeter accuracy and process data that currently requires a bank of servers and the associated electrical power to handle, but miniaturized to quadcopter scale and powerable with batteries that need to also power the main drive motors. e: before you post that MIT video again, that one is also using an existing digital map of its (extremely simple and completely static) environment. It cannot scan the environment in real time, cannot determine what is an obstacle and what is not, cannot react to changing situations. It's impressive stuff but all it is demonstrating is motion-estimating algorithms that can accurately map the plane's location to a pre-existing static 3D map. It should be obvious why that is insufficient for anything you're proposing. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Dec 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:You are a year or two out of date at least. Modern UAVs can do this with on-board sensors. The experiments using external sensors are helpful for developing algorithms and fine tuning. That plane has an onboard laser sensor, but it's 2d and it isn't really doing anything. The area it is flying through has already been analyzed and the flight path is predetermined. While neat, that's nothing like trying to avoid tiny telephone wires, small trees, and other urban obstacles. Vitamin J posted:Don't think your moving of the goalposts is going unnoticed, either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Hate to interrupt this asinine discussion, but I'm really interested in getting a quadcopter but I'm a total beginner to all things RC. I'd like to get a ready to fly kit because I'm a bit poo poo at soldering. Is something like a Blade 180 or Blade Nano a good place to get started? I have a tendency to pick up expensive hobbies and go all-in early on, which I'm determined not to do here (for a couple of months anyway). I really like the look of this Storm Drone 4 and the DJI Phantom but I'm trying really hard not to spend that much. It seems like you're paying quite a bit for the convenience of it being pre-built, although the Nazo 2 that comes with the Phantom is worth a fair chunk of the asking price... Ugh. Digital Jesus fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Dec 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:Hate to interrupt this asinine discussion, but I'm really interested in getting a quadcopter but I'm a total beginner to all things RC. The 180 and nano are both good choices if you are new to RC. They are simple to setup and fly and replacement parts are easy to come by. A phantom is a bad first model. They have a lot of power and they are easy to get into trouble with if you don't know what you are doing. Once you have the basics of orientation down its much easier to move into a bigger model.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2013 05:50
|
|