Only one thing to say: whoa!
Hmm… since I practice most of the time in a forrest … how could the beast avoid trees and branches ?
I think this should be considered as an “Improvement” or “CR” (change request) for the developers of this product
Anything can be solved…
I was tempted to get a cheapo one, but I started to think about the legality of it. There are more laws in the UK about privacy etc… And then I also read this earlier today…
If people take a pot-shot at it with a blunderbuss, it can be a bit expensive.
It’s funny people are worried about their privacy due to such “flying cameras”.
I bet Google, Facebook and others (NSA maybe?) know everything there is to know about anyone that is wired to the Internet or to a cellular network
It’s just another way of making money on behalf of paranoid people…
Nice one, but in the long presentation, they say that it can be set to hover in a fixed position and follow you as you ride by.
But you’re right, a low tree and branches radar would make it even better!
Drones have potential. They had a story about them on 60 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZ94RujpEg
Really cool, it’s sort of like a high tech version of Terry’s (MuniAddict’s) cable cam. Except that Terry’s is only a few dollars and works okay in trees.
For those interested in some more information on quadcopter drones I saw this ted talk a while ago and was amazed at the capabilities of this kind of thing.
Here’s a little video that hubby took with his FPV ( First Person View )drone.
The camera is a “muvi”, a cheaper version of the “go pro”.
There are some good video’s on You Tube by the “Flite Test” guys.
It’s a shame though that they are being put to bad use and this is all we ever get to hear about.
Hubby is making the most of his time with his camera copter because he expects that they will be banned in this country in the future.
Really well done on the video Alucard.
The riding, the shots, the flying, the music all blended to make a very enjoyable video.
Ouch I tend to think that radaring foliage, bushes and small branches is extremely tricky (may be adaptative sonaring is easier)
Maybe it’s easier to equip the drone with one of these saw systems:
It seems as though “follow mode” is the next big thing with drones - here are a couple more:
That tastes of AWESOME
Where do I send my cheque?!!
I’ve seen a similar concept developed by surfers to automatically track them shooting the curl but that was only from a ground mounted camera that could track the target left and right.
I look forward to wasting money on one of these bad boys when they hit the shops
Auto… just like auto mode on a point and shoot camera. With most likely the same results, average footage without depth. Lack of precise control is for the most part… a bad thing. But if you’re by yourself all the time, then it could be nice since you have no other options.
Also, it’s not a drone. So they shouldn’t call it one. This is a big problem for the people using video capture and even FPV systems on RC multirotors and planes, at least in the US. When something is labeled as a “drone” even when it’s NOT a drone, the general populace gets all up in arms for no reason and it causes many annoyances because politicians are idiots and pass laws banning them.
Drone (NOTE THE SIZE AND GIANT DEADLY MISSILES):
Not a Drone:
Definition of DRONE. (Oxford English Dictionary)
“A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.”
I guess it’s a drone.
Then this is a drone too. It’s a silly point and very off-topic. But it’s a big deal in the RC community. That definition is NOT accurate, and shame on oxford dictionary for it.
Taking quadcopters as an example, these days size is less important.
A quadcopter controlled by someone sitting 1 mile away wearing say Fatshark goggles, plus a payload of around 1 kilo, I can see this potentially being a real threat in the wrong hands.
Whereas I can understand the frustration of hobbyists when their sport is threatened, I can also sympathize with governments charged with protecting the public.
A difficult balance.
There are far more easy, and cheap ways if someone wants to cause harm than using a RC plane or multirotor heli as a delivery system. Systems like this have many working parts, all of which are subject to failure, are sensitive to weight limits, are expensive, and must be assembled, wired, and tested by hand. When you start trying to move into long range systems it gets more and more complex and sensitive engineering wise. And with the general nature of radio waves, highly populated urban areas make for extreme radio wave interference, blockage, and reflection. Also even people with many years of experience with simulators and video games have trouble when first using a RC aircraft, like myself. It requires practice.
It’s much easier if someone just wants to mail a letter or leave a home-made bomb somewhere, which is cheap and requires very little knowledge, skill, or coordination, and more than reaches their catastrophic needs.
Banning recreational or even commercial video and FPV systems does nothing to stop that. The person with malicious intent isn’t concerned with whether or not it’s LEGAL to fly a bomb into something, they’re going to do it anyways. All it does is restrict those who would use it in an innocent manner.
You can use absolutely ANYTHING you want to cause harm to other people. You could kill someone with a pencil if you wanted to. Everything is a weapon or can be fashioned into a weapon. A padlock doesn’t make a particularly great weapon, but when you put it on the end of a piece of string or a chain it’s a deadly weapon. A beer bottle is great for holding your favorite brew, break the end off and you have a horribly menacing death tool. If I take the crank arm off my unicycle, I now have a weapon capable of deadly force.