[HN Gopher] DJI FPV
___________________________________________________________________
DJI FPV
Author : qkhhly
Score : 294 points
Date : 2021-03-03 05:24 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dji.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dji.com)
| eigenvalue wrote:
| The first-person view seems like it would be a total blast to try
| out-- basically every kid's dream toy. I would have given
| anything for something like that when I was 12 years old. But
| from a pragmatic standpoint of using the drone to capture video
| footage, I feel like having robust "self driving" capabilities
| (in particular, obstacle avoidance and smart target tracking) is
| more interesting. I was blown away recently watching footage of
| this new drone from a US based drone company, Skydio:
|
| https://skydio.com/skydio-2
|
| I also like that there finally seems to be a decent alternative
| to DJI in the market-- it was a bit worrisome how much better DJI
| has been than everyone else.
| hungryhobo wrote:
| For the photography crowd, self flying just needs to be good
| enough, because you are controlling it most of the time anyways
| to get the shot you want.
|
| what's really important is image quality, when the mavic 2 came
| out it really blew me a way with the one inch sensor. It was
| incredible to see that kind of image produced by such a compact
| body.
| rasz wrote:
| When Mavic 2 Pro came out its camera was better than most
| stand alone prosumer 4K cameras, really mind blowing.
| rasz wrote:
| The difference is US startups releasing fake promotional/VC
| pitch videos vs DJI actually manufacturing and iterating over
| its designs for almost 10 years now. Here is how DJI recruits
| top talent https://www.robomaster.com/en-US
| https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/27/13059144/dji-robomasters-...
| shorts_theory wrote:
| I really like Skydio's product but they've priced themselves
| out of being a competitor to most of DJI's drones. Of course,
| all the hardware for their autonomy engine (Jetson TX2 with six
| cameras) isn't cheap. I'd still love to see a cheaper version
| (maybe $400?) with a less sophisticated autonomy engine compete
| with Mavic Mini. If they could open-source the design and allow
| for custom flight/autonomy code, it would be a superb value
| proposition.
| 05 wrote:
| Note that Skydio isn't immune to thin branches - AFAIK no
| current tech can reliably detect them at distance sufficient
| for avoidance at high speeds. There are Youtube videos
| demonstrating Skydio crashes caused by these (and similar low
| visibility obstacles). Also note that while Skydio has
| technically superior avoidance tech (360 view vs forward only
| on DJI drones), it failed to capture non-negligible consumer
| market share and has pivoted to commercial drone niche.
| eigenvalue wrote:
| I'm surprised there aren't lower tech ways of detecting thin
| branches besides doing real-time analysis of the live video
| feed. Like some kind of primitive proximity detection using
| radar to augment the image based approach, and if there is
| any doubt, taking quick evasive maneuvers.
| 05 wrote:
| High res radar seems pretty energy intensive and doesn't
| scale down to typical drone size (especially considering
| the new registration requirements for over 250g drones).
| Dry branches have low radar signature but are still fully
| capable of catching props. Low torque motors paired with
| large props optimized for flight time and for smooth
| cinematic flight (remember, it's foremost a flying camera)
| aren't capable of super-fast braking either.
| diydsp wrote:
| Maybe mirrored props could form a LIDAR?! :)
| tamu_nerd wrote:
| Very cool! I wonder how DJI justifies the R&D costs of this drone
| when it (and their existing lineup) could possibly be banned
| overnight by the looming UAS regulations?
|
| Where does this drone sit with regard to the current set of
| regulations? It will certainly at least need operator ID
| markings, yes?
| kbos87 wrote:
| DJI is such an impressive company. I know comparing anyone to
| Apple has been done to death, but I'd really be hard pressed to
| think of another company that comes closer. It also seems like
| they are following a similar playbook of blending hardware and
| software to deliver a fantastic, simplified experience - and they
| always deliver. It's not a wonder why they really don't have a
| legitimate competitor.
| rasz wrote:
| If you really want to be blown away read up on their annual
| RoboMasters competition where they recruits best students from
| best Chinese technical universities
| https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/27/13059144/dji-robomasters-...
| ilyas121 wrote:
| Speaking from the experience of building drones, it's honestly
| black magic to me how they pull off their controls. I can't
| imagine kalman filtering yourself into such a great system as
| theirs. Unworldly.
| PostThisTooFast wrote:
| Disappointing that there's no HDMI input on the goggles for
| general use. Seems dumb.
| YoungWeb wrote:
| Beyond all the technical specification, this is just a cool
| looking drone. I remember as a kid thinking how cool it would be
| if I had a camera on an RC car. Now, we're flying first person
| through the sky. So cool.
| hungryhobo wrote:
| Awesome controls, although a little disappointed in the image
| quality. Hoping for a v2 of this
| prawn wrote:
| What of the image quality disappoints you? The example footage
| looked great to me, and 4k@60fps is the main thing missing from
| Mavic 2 that I wish it had.
| baby wrote:
| That's impressive. I'm not sure I understand how you can still
| communicate and see the video feed even when the drone is far
| away.
| matthew-wegner wrote:
| Long-range FPV builds can go out for miles--especially if you
| build specifically for that, and fly in areas with low radio
| noise like mountain ranges:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqDcd7cDv4Y
| AbraKdabra wrote:
| Lets be honest, that "N" mode is just "noob mode" but less
| aggressive.
| klausjensen wrote:
| Holy sh*t that is amazing. I can't justify spending 1300EUR on
| it, unfortunately... :(
|
| I really like DJI and how innovative they have been in making
| awesome consumer products that just work and are super easy to
| use. I have owned a few.
| jonathannat wrote:
| Interesting, so none of this bothers you
|
| DJI had been supplying drone technology to Chinese security
| forces in Xinjiang https://www.pcmag.com/news/us-blacklists-
| drone-maker-dji-ove...
|
| Uighur camp detainees allege systematic rape
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55794071
|
| Gang raped, shackled and broken students: Inside China's
| 'horrific' Uighur detention camps
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-uighur-d...
| Yeri wrote:
| That's horrible but not unique to DJI. Western companies have
| (knowingly, or not) taken advantage of the slavery as well
| [https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53481253].
|
| But the same could be said of big western tech (Amazon,
| Microsoft, etc) companies providing tech to western armies.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Don't worry I think there'll be a big second hand market for
| these after people get cocky and switch flight modes and stack
| it into the ground. :)
| freakynit wrote:
| This is great... finally dji going-in for the specs that makes us
| vow! Pricing surely could have been better though. At $1200+, it
| definitely is not cheap.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Awesome. I look forward to these being obnoxious whenever I'm
| outside, trying to enjoy nature or any sort of attractive site.
| korse wrote:
| It isn't the first offering. Teal drones gave it a shot some time
| back and has a pretty solid product with excellent performance.
| They didn't get many sales with the sport models and pivoted to
| military and industrial applications though. I worked for them
| for a moment... weird company and founder, but good engineering
| team.
|
| Also, does anyone have a solid guess as to what sort of
| restrictions this thing has on it? I like DJI for their
| mechanical engineering but their drones are way too locked down.
| Are we going to have to reverse engineer this one too for fun
| mode to be playable?
| ben7799 wrote:
| It's hard to imagine this thing not having the same GEO-zone
| lockouts as all the others.
|
| I have a DJI Mavic Mini and the lockouts are very, very strict.
| I can't fly it at ALL at my house outside.
|
| I wish there was a little more compromise.. in some cases it
| would be a heck of a lot useful if you could fly even with some
| draconian restriction like a 25ft max altitude. My house is in
| a restricted zone due to being on the flight path for an
| airport. But the airplanes come over my house around 150ft AGL.
| There are 75ft trees all the way around my property. I would
| have plenty of fun never going above 50ft in my yard, but DJI
| won't let me fly at all.
|
| Given it's speed this FPV model would have the largest capacity
| for mayhem of almost any DJI model, and since it's FPV you know
| there will be lots of people flying it without a spotter in
| violation of FAA regulations.. so it makes sense for it to be
| at least as locked down as the other models.
|
| I flew my drone over salt marshes near another airport that
| didn't have a tower over the weekend. Because it didn't have a
| tower it didn't have a "Red" zone near it and I could fly after
| acknowledging the risks. I was able to fly and keep my altitude
| < 20ft and it was still a ton of fun and I got some great
| pictures. I only flew for about 10 minutes, I saw one airplane,
| but it was ~100ft AGL and I was ~15ft AGL and had some
| horizontal separation from the plane, no harm done.
|
| This model looks insanely fun and I'd love to have one but
| realistically I bet I'd be in that situation a lot where I
| didn't have a spotter and couldn't fly it without knowingly
| breaking the rules. I didn't see anything in the material yet
| in terms of whether or not you can fly it line of sight without
| the goggles.
| korse wrote:
| This may help you.
|
| https://dji.retroroms.info
|
| Check out the faq/start. I haven't looked into minis, but the
| larger mavics are well supported.
|
| If you want to really have some fun with your current drone,
| check out a program called Litchi. It costs lunch to get a
| copy but it gives you a full ground station with mission
| planning capabilities, a Google Cardboard compatible FPV
| function (a bit laggy for precision flying but if you pick
| you lines through obstacles you will be fine), limited head
| tracking that moves the camera gimbal as you look around and
| a heads up display / audio feedback.
|
| All in all, _modified_ dji + litchi + google cardboard
| headset + burner android phone is a surprisingly capable
| package that can be repaired, tweaked and has a very low
| price point if you can navigate the used goods market.
| crftr wrote:
| Is the distortion correction applied in the feed to the operator,
| or is it applied in post?
|
| With such fast movements in close quarters, I would love to see a
| global shutter.
| matsemann wrote:
| The motion controller reminds me of a project I made many years
| ago, where head tilting of an oculus rift would control the
| cameras on your drone:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7654141
|
| Also cool that they have been embracing virtual practicing it
| seems. The original DJI controllers were impossible to pair with
| simulators, so I had to hack it:
| https://github.com/Matsemann/mDjiController/
|
| I sold (or basically gave away) all my home-made drone setup a
| year or so ago, after it being in a box for 3+ years. It was a
| hassle to set up, and very hard to fly and get good pictures and
| actually be in control (original DJI Phantom included). Cool tech
| and fun to hack on, but not very good UX heh. However I would
| still very much like to fly and film more, but then with some
| out-of-the-box-ready solutions. Modern ones seem to have obstacle
| avoidance, better hovering, tracking or point-to-point etc, so I
| can actually focus on the (for me, now) fun parts of filming the
| sports action.
|
| What are some good drones for that use-case? DJI alone has a big
| lineup now, hard to know which one is more fitting. And are there
| other contenders selling ready to use stuff? Thought GoPro had
| one but seems like they've stopped.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Does that produce VR sickness? Transmission time + going all
| the way to some motors seems like it would be pretty hard to
| fit in even 60fps, haha.
|
| I wonder if any consumer VR FPV drones would consider
| transmitting a 360 video signal (or just one that includes more
| FOV than can be displayed on the headset) to allow some head
| movements to be handled in software.
| matsemann wrote:
| Yes, but not anymore than standard fpv goggles (with no
| tracking) would give in this case anyway.
|
| Yes, we thought of that as a possible improvement ("future
| work"). It may be harder to get the stereo cameras to match
| up, is my guess. But for a single camera setup it's probably
| not too hard and already exists for 360 videoes. So I guess
| if one's capable of streaming the video it shouldn't be too
| hard.
|
| And stereo cameras arent really that useful. We explored it,
| and found that when looking at stuff more than a few meters
| away it made no difference. For inspections (which was what
| our drone was made for) of close stuff it has some merit, but
| could still probably be handled by some IR sensor or other
| computational stuff adding an overlay to the video.
|
| As for vr sickness, the most jarring experience was flying
| behind yourself like a 3rd person shooter haha.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Head trackers are cool, but DJI stuff is a step in the wrong
| direction there. Right now everything is open, you can write a
| small Arduino script to track your head with an accelerometer,
| send the channels through your radio to the drone, and add two
| servos there that move according to your head motions.
|
| With DJI, all of this is closed. I'd be surprised if you can
| connect/have access to any of these things.
| 05 wrote:
| Well, nobody is stopping the community from making their own
| open source/open hardware OpenTX based motion flight
| controller, do they? Just like Naza32 didn't prevent people
| from developing Cleanflight/Betaflight
| StavrosK wrote:
| Are you saying that because they aren't actively coming to
| your house and holding your hands away from the keyboard,
| the fact that they sell closed source hardware is neutral?
| 05 wrote:
| It's actually positive. Open source community has limited
| resources, so DJI proving this thing can be made to work
| well removes any uncertainty someone would have when
| starting their own project without that knowledge. It
| also affects the way people look at the feature -
| previously many would just automatically dismiss it as a
| useless gimmick, but DJI implementing it and people
| liking their implementation gives the idea credibility.
| StavrosK wrote:
| So the only reason nobody implemented digital video
| systems until now is that they weren't sure if it could
| be done, and DJI locking their stuff down is actually
| good for the hobby.
| 05 wrote:
| OpenHD. If you fly wings and 135ms latency doesn't bother
| you, you can build it yourself. Of course, it uses
| Raspberry Pi's proprietary Broadcom SoC h264 encoder, so
| much for open :)
|
| Is TBS locking their proprietary protocol they use to
| differentiate themselves from commodity Semtech ICs good
| for the hobby?
| wpearse wrote:
| DJI has a pretty comprehensive SDK, I'm pretty sure that
| they've published the tools you need to do this.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| This is great. The biggest draw back seems to be the small image
| sensor on the camera. Not sure if its good enough to compete with
| gopro typically used in FPV in image quality.
| sonium wrote:
| Why is the flight time at 40km/h roughly 1.4 times hovering time?
| One would expect drag reduces the efficiency...
| lukastr0 wrote:
| It's the same thing with helicopters, they need more power to
| hover than to fly forwards. It's called translational lift.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translational_lift
| colordrops wrote:
| Waiting for the stereoscopic version.
| josefresco wrote:
| For those of you without $1300 to spend on an FPV drone, you can
| pick up a pretty decent package for about $250ish:
| https://betafpv.com
|
| As a new Mavic Mini owner, the one feature I'm craving for is
| FPV.
| 05 wrote:
| If you add up the costs of Nazgul5 HD (probably the cheapest
| BNF 5 inch HD kwad worth buying), DJI FPV goggles, a controller
| that you won't outgrow in a month (either Radiomaster TX16s or
| Tango2), a charger, parallel board, lipos, a sim to practice
| acro, etc. you'll probably reach something awfully similar to
| that $1300 price tag.
| josefresco wrote:
| Personally, I would start with something like this ($130):
| https://betafpv.com/products/fpv-whoop-racing-starter-kit-2
|
| As opposed to replicating the package and capability of what
| DJI sells.
| [deleted]
| qqqturing1 wrote:
| too bad you can't fly drones in germany with all the regulations.
| For FPV drones you have to have a second person "spotting" the
| drone and keeping line of sight. Complete bureaucratic nonsense.
| wepple wrote:
| I'd love for someone to build an overIP bridge for this, so I can
| sit on the couch at home and fly through the Grand Canyon.
|
| I'd happily pay a reasonable sum for it. I wonder if it could be
| done using a Stadia controller and chrome cast?
| 05 wrote:
| Yeah it's called a sim.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Who's going to let random Internet users fly their very
| expensive drone?
| kevinsundar wrote:
| This was actually a thing a couple years ago. I tried it out
| a couple times and it worked really well:
| https://www.flythere.com/
|
| Basically the gave you a big "box" of air space that had 0
| obstacles that you could fly around in. It's impossible to
| crash the drone and it takes off / lands automatically.
| ccozan wrote:
| I smell a SaaS ( or FlightaaS ) here!
| nitrogen wrote:
| _sit on the couch at home and fly through the Grand Canyon_
|
| And ruin it for everyone who actually spent the effort to go
| there in person.
| jessaustin wrote:
| This will be the reason they will start letting people bring
| shotguns to national parks.
| habosa wrote:
| This looks like too much fun. Basically the X-Wing fights in Star
| Wars video games but in real life.
|
| Not looking forward to random people flying these around me at
| 60-90mph ... but I really want one!
| whalesalad wrote:
| At $1299 this is a lot more affordable than I imagined it would
| be.
| josefresco wrote:
| Honestly I was hoping for a package around $600-700 but DJI
| took this in another direction which is probably smart for
| their bottom line. I'm hoping in 1-2 years they'll have a
| "mini" or cheaper version.
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| Flying in VR is not good for motion sickness.
| SimpleMinds wrote:
| Anectodal data point, if that helps, tested with 3 people
|
| I own Quest and DJI FPV system (not the drone from the link,
| but custom built with DJI FPV googles)
|
| - I can get dizzy in VR, but I won't in FPV unless I do a lot
| of crazy movement like spinning for a couple of seconds. Even
| when crashing which involves a lot of spin, it's fine - If I
| watch FPV while someone else is flying, I feel dizzy. It's not
| as fast as in VR, but still can happen
|
| Friends who tried had the same feeling.
|
| There's something in the connection between visual movement and
| your control of that movement via stick that helps alleviate
| dizzines.
|
| Hope that helps in case you were wondering!
| hmate9 wrote:
| Not sure why downvoted. But it's true, it's not for everyone. I
| love my oculus but I can only play games in which I am
| stationary (my character doesn't move unless I move in the real
| world)
|
| It's a shame because this looks fantastic but I probably won't
| be able to use it without getting motion sickness almost
| immediately.
| InvertedRhodium wrote:
| I think this would suit itself to a 'cockpit' style overlay -
| I play a lot of Elite Dangerous in VR and know others that do
| too. It seems almost a perfect use-case for VR IMO.
| Guillaume86 wrote:
| It's not VR (no stereo image) it's just an easy portable way
| to have a big screen.
| Guillaume86 wrote:
| It's not VR it's just like a normal screen strapped to your
| face (it's a simple image not stereo like VR does).
| StavrosK wrote:
| As others have said, this is definitely not VR, it's like
| looking at a big screen strapped to your face. People in our
| group that have lots of trouble with VR have no problem with
| FPV.
| Dave_Rosenthal wrote:
| There has been a huge divide in the drone world between high
| performance first person view (FPV) drones capable of acrobatics
| and the "tripod in the sky" type drones that companies like DJI
| have popularized. The former has been very DIY and the latter
| have attracted companies to build integrated solutions.
|
| This new drone from DJI brings an truly staggering amount of
| innovation and integration to the FPV space:
|
| - Low res analog video -> high res digital video
|
| - Modest transmission range -> long range
|
| - Integrated simulation to learn to fly
|
| - "Bail out" button that almost instantly nulls drone movement
| and puts it in a stationary hover
|
| - ~5 minutes fly time -> ~20 minutes fly time
|
| - Adjustable camera tilt on the fly to maintain level horizon at
| a variety of drone speeds (drone tilts more with speed)
|
| Extremely impressive first offering in this category.
| LukaD wrote:
| > - Low res analog video -> high res digital video
|
| > - Modest transmission range -> long range
|
| Those are not really new. DJI has been selling their standalone
| digital FPV system for a while now. And there are lot's of
| different long range radio systems available.
|
| But I agree that this is impressive. I wonder if Betaflight,
| etc. will also implement some kind of bail out feature.
| bri3d wrote:
| Betaflight already has very rudimentary RTH / "GPS Rescue"
| functionality, obviously without ground/forward sensors it's
| not as good, but it does work pretty well for "oh no
| something has gone wrong" in the form of video or control
| link loss.
| moooo99 wrote:
| > - Low res analog video -> high res digital video
|
| For Hobbyists, the high res digital video is definitely a great
| development and makes for a better flying experience overall.
| Real racers still complain about the latency, but they are not
| the target of the digital FPV system and the new DJI FPV drone
| always.
|
| But the high res is nothing unique to the DJI FPV drone. DJI
| started offering the Digital FPV system a few years ago for
| integration into diy drones.
|
| > - Modest transmission range -> long range
|
| There are plenty of long range transmission standards in the
| DIY space such as TBS Crossfire etc. For video transmission, it
| heavily depends on the transmission power which quickly becomes
| the listing factor. In Germany (and most EU states iirc) the
| transmission power for 5GHz signals limited to 25mW, which
| heavily reduces the range . 2.4GHz is not supported with the
| DJI AirUnit or Caddx Vista iirc.
|
| For lots of countries long range isn't even that much of an
| important feature since its legally only allowed to fly line of
| sight anyways. However, for countries with less strict drone
| laws this seems like an awesome addition.
|
| > ~5 minutes fly time -> ~20 minutes fly time
|
| That is the most misleading part imho. The 20 minutes flight
| time are only realistic when flying in the fully sensor
| supported "Mavic like" mode. If you're actually going for the
| powerful freestyle FPV experience, the flight time is still
| around 3-5 minutes with the major difference that a replacement
| battery for the DJI FPV is about 150EUR while a LiPo for a DIY
| racing quad costs around 30-40EUR a piece. That the flight time
| is heavily decreased when flying in the actual FPV freestyle
| (acro) mode is not surprising (its only a 2000mAh battery in a
| heavy drone), but I find the claim highly misleading.
|
| > - Integrated simulation to learn to fly
|
| In the FPV space, simulators have been a thing for quite a
| while now. There are multiple simulators such as Freerider,
| Velocidrone or Liftoff, all with different focuses and a broad
| support for controllers. You can even use a Xbox controller for
| the beginning. So integrating a simulation to learn to fly is
| no unique to DJI and nothing new in the FPV space at all.
|
| > - "Bail out" button that almost instantly nulls drone
| movement and puts it in a stationary hover
|
| The bail out button, even though I see a lot of risks with it,
| seems like a great feature for beginners. I really hope that
| beta flight will add a similar feature to upcoming firmware
| versions.
|
| The DJI FPV drone seems like a relatively fragile drone. The
| most annoying part is, that there is apparently no real way to
| fix anything yourself besides the props. The current FPV drones
| really can take a beating and you probably won't break that
| much. If you do, you can simply order a new arm for your frame
| or a new motor. You need some technical knowledge and skills
| such as soldering, but you do not depend on the manufacturer
| with an Apple like repair policy.
|
| The DJI FPV seems like a great entry option for
| cinematographers who just want to get some FPV style footage
| (which might be possible, but seems limited since the props
| often show up in the frame) with as little technical
| confrontation as possible. For people who just fly for fun and
| want some high speed stunts, diy drones still seem like the
| better option.
|
| For anyone wanting to enter the hobby, there are a lot of bind
| and fly drones out there where little technical knowledge is
| required. For the technical knowledge that is required, there
| are lots of really supportive communities.
| prawn wrote:
| Given it's shooting 4k with a wide FOV, you could crop out
| the props. Most of the time with 4k, I am cropping and
| reframing anyway. In the past, my Mavic props have
| occasionally been in view too.
| jiofih wrote:
| Have you tested one? Video reviews are reporting at least
| 10-15m flight times in cold weather.
| moooo99 wrote:
| As I said, 10-15 minutes seems completely realistic when
| talking about the sensor stabilized and comparatively slow
| flight modes.
|
| Most FPV channels that were reporting on the DJI FPV drone
| and actually tested the completely manual flight mode
| (which is the only one that really compares to the FPV
| flying you see in many videos) got around 3-5 minutes out
| of the battery.
|
| And again, it makes sense when looking at freestyle
| maneuvers and how much power they require.
| djrogers wrote:
| > The DJI FPV drone seems like a relatively fragile drone.
| The most annoying part is, that there is apparently no real
| way to fix anything yourself besides the props.
|
| That seems to be untrue - according to the verge:
|
| "If you're like me and wreck this drone, you can replace the
| following items yourself: the top housing shell, propellers,
| the gimbal / camera module, and the arms. "
|
| [1]https://www.theverge.com/22308345/dji-fpv-review-first-
| perso...
| sneak wrote:
| The product is amazing, but I'm sad that the first amazing
| integrated fpv product out is coming from DJI. It makes perfect
| sense, but I hate giving them money as each DJI purchase is a
| positive reinforcement for their abhorrent approach to consumer
| privacy.
|
| I'll probably get one, but continue to complain loudly online
| that every DJI product, including the offline ones, requires an
| account and email address and registration and the transmission
| of your serial number for it to work - including their little
| handheld, no-internet, record-to-sd-card cameras. :/
| jessaustin wrote:
| Is there a drawback to lying on this registration? One-time
| email, fake PID, etc.? Assume one doesn't live in PRC...
| Naomarik wrote:
| DJI digital video has been out for quite awhile now for
| hobbyists to include in their custom builds. Transmission range
| is not a valid point because a clean analog video signal and
| Crossfire outpaces DJI enormously.
|
| The 20 min flight time is a lie, Joshua Bardwell measured 10
| minutes hovering. That's extremely easy to surpass on typical
| light weight 5 inch freestyle drone with a 1300mah battery that
| cost a fifth of the price of the DJI ones.
|
| It is an impressive drone, but for experienced FPV pilots it's
| very limiting.
| hactually wrote:
| You seem in the know, any recommended sources or communities
| I should look into, or even if you're happy to share more I'm
| keen to hear it
| StavrosK wrote:
| There are various FPV groups on Facebook, and Joshua
| Bardwell shares a lot of knowledge on YouTube. Also,
| prepare to lose a lot of your life soldering things.
| aramachandran7 wrote:
| UAV futures is also a fun youtube channel to get started
| with and is a little less technical than joshua bardwell at
| first.
|
| to have your mind blown by experienced fpv pilots, check
| out Nurk FPV, Johnny FPV, Mr. Steele, and Rotor Riot.
|
| FPV is a disproportionately expensive hobby ... every hard
| crash can cost you between $20 ( broken motor bell) to $200
| (cost of entire drone when dropped in water and electronics
| go poof). Still great hobby, highly recommend!
| somehnguy wrote:
| UAVFutures is a Banggood/affiliate marketing shill
| unfortunately. Can't trust a word that comes out of his
| mouth when it comes to product reviews (which is the vast
| majority of what he does).
| meheleventyone wrote:
| I got into it a few months ago Joshua Bardwell as the
| sibling mentioned is a great source of info:
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX3eufnI7A2I7IkKHZn8KSQ
|
| The main thing anyone starting needs to realize is that it
| takes quite a bit of time to get used to how Quads fly in
| Acro/Rate mode. I started on a simulator (Liftoff) with an
| XBox pad and that was super punishing as gentle and precise
| control is needed. Switching to a proper radio was a night
| and day difference. I'd guess it took 5-10 hours of flying
| time to get to the point where I could comfortably go where
| I wanted 99% of the time. I'm up to 50 hours of sim time
| now and flinging the things around with wild abandon.
| Looking forward to summer and getting out to try the real
| thing.
|
| My recommendation for starting out would be to grab a cheap
| radio that is easy to connect to a PC and a copy of a
| simulator.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Recs for a cheap radio that is easy to connect to a pc? I
| also had the same result when trying to use a gamepad
| meheleventyone wrote:
| After research I went with the Radiomaster TX16s. There
| are several specs and I went for the mid-range version
| that has Hall effect gimbals for the sticks. You can get
| more console controller style radios as well but I
| fancied the bigger screen and a bit more space.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Thanks!
| muu-g wrote:
| I haven't personally used these radios but they seem to
| be highly recommended budget options from people in the
| know: - BetaFPV LiteRadio 2 - Jumper T-Lite
|
| In terms of a pc simulator I have used Velocidrone which
| everyone says has the most realistic physics but is not
| necessarily the prettiest.
|
| You might also find the following site useful as a
| shopping guide: - https://www.fpvknowitall.com/fpv-
| shopping-list-controller-an...
|
| It's an addictive and fun hobby for which I'm still in
| the initial stages of.
|
| Happy flying!
|
| Edit: first time posting / trying to format properly.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Thank you!!!
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| This is super important!
|
| Clock in 20-30 hrs of flight time in a sim using a real
| radio, before even thinking about building a quad.
|
| You might realize it is not for you, and save the hassle,
| but more importantly it is really dangerous, even when
| you are an experienced driver.
|
| Without sim experience you are guaranteed to crash
| quickly and do some damage in stuff and/or people!
| dagmx wrote:
| I think the biggest thing is accessibility. DJI continues to
| break down the preexisting knowledge required to get into a
| space.
|
| For better or worse, because there's a lot of irresponsible
| drone flyers as a result too, but this product makes fpv
| flying much readily available for those who want to try it
| without investing the time/effort to learn about how to do it
| better with other setups
| dylan604 wrote:
| >without investing the time/effort to learn about how to do
| it better with other setups
|
| I do not believe that this is a good thing at all.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Why is gatekeeping FPV drones so important to you?
| Opening it up to new potential users some of which will
| want to eventually invest in better setups seems very
| much like a good thing.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I don't consider it gatekeeping. I consider it
| responsibility. Low barrier to entry is not always such a
| good thing. The idiots that would not get into it because
| of some sort of required training but would get into it
| without hesitation without training are typically ones
| that cause the problems for everyone else. There are lots
| of things in life/society that requires some sort of
| responsibility. I feel that something you can fly in a
| manner that you can only see in one direction without
| fully knowing what else is around you is one of those
| things. Caveat being designated areas setup and
| maintained as a UAV operating area.
| robomartin wrote:
| > For better or worse, because there's a lot of
| irresponsible drone flyers as a result too
|
| The industry is doing a horrible job of educating people
| and, as a result, they are ruining it for everyone else. I
| have been flying all manner of radio control craft for over
| thirty years (planes, helicopters, drones and "things"). As
| a simple example, I would never --ever-- fly anything over
| people, homes, roads or high fire risk brush areas. I have
| crashed enough time to understand that that these things
| are toys that are not designed to the standards of real
| aircraft, often suffering from multiple single-point
| failure risks that could bring them down and either hurt
| someone or cause serious damage to property.
|
| Our neighborhood FB group is, at times (usually around Xmas
| and people's birthdays) filled with videos from people
| flying their new drones over roads (as in, directly over
| cars), over homes, over bone-dry brush surrounding our
| neighborhoods, over people (crowds, kids, at parks, without
| anyone knowing), etc.
|
| The other kind of post is "I flew my drone for the first
| time in front of my house and I lost it". Which, of course,
| makes me crying at multiple levels. The crash could easily
| cause a brush fire that could take out an entire
| neighborhood [0], and, of course, hurt or kill someone [1].
|
| At first I tried to educate people as to the realities of
| these devices. I own RC helicopters that cost well in
| excess of $3,000 and I still consider them unsafe toys. Yet
| people get offended and verbally abusive when you explain
| that their $300 drone, despite the hype, is a toy that
| could fall out of the sky at any time and potentially cause
| great harm. I mean, I have worked on the design of space
| capsules that are docked at the International Space Station
| and people are arguing with me about their toys actually
| being "reliable". Jeez.
|
| It's only a matter of time until a tragedy occurs.
| Thankfully the large fires caused by drone crashes have, so
| far, been limited to open areas. One day someone is going
| to crash a drone into the bushes in a neighborhood, the
| LiPo is going to rupture and half the neighborhood will
| burn down. Sadly people seem to value their fun far more
| than the safety of others.
|
| [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/drone-
| crashes-in...
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14755116/jail-
| sentence-dr...
| matsemann wrote:
| > _The 20 min flight time is a lie, Joshua Bardwell measured
| 10 minutes hovering._
|
| To be fair, hovering time is often lower than flight time for
| copters.
| alkz wrote:
| in this case the drone is so fragile that the only way to
| get 10mins of flight from it without breaking it, is to
| hover
| ionwake wrote:
| I dont know why this comment was downvoted I found it
| both funny and informative
| sangnoir wrote:
| It's obviously hyperbole - but the problem is that
| without the hyperbole, the comment communicates nothing
| substantive. How was it informative?
| harperlee wrote:
| So 10 minutes up, then 10 minutes falling?
| ben7799 wrote:
| Anything with rotors generates extra lift when moving vs
| hovering, so it requires less power to hold altitude when
| moving vs hovering.
|
| Imagine if you stopped the blades but the craft is still
| traveling forward... lift is being generated by the air
| flowing over one side of the rotor just liked a fixed
| wing aircraft.
|
| At the extremes some full size helicopters can't climb
| straight up, they have to have forward motion to generate
| enough lift to climb. This allows use of a smaller motor
| to bring operating cost down.
|
| In the case DJI drones the battery times are usually
| quoted with some amount of forward speed.. it generates a
| longer run time than a hover test.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| There's also simply the effect of not staying in a
| downstream you created.
|
| A drone/helicopter accelerates air downward, and it's
| easier to accelerate still air than air that's already
| moving downward.
| wereHamster wrote:
| High-res digital video has been available to the multicopter
| community for a long time now through https://www.dji.com/fpv.
| First released by DJI, later the technology was licensed to
| others (at least the camera / VTX side of the electronics), se
| for example caddex vista / nebula
| (https://caddxfpv.com/collections/dji-1).
| latchkey wrote:
| Interesting that it is all sold out too...
| bri3d wrote:
| DJI seem to have diverted their supply chain from hobbyist
| FPV to this new drone. Supply for all DJI FPV gear has been
| very limited ever since they filed the "V2" goggles (for
| the Drone) with the FCC.
|
| I'm hoping they keep their hobbyist/DIY FPV system going
| though, as it blows everything else out of the water.
| Analog video is well, bad, open source alternatives are
| either abandoned or mediocre, and the Divimath/Fat Shark
| system is not even comparable in terms of quality.
| latchkey wrote:
| I guess all the things you mention is why they continue
| to get my money. Bought the drone yesterday to compliment
| the Air2, which I absolutely love, and can't wait to try
| it out.
| ben7799 wrote:
| That makes sense though.. they're probably putting
| initial production of the V2 goggles into the FPV kits,
| and running out their supply of independent V1 Goggles.
|
| My guess is at some point soon they'll be selling the V2
| goggles on their own for the hobby use case.
| darig wrote:
| Is it really innovative to go from 0 latency analog video to >0
| latency digital video? Especially when you're controlling
| something in real time, moving extremely fast, that could hurt
| people if you crash into them?
| magnat wrote:
| > Low res analog video -> high res digital video
|
| Major benefit of analog video is a progressive degradation of
| quality as a signal gets weaker and almost instant
| reacquisition after a complete dropout. I'm curious to see how
| DJI competes with that on a digital video.
|
| > ~5 minutes fly time -> ~20 minutes fly time
|
| For FPV racing that's rather a downgrade. Ideally you'd like to
| land with almost empty battery right after finishing the
| course. Any leftover charge is a dead weight that only slows
| you down. But then again - I don't think this drone will be
| used in competitive FPV racing.
| somehnguy wrote:
| >Major benefit of analog video is a progressive degradation
| of quality as a signal gets weaker and almost instant
| reacquisition after a complete dropout. I'm curious to see
| how DJI competes with that on a digital video.
|
| The good news is that you can find that out right now. DJI HD
| FPV has been available for over a year, this is just their
| first drone offering in the category.
|
| The short answer is that it degrades very gracefully. They
| have what they call 'focus mode', where the edges of the
| video lose quality before the middle (where the data matters
| the most). Once you've used up that signal degradation
| threshold the rest of the frame slowly degrades to a lower
| bitrate, and then after that latency starts rising.
|
| After flying analog for 5 years it only took me about 1 day
| to strongly prefer the DJI FPV video solution. The range is
| far better, and the video is mind-blowingly clear when
| compared to analog. On anything but my racing specific drones
| I have been installing the DJI HD FPV system instead of
| normal analog gear.
| ofrancon wrote:
| > it degrades very gracefully
|
| Pretty convincing comparison by Joshua Bardwell:
|
| Shark Byte: https://youtu.be/9iKc2v05blw?t=926
|
| vs DJI: https://youtu.be/9iKc2v05blw?t=1046
|
| vs analog: https://youtu.be/9iKc2v05blw?t=1227
| cma wrote:
| > They have what they call 'focus mode', where the edges of
| the video lose quality before the middle (where the data
| matters the most).
|
| If the latency is low enough it would be nice if they could
| incorporate eye tracking into that in the future, and move
| around the high quality region with your eyes. And maybe
| feed it from a gimballess 360 camera so you have full
| freedom to look around. Stereo cameras would also be nice,
| maybe with some differential compression between eyes to
| keep bandwidth down (would need a gimbal for that most
| likely, to keep line between cameras horizontal).
| HPsquared wrote:
| On progressive degradation, perhaps the digital video output
| could be adapted with an indication of the error rate (which
| usually get corrected in the background until it reaches a
| threshold where the errors are too great)
|
| Or perhaps the signal strength or SNR.
|
| These parameters are available but not usually displayed.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Major benefit of analog video is a progressive degradation
| of quality as a signal gets weaker and almost instant
| reacquisition after a complete dropout. I'm curious to see
| how DJI competes with that on a digital video.
|
| Waiting for a degradation tolerant codec.
|
| Old MPEGs were, as they had broadcast use in mind, but even
| 264 blow them out of the water on compression nowadays.
|
| Loss tolerant codec + modern channel coding will likelly
| outrange analog for quality picture
| ohazi wrote:
| SVC profiles target bandwidth degradation, but yeah nothing
| really recovers from random dropouts anywhere in the steam
| like analog...
|
| Lots of I-frames, I guess...
| baybal2 wrote:
| Lots of I-frames means you effectively revert to a little
| more sophisticated version of mjpeg
|
| A cheap, and dirty hack I can think of is to dynamically
| adjust the bitrate for the bandwidth after FEC/channel
| coding. Margins will still have to be quite huge I
| believe.
| prawn wrote:
| As you say at the end, this isn't a drone for racing. I think
| this drone would mostly be for videographers wanting to add
| FPV-style shots to their arsenal. I shoot with a Mavic 2
| (https://serio.com.au/) and if there was a bit more of a
| market for the FPV look in the work I typically do, I'd grab
| one of these right away.
|
| At this point though it's probably something I'd look at
| closer once I have a bit more spare time and can think about
| situations where it might be applied.
| nomay wrote:
| Isn't the edge being there's almost no delay in analog video
| transmission? While the best DJI can do is like 130 ms.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| They say their delay for this drone is 28ms, and I'm
| inclined to believe them.
| somehnguy wrote:
| I've been flying DJI HD FPV for about a year now and yes
| - latency hovers around 24ms in good conditions. The
| range also blows away my normal analog gear.
| Udik wrote:
| > Any leftover charge is a dead weight that only slows you
| down.
|
| Uh? Can you explain this?
| dagw wrote:
| If you have leftover charge after you land it means you
| could have used a smaller (and thus lighter) battery, which
| would have let you fly faster.
| robbiep wrote:
| Presumably not literally like in the case of a rocket or
| formula 1, but also literally as in, I could have used a
| lighter battery with less charge that goes faster
| rglover wrote:
| "Citizen, get back in your pod. Citizen, get back in your pod.
| Your face has been recorded in the Problematic Citizens Database.
| You have one point left on your license."
| erulabs wrote:
| Is this the first commercially available robotic projection
| device?
|
| I've been waiting patiently for VR+robotic applications - this
| project but controlling some Boston Dynamics is a terrifying
| military, or an amazing football team depending on how you look
| at it. Exciting!
| pastelsky wrote:
| Imagine if FPV augmented reality gaming became a thing...
| djrogers wrote:
| Holy cats - 0-60 in 2seconds! This will be fun - and probably
| dangerous... sigh.
|
| How soon can I scratch together $1300?
| nitrogen wrote:
| Do these things come with instructions for how _not_ to use them?
| I got pretty sick of the jerk who kept buzzing people 's heads
| with an FPV drone last time I was at the beach.
| Geee wrote:
| Doesn't it make you nauseous like VR?
| n3dm wrote:
| No, it is no delay 120fps. The sickness induced from VR is
| primarily when the tracking is bad, then slow refresh rate of
| display, then screen door effect last. Something like this
| would make only screen door effect be the factor that makes one
| sick which is minimal for most.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Anyone's got it yet?
| tamu_nerd wrote:
| Joshua Bardwell (a prominent FPV YouTuber) has a review video
| up. It looks very cool and performant. Unfortunately one of his
| units broke an arm after a relatively common looking crash
| during his review.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| 50Mbit, 28ms latency wireless link at 12km distance, and on a
| battery budget, eh? I'd love to hear more, I love science
| fiction.
| pmontra wrote:
| Does it use WiMAX?
| bri3d wrote:
| This has been out for a few years in the form of the "DJI FPV"
| system, Goggles and Air Unit, for DIY drone construction. It's
| not science fiction - the latency and bitrate taper off a bit
| at range, but it genuinely works.
|
| If you tear down the hardware, it's using an Imagination IE1000
| 802.11ac frontend, Skyworks amps, and a custom DJI image
| processor chip (marked P1). So the air protocol probably looks
| somewhat like 802.11ac (OFDM etc.) but without the framing
| overhead and presumably without TCP/IP.
| Leherenn wrote:
| They use frequency hopping also as far as I know.
| bri3d wrote:
| I don't think so, at least not outside of the channel
| bandwidth - based on the FCC filings and the observed
| behavior, initialization seems to happen on 5839MHz
| (Channel 8) and then the device hops to a user-selected
| channel, where it seems to stay.
| comboy wrote:
| Ocusync has been out for some time now and it already sounds
| like magic. I think when compared to wifi or some radio bridges
| it usually operates in much less congested environment.
| Nonetheless, if you think about frequencies used, energy going
| down with r^2 and bandwidth they are doing, it's an amazing
| feat even in ideal conditions. And here's it's a moving object,
| on battery, with four electromagnets around it.
| joezydeco wrote:
| My son has a Mini2, the transmission range on this is pretty
| amazing.
|
| We were watching a neighbor's house over the holiday, which
| meant mostly checking for delivery boxes on their porch and
| putting them inside. We could drive the Mini2 out the window
| of our house and 2 blocks away to check the porch without
| getting out of our seats. And this is a suburban area full of
| houses, trees, and a shit ton of interference at the
| wifi/4G/LTE ranges. The video never lost a frame.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Boasting about flying beyond line of sight without a
| spotter in a cluttered residential neighborhood isn't going
| to score you many points among the drone enthusiast crowd.
| joezydeco wrote:
| Heh, true. Thanks.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| No worries. If there's just one thing I want to get
| across though, it's that as drone operators, we are
| collectively responsible for how the broader community
| views us and drones.
|
| Random drones floating through neighborhoods is sketchy
| from a safety standpoint but also it tends to upset
| people, who often think that any drone they see is spying
| on them. Just a consideration.
|
| Personally I like to fly around abandoned buildings and
| decrepit structures. Lots of interesting flying to be
| done and cool vids to be taken, and there's nobody around
| to complain :)
| ben7799 wrote:
| I'm super cautious like you but one thing about the Mini
| and Mini 2 is they don't attract much attention. They're
| really small and pretty darn quiet.
|
| I've had my Mini about a year and have yet to have any
| interaction with strangers who see it flying.
| nerdbeere wrote:
| 50 Mbit is the maximum bandwidth it can do. It decreases with
| range which will result in degraded image quality.
| matthew-wegner wrote:
| The goggles / video transmitter system has been around for
| awhile--DJI just hasn't made their own FPV-focused drone with
| them included yet.
|
| 6 mile range test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X8ExuJWt6E
| cromwellian wrote:
| Wait, why does the goggles look like VR goggles, but the drone
| only has 1 camera? Wouldn't this FPV system be way more awesome
| with binocular vision and head tracking?
|
| Imagine flying the drone, and moving your head would move the
| camera gimbals, and you'd experience it like you were in VR in
| the drone?
| FractalParadigm wrote:
| >Wait, why does the goggles look like VR goggles, but the drone
| only has 1 camera?
|
| Funny, I was thinking the same when I watched the video. The
| optimist in me hopes there's a pair of lower-res stereo cameras
| located somewhere near the main camera (the one we can see)
| being specifically for shooting video? The way you described it
| is _exactly_ how I thought it operated until I got further into
| the video. It 's a great step forward in drones with added
| range, batter, etc, but the whole "first-person VR" shtick
| feels like it was only half-thought out and never changed
| during the design/implementation
| bzzzt wrote:
| Even some kind of 'splitter' for 3d vision like Panasonic had
| on their handheld videocamera range (VW-CLT2) would work I
| think...
| somehnguy wrote:
| That's cool to imagine, but nobody does it in practice because
| it isn't nearly as cool when you're doing it as imagining it
| makes it out to be :) Fixed camera angles are the standard in
| FPV. Partly because the drone itself tilts to change direction
| so you would lose your orientation very quickly, and partly
| because that would just add fragility to the drone. Something
| you don't want when you're likely going to crash it often.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Wouldn 't this FPV system be way more awesome with binocular
| vision_
|
| Human binocular vision depth perception is actually extremely
| short range. It varies from person to person, but some
| measurements put it as short as 10 feet [1] - beyond that, the
| mind starts depending on other cues [2] like motion and
| relative size.
|
| So the costs in bandwidth and hardware might not be worth it -
| getting your drone that close to things sounds like an
| expensive skill to learn :)
|
| [1]
| http://visionlab.psych.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/03/131_Wa...
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-03 23:03 UTC)