[HN Gopher] Drone Flying 101 - An interactive tutorial for begin...
___________________________________________________________________
Drone Flying 101 - An interactive tutorial for beginners
Author : mosfets
Score : 221 points
Date : 2024-05-23 01:25 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fpvsim.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (fpvsim.com)
| avidiax wrote:
| It's quite annoying that every stage of the lesson requires you
| to recalibrate your controller.
|
| When I learned to fly racing drones, I used Velocidrone; I have
| no experience of FPVSim.
|
| Even if you don't plan to eventually fly an acrobatic or racing
| drone, the sim experience can be a bit relaxing & focused. I used
| to practice on a 2nd monitor while I was in large mandatory group
| meetings for work.
|
| If you do plan to build and fly drones, then a simulator is
| absolutely worth every penny. You pay for real drone crashes with
| time and money, and you probably need 100 hours of practice
| before you can handle the real thing (and not that well).
|
| If I were going to get back into the hobby, I'd probably try to
| do long range fixed wing aircraft with FPV and flight automation.
| The view will be much more enjoyable and the batteries will last
| much longer. I think there's also less community pressure around
| RC planes vs. drones, especially the loud racing ones.
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| I think these days things have changed for the better... Free
| simulators,light weight fun builds that don't easily be
| damaged/cause damage from crashes..
|
| I just bought my first fixed wing, but it made me realize why i
| like my sub 100 gram " 3" toothpick" kind of quads even more. i
| can fly those around the home, i get 10+ minutes of flight time
| (trust me, it gets annoying after 8-9 minutes and you need a
| break before you fly the next battery!), and even if i crash
| that 1S toothpick into something or someone, you barely cause a
| scratch..
| qup wrote:
| Velocidrone is a lot of fun.
|
| There's also freerider fpv, DRL, and Liftoff. They're all
| pretty good, honestly.
| senectus1 wrote:
| I really wanna give this a go.
|
| what controller would you recommend?
| mosfets wrote:
| I would recommend one of the radios that run OpenTX or EdgeTX
| (fork of OpenTX firmware: https://www.open-tx.org. These
| radios support a wide variaty of RF modules and have good
| support for simulators. No need to get a too expensive one.
| senectus1 wrote:
| good to know, thanks!
| 05 wrote:
| Radiomaster Boxer is probably the goto one for FPV
| quadcopters. If you want to fly LoS and autonomous missions
| then Radiomaster TX16S (large touchscreen, community support,
| all the LUA tememetry widgets you could ever want). For the
| link, it's either ELRS for manual flying or mLRS for Mavlink
| telemetry over LoRa.
| senectus1 wrote:
| Thank you very much!
| wepple wrote:
| +1 on the boxer. Great for everything at a pretty damn good
| price point.
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| Depending on your personal preference, go with radiomaster
| pocket/zorro/boxer - ELRS version.
| muu-g wrote:
| Check out https://www.fpvknowitall.com/fpv-shopping-list-
| controller-an... , it describes some of the best different
| options are depending on budget or requirements.
| 05 wrote:
| > If I were going to get back into the hobby, I'd probably try
| to do long range fixed wing aircraft with FPV and flight
| automation.
|
| For me personally that's too boring.. Long range is illegal in
| lots of places; in the US you technically need a spotter and
| the craft needs to be in direct line of sight, and pretty close
| because it should be visible with unaided eye - so, no
| binoculars.
|
| 3.5" is the sweet spot where you can build a sub 250g (or
| almost sub 250 - do cops really carry kitchen scales on them?)
| drone with decent performance that doesn't scare people when
| you fly around and still has the performance close to a 5" one
| and you can still do all of the tricks. The only drawback with
| 3.5" is that they're more susceptible to wind, so if it's
| always very windy where you fly, maybe consider a 5". Oh, and
| you also don't need to install a remote ID module on a sub 250g
| quad.
| btreecat wrote:
| Still need a spotter. And if you have 107 for YouTube money,
| then sub 250g doesn't give you any alleviation from RID.
| btreecat wrote:
| Wings are just so much fun because of the longer flight times
| and no need for a flight controller.
|
| FC are essential for long range missions typically, but I have
| pushed several miles on just GPS overlay in my video feed.
| mosfets wrote:
| Sorry, this tutorial is meant to be played with the on-screen
| virtual joystick. Not many people have radios lying around
| after all.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I was in to drone racing for a while then got out of it and in
| to high powered rocketry. Interestingly, a friend is moving and
| wants me to take over his passion project. A rocket powered
| glider using an 'M' (pretty powerful) rocket motor. He has a
| smaller POC working with an ardupilot autopilot launching on
| 'H' motors. The basic gist is the rocket takes the glider up
| and the autopilot handles the flying until the altitude is low
| and then manual takeover for landing. On an M motor, the glider
| is going to go far out of site so the ardupilot will have to
| get it back to the flight line where i can see it and land.
|
| I need to check the rules closely because there's exceptions
| for rocket powered gliders but I don't think i'll be able to
| launch at a sanctioned event and will probably have to go out
| to FAR (friends of amatuer rocketry) which is a multi-day drive
| for me. Tripoli, the main governing body for experimental high
| powered rocketry, has rules about guided recovery with some
| exceptions for gliders. I have a feeling a rocket powered
| glider would have to remain in sight at all times which
| wouldn't be the case with an 'M' motor sending it up. Someone
| building a rocket that can fly to 100k feet and then land at a
| waypoint would attract a lot of unwanted attention from
| authorities and be bad for the hobby which is why those rules
| exist.
| schiffern wrote:
| Hey, we gotta get ready for the alien invasion somehow!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armada_(novel)
| mosfets wrote:
| Good to start practicing now ;)
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Too bad in most parts of the EU is illegal to fly drones. You can
| do it if you are far from populated areas but you need to go
| trough a complicated bureaucracy and obtain a permit before each
| flight.
| blutack wrote:
| This is not true as a blanket statement unless you are talking
| about commercial flying, large drones or restricted airspace.
| I'm not sure what country you are referring to but I haven't
| personally come across one that requires a per flight permit
| outside of higher risk commercial operations. Most EU countries
| are pretty harmonised on drone rules at this point.
|
| Sub 250g drones such as the DJI Mini series and the Autel Nano
| will give you the most flexibility in places you can fly
| legally.
| sofixa wrote:
| > I haven't personally come across one that requires a per
| flight permit outside of higher risk commercial operations
|
| Portugal requires approval from the coast guard if your
| planned flight is within certain distance from a beach/the
| sea, which is quite easy in a coastal and islands country.
| blutack wrote:
| I don't read Portuguese but there's nothing specifically
| regarding beaches in their courtesy translation [1] beyond
| avoiding areas next to SAR helicopter bases (which is fair
| enough) and there's nothing on their UAS restrictions map
| [2] that would be unusual in any other EU country.
|
| I have flown (below 120m obviously) in Portugal near the
| beach with a <250g drone after checking their UAS map so it
| would be good to know what I missed? Possibly you are
| referring to some additional local restrictions?
|
| 1: https://www.anac.pt/vPT/Generico/drones/operacoes_transf
| ront...
|
| 2: https://uas.anac.pt/registry/explore
| sofixa wrote:
| Hm, can't find anything about it now, but it was the case
| in 2021, at least for the Azores. If memory serves me
| right I even had to send some signed papers via the post
| because their online portal wasn't ready yet (which it
| seems to be).
| fp64 wrote:
| I am a registered pilot. Had to do an online course and learn
| about restrictions, took an hour and was free and is valid
| across most countries in EU. Most stupid restriction is that
| for FPV, a spotter is required. But if I stay away from
| people/buildings I am permitted to fly up to IIRC 6kg drones
| Aachen wrote:
| Is being in the vicinity of roads okay? And what does "stay
| away" mean, just not fly up to or over them, or maintain
| hundreds of metres distance?
|
| I remember the Dutch laws said, before European alignment in
| 2020: 150 meters from any uninvolved person, any road, or any
| building. Since fields generally have less than 300 meters
| between two roads, that means you can try to fly between
| trees in some forest (somehow making sure there's not a
| person in a 300 meter diameter from the quadcopter) or inside
| your own four walls. It was essentially banned outright. Not
| to mention that a large percentage (majority?) of the
| population lives inside of airport no fly zones because
| there's smallish airports sprinkled everywhere, but that's
| understandable even if the omission of a height restriction
| is a bit silly (if you would be allowed to stay below the
| height of a large flat and are several km from the airport,
| any plane would be striking buildings sooner than your
| device... but people are stupid and we probably need this
| hard rule with safety margin)
|
| I think the location rules are more relaxed now but I don't
| know them by heart anymore. Stopped taking them seriously
| during the total prohibition period. If it is now only about
| people and buildings (and perhaps highways or such), the
| location rules are making more sense at least.
| fp64 wrote:
| If I recall correctly, the wording is "people and
| structures". If you want to fly close-by (10m or so)
| buildings and people, you can file for a special
| class/permit which requires an in-person exam. I might do
| that at some point, but haven't yet. Otherwise it's about
| what you said, couple hundred meters.
|
| A 5" fpv quadcopter is already terribly dangerous, it
| happily pulls up to 50A, goes above 100km/h easily, and the
| rotors shred through flesh like butter, so it makes sense
| to at least regulate it somewhat. When I started, I had
| drones fall out of the sky because my battery connection
| was not firm enough and while I have by now quite some
| confidence in my soldering and building abilities, that's
| always something that can happen, so I naturally stay away
| from roads, regardless the rules.
|
| For flying 5" drones, I usually take a trip to the country
| side where there's plenty of space. It's already stressful
| enough, and that way you can enjoy your flights much more
| without endangering people. Nobody ever asked for my
| permit, though, and nobody ever measured my signal strength
| and asked whether I have the required HAM license (which is
| far more involved getting). I don't fly in densely
| populated areas, at least not with my bigger drones.
| Sub-250g drones are barely regulated, and while they can
| hurt as well, the risk of serious injury is quite low - so
| you can try tinywhoops (which come even under 50g)
| yardie wrote:
| It's crazy how the US is almost the opposite. Flying in
| populated areas is permitted with some restrictions
| (airports, ports, defense) but flying over unpopulated
| national parks or BLM land is illegal or restricted.
| fp64 wrote:
| Well, at least in the City of LA it's pretty much illegal
| to fly FPV (unless commercially, with very involved
| regulations). But that's also LA so..
| bambax wrote:
| That's not true at all. You can fly in many places in the EU
| without any permit, esp. for sub-250g drones. You can't fly
| over groups of people (isolated people is ok), over towns and
| near airports and airfields. (And yes, it can be annoying if
| you live in a big city center.)
|
| For FPV flying it's a little bit different. In theory, it
| requires to have a "spotter" who will watch the drone when you
| fly, and the same other rules apply. But if you're flying in
| your backyard, close to the ground, or indoors, nobody will
| notice or care.
| coldtea wrote:
| Not sure for FPV (don't own one), but it's quite trivial to get
| an operator license/registration, and you don't even need one
| for a certain smaller / more toy-like class of devices.
|
| And this covers most parts of EU.
|
| For 99% of flights you also don't need any per-flight
| "bureucracy".
|
| There are some limitations, like X height in city, not above
| crowds, no "no-go" zones, but totally not "illegal to fly in
| most parts of EU".
| poulpy123 wrote:
| In france, Drone less than 250gr are legal without any
| documentation in autorized places (or more exctely where it's
| not forbidden) but you need to be able to see the drone. So
| FPV is legal as long as the drone isn't too far.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _but you need to be able to see the drone_
|
| To have line-of-sight. Actually being able to see the drove
| is usually not possible - seeing a small drone at 40m high
| is near impossible after a couple hundrend meters away,
| especially as it moves.
|
| Of course nobody actually tries to be able to really see
| the drone.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| the law translated by deepl is more strict than in my
| memory:
|
| > The drone must be visible to the naked eye and remain
| within the pilot's field of vision. Immersion flights
| (FPV) and the use of follower drones are possible,
| provided a second person is present.
|
| https://www.service-
| public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F35675/...
| Aachen wrote:
| The line of sight requirement prohibits FPV altogether,
| unless you have someone else maintaining the line of sight
| requirement for you
|
| You're not looking at the drone when you're looking at your
| goggles, or at least that's how Dutch laws were explained
| when I last looked into them, and nowadays they're aligned
| in the EU or maybe EEA (edit: looked it up, it's still like
| this but I think what changed is that your spotter can be
| the line of sight fulfiller and they needn't be able to
| pilot the device, they just need to be able to tell you of
| danger nearby)
| kqr wrote:
| Huh, once I figured out how to switch to first person view and
| acro mode and hooked up my PlayStation controller this was
| surprisingly fun - it behaved a little like a more friendly
| helicopter simulator. The most annoying part was that I couldn't
| have throttle on a completely separate control from the rotation
| axes, and the frequent brief freezes I got in Firefox.
|
| If this is an indication of what it is like to fly real FPV
| drones, I'll have to put a lock on my wallet.
| 05 wrote:
| > The most annoying part was that I couldn't have throttle on a
| completely separate control from the rotation axes
|
| You wouldn't want that because throttle is essential for flight
| control unlike with fixed wing where it's somewhat set and
| forget in many situations. It's partially alleviated by 'real'
| radios not having a spring on the throttle axis, so it stays in
| the position you've put it and part of it is just more
| practice..
| kqr wrote:
| I was actually thinking more in terms of helicopters having
| the collective on a separate input from yaw... bur then
| again, helicopter pilots use their feet to yaw, not their
| fingers.
|
| Not springing back the throttle to neutral makes a lot of
| sense and would probably help!
| mosfets wrote:
| Nice! Glad you liked it. Try a webkit based browser instead
| like Chrome/Safari/Edge, I'm not sure how much WebGL
| optimization firefox carries.
| z3phyr wrote:
| Can anyone recommend some good drones outside of DJI?
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| What's the purpose though?
|
| If it's dji like flying, there's skydio .
|
| If it's fpv racing, freestyle etc ... There are many ready to
| fly options. Starting at 50 grams all up weight for indoor
| flying to 5" 200+kmph racers to bigger 7" long range quads..
| bambax wrote:
| For cine drones DJI is so dominant, other brands don't stand a
| chance. Potensic is trying to exist, and their drones aren't
| bad, but not as good as those from DJI and costing about the
| same. Hubsan was once promising but seems to have entirely
| dropped the ball. Anafi's long dead. One sometimes hear about
| Skydio but they seem to only exist in the US? I don't know
| anyone who flies them.
|
| For FPV drones there are many more options. I think one of the
| best brands is GepRC but there are so many others, it's
| impossible to mention them all. Still, for the video
| transmitting system, DJI is still dominant there as well, but
| at least you can use alternatives if you really don't like them
| (Walksnail for digital, or lots of others for analog).
| 05 wrote:
| Skydio has abandoned its consumer business - DJI basically
| killed them and now they're busy lobbying to ban DJI from
| government use (or ideally just ban them from being used in
| the US altogether - yay protectionism).
|
| iFlight is probably among the top BnF brands together with
| GepRC, but nowadays it's cheaper to build your own (used to
| be BnF/PnP ones were cheaper than parts, no longer the case).
| palata wrote:
| If you want to go the DIY way, it can be a fun experience to
| build your drone (from a kit).
|
| If you want a commercial off-the-shelf drone, nothing is
| remotely close to DJI, really.
| wepple wrote:
| Once you step outside of DJI there's so much variety, what do
| you want to do?
|
| If you're learning to fly FPV, get a betafpv all inclusive kit
| like the cetus series - that's what I started on.
|
| Eventually though, if you're flying hard you'll crash hard so
| you want to know how to build and therefore fix your quads. I
| highly highly recommend Joshua Bardwells DIY build kit and YT
| video series.
|
| But you can also buy bind-n-fly quads like the Nazgul.
| ilikeatari wrote:
| Joshua Bardwell has tons of educational videos on YouTube
| discussing options. Also his website has articles that are up
| to date on solid hardware options. It depends a bit if you
| wanna fly racing, freestyle or cine. I really do recommend his
| content especially learn to fly in sim with ELRS boxer radio.
| bambax wrote:
| There are two big families of drones: FPV and non-FPV (sometimes
| called cinematic). Flying non-FPV, GPS stabilized drones (like
| the DJI Mavic family of drones) requires almost no training, you
| just put the drone in the air and it stays there, waiting for
| your instructions.
|
| Flying FPV (in acro mode) has a steep learning curve (but is,
| arguably, much more fun). The way to learn is to use a proper
| simulator. The most versatile and popular one is Liftoff and
| costs around $20, but there are many others, including free ones.
| You should also buy a dedicated controller since normal game
| controllers don't work well (the throttle joystick needs to stay
| where it is instead of returning to center). Dedicated drone
| controllers can be found around $40-50 used.
|
| And then off you go! Be prepared to spend at least 20 hours on a
| sim before you can fly IRL (it took me around 100 hours to really
| be comfortable). It's surprising how well the learned skills
| transfer from the simulator to the real thing.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| What dedicated controllers would you recommend? Is there a FPV
| that works for both drones in real life and in games? Any ones
| in particular you like?
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| The drone controllers usually have more resolution than your
| typical PlayStation controllers. They can get recognised as
| USB joystick anyway.
|
| If you prefer game pad style controllers, you can use
| radiomaster pocket/Zorro depending on your budget.. ELRS
| version.
| mosfets wrote:
| +1 on the controllers resolution part. Just add to it,
| gamepads usually do things like dynamic frame rate for
| power saving reasons, these features are not the good if
| you do fly drones for competitions. Good to get a
| OpenTX/EdgeTX based controllers, which offers 1Khz frame
| rate in newer versions.
| bambax wrote:
| I use the DJI Remote 2. It's a little expensive at $150 new /
| $100 used, but it's justified if you want to use it with a
| DJI video system in the future (Caddx Vista or DJI O3), or
| the Avata (but not Avata 2...)
|
| But there are controllers from BetaFPV that are much cheaper.
| A friend of mine just got started with the BetaFPV Radio Lite
| 3 ($60 new) and is very happy with it.
|
| Edit: RC2 -> Remote 2.
| 05 wrote:
| You probably meant DJI Remote 2. DJI RC2 is the one Mavics
| use.
|
| Anyway, I just wanted to warn anyone on the market against
| either DJI or BetaFPV controllers - DJI ones only work with
| drones that have O3 on them so if you want to fly a whoop
| you're going to buy another controller. And there's an
| issue where when your video link to the goggles breaks,
| your controller is offline for a couple seconds - that's
| all it takes to lose a drone when flying long range. Not
| being able to react to video loss by gaining altitude is
| Not a Good Thing(TM).
|
| Regarding BetaFPV: First, their gimbals are crap. Their
| build quality is crap as well. Oh, and it doesn't run
| EdgeTX, doesn't work properly with its own ELRS module when
| flashed to ELRS v3 and doesn't have a screen so that when
| you lose your drone good luck using telemetry RSSI to
| locate it.. Radiomaster Pocket is much better value for the
| same money
| bambax wrote:
| Yes thanks for the correction, edited.
|
| DJI remotes work with Caddx Vista as well (the
| predecessor to O3); those are digital video systems that
| offer much better quality than analog.
|
| I have no experience with BetaFPV remotes, but I know
| they're cheap...
| 05 wrote:
| > DJI remotes work with Caddx Vista as well
|
| Well, you're _technically_ correct (the best kind). They
| work with first gen VTXes when they 're upgraded to the
| V01.01 firmware. The catch is that if you upgrade your
| V1/V2 Goggles will no longer work with those VTXes.. And
| now there are Goggles 3 that aren't even compatible with
| O3 VTX yet, and it's 50/50 on whether or not they'll work
| with first gen - it's all a pretty big mess compatibility
| wise :)
| wepple wrote:
| I'd avoid the DJI controller if you want to truly get into
| FPV. Eventually you'll want to fly non-DJI quads (eg the o3
| air units are too heavy for whoops, so you'll be analog or
| HDZero) so stick with ELRS.
|
| The arguably best all rounder controller at a decent price
| point is the radiomaster boxer at about $99. Their pocket
| model is only $55 and super compact, but isn't really full
| sized.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Eventually you'll want to fly non-DJI quads_
|
| If you do FPV for fun, maybe. If you do it for video needs
| you'll most likely getting a drone, usually DJI, and
| sticking with it.
| wepple wrote:
| Depends what type of video, doesn't it? I'm surely biased
| but whenever I see people working on high-end film sets
| they're using serious cinelifters, and even for property
| filming you typically see cinewhoops, and for action
| sport (motocross, drifting, etc) you'll never see a DJI
| coldtea wrote:
| Not talking about Hollywood or high end film sets. Or
| something like a Nike or Superbowl ad, which has the
| budget of a small movie.Those can use anything, even real
| life helicopters. Also not familiar what they use for
| sports (another special case).
|
| But for millions doing content creation (professionally),
| news, ads, events, and such, I see DJI dominating. Again,
| I mean the non-FPV space (unfamiliar with that).
| bambax wrote:
| Content creators tend to use FPV more and more, because
| it lets them do tricks and "spectacular" shots not
| possible otherwise. But in many cases, even if the drone
| itself isn't DJI (and it usually isn't, for now), the
| video system is DJI (O3).
| wepple wrote:
| Yeah, DJI clearly owns the video space for FPV, with the
| exception of racing and a lot of freestyle where latency
| is king, so HDZero or analog rules.
| 05 wrote:
| If H.R. 2864 [1] passes, we're all going to have to fly
| non-DJI quads ..
|
| [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2864
| ilikeatari wrote:
| Interesting, I am just getting into hobby and it looks
| like not many are flying dji for racing, some fly dji air
| unit ( just the video cam for video tx/rx but drone
| hardware rarely for freestyle. Even for cine dji does not
| dominate. What's really cool is that a lot of people
| build and modify their drones as flying acro can lead to
| a lot of crashes:-)
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Interesting, I am just getting into hobby and it looks
| like not many are flying dji for racing, some fly dji air
| unit ( just the video cam for video tx /rx but drone
| hardware rarely for freestyle. Even for cine dji does not
| dominate. What's really cool is that a lot of people
| build and modify their drones as flying acro can lead to
| a lot of crashes:-)_
|
| Yeah, as I said for FPV and for non-video, people fly
| other stuff.
|
| But for non-FPV and also for video (meaning the millions
| doing: content creators, news, advertising, corporate,
| event videos, etc - don't know what Hollywood uses)
| typically use DJI.
| mosfets wrote:
| DJI is not very good in terms of end to end latency which
| are necessary for racing. They are good with packed
| techs, but racing market is too small for them.
| wepple wrote:
| DJI make the best easy to use quads that are basically
| GoPros that can be positioned anywhere in three dimension
| space at command. If you have a vlog about how you're
| going off grid or hiking the Appalachian trail, that's
| what you should use.
|
| For true FPV, the DJI quads are way too limited in many
| ways and are not exceptional at anything - they're a
| solid high-end Toyota Corolla.
|
| The DJI video system is very good, and does make its way
| into a lot of custom FPV quads. But it's very heavy and
| high latency (also, just as bad: variable latency), so
| never used for racing. And it's also too heavy for
| smaller aircraft. It's also more expensive than all
| alternatives, once you get past about 3 builds.
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| Even if it is just for fun, having a more powerful and a
| separate controller - that isn't tied to the video system
| is very valuable. If DJI signal gets lost, you simply
| punch out or trigger return to home using your ELRs
| controller.. and know that the quad will be safe..
| btreecat wrote:
| Yes. Look into radios from radiomaster with ELRS or multi
| protocol hardware.
|
| They have USB ports and can be plugged in and detected as a
| joystick.
| mosfets wrote:
| Checkout Jumper too, they are the biggest competitor of
| radiomaster, might offer better price with similar quality.
| tylergetsay wrote:
| I bought a $300 fpv kit with small drone, goggles, and
| controller that worked in the sims. Emax tinyhawk i believe.
| Small enough to fly indoors
| matthew-wegner wrote:
| Some replies to this already, but quick notes:
|
| * "Controller" isn't used much as a term, when you start
| looking around. You'll see things listed under "transmitter"
| or "radio"
|
| * The majority of FPV transmitters use OpenTX or EdgeTX
| software (EdgeTX is newer and a fork of OpenTX). Both of
| these support plugging the transmitter in to a host computer
| over USB, where it can appear as a HID joystick
|
| * ExpressLRS (ELRS) is an open source radio protocol, with
| 2.4ghz and 900mhz versions. 2.4ghz is a denser waveforms, so
| better latency, but less penetration (unless you are going
| loooooong range, default to 2.4ghz). If you buy a radio
| today, get one with ELRS built in
|
| * ELRS transmitters include Bluetooth. They can act as a BLE
| controller to a host computer, for wireless gamepad use:
| https://oscarliang.com/expresslrs-bluetooth-joystick/
|
| * And there is a 3rd option for more convenience, since both
| HID over USB and BLE wirelessly require a tiny bit of menu
| fiddling: A dedicated simulator dongle. This acts as a full
| ELRS receiver, so you would just turn on your radio within
| range and play the simulator: https://www.getfpv.com/squid-
| stick-wireless-usb-simulator-do...
|
| And finally, on radios themselves:
|
| * The big split is between smaller "gamepad" style
| transmitters and full-size box transmitters. The larger
| versions usually have more inputs than you would use, for
| other radio control hobbyists (wings/planes/etc)
|
| * Radiomaster is a solid recommendation. Check out the Pocket
| as an intro radio ($65 USD), and then the Boxer as a step up
| ($140 USD base, or $260 with all-metal gimbals and upgrades)
|
| * Unless you have a strong reason to, like someone is gifting
| you a pile of quadcopter hardware using a different protocol,
| go with ELRS 2.4ghz built in
| madhato wrote:
| ELRS is fine but Crossfire is considered by many to be the
| superior radio link. The TBS Tango 2 is a great transmitter
| and comes with Crossfire built in.
| hylaride wrote:
| Ever since ELRS 3 came out, I haven't met many people
| that argue that Crossfire is a superior radio link. The
| fact that ELRS 2.4GHz has gotten to 100KM and even now
| ELRS 900MHz RX's and TX's are widely available still
| gives that option, too. The smaller antennas for 2.4GHz
| are so much more convenient, as well.
|
| Also, ELRS has modes to go to higher refresh rates than
| crossfire in 900MHz (200Hz vs 150Hz for crossfire). ELRS
| is also being rapidly developed(https://github.com/Expres
| sLRS/ExpressLRS/releases/) and has Gemini dual-channel
| modes (including cross-band support that doesn't have
| hardware for it yet), whereas crossfire (or TBS in
| general) has barely done anything.
|
| And ELRS is cheaper (as it's open source) because of
| multiple hardware vendors and is more widely available as
| TBS has always had rather poor inventory management
| (their site now shows as unavailable for many
| components).
|
| Don't get me wrong, crossfire was an absolute game
| changer when it came out, but TBS has really stagnated
| over the past few years.
| rhombocombus wrote:
| This is my understanding of the state of the art in
| transmitter technology too. ELRS equipment and software
| offer a number of advantages over every other protocol I
| have used. It's easier to pair and configure, it offers
| robust connectivity even in lossy signal environments,
| and its range exceeds that of any video downlink on any
| of my aircraft.
| hylaride wrote:
| The one exception to your statement is "easier to pair".
| ELRS has historically been more of a pain to pair and
| update than crossfire.
|
| Crossfire has OTA updates from the TX to the RX's, so you
| just need to update the transmitter and updates can then
| be pushed to RX's next time you connect. On crossfire,
| the button on the TX's always allowed for easy push-
| button binding.
|
| ELRS was a pain having to flash and update binding
| phrases via wifi, which often had poor wifi chips on
| cheaper receivers. You often needed to take your RX,
| update it near a computer, update the binding phrase,
| update your TX, update the binding phrase on it. You had
| to do this for each RX individually (still do for
| updates).
|
| 3.4, released just last week, now allows for push-button
| binding on RX's (the button was originally reserved for
| recover modes on boot).
|
| However, once you're configured and bound, ELRS is
| technically better at every turn. If they figure out a
| way to get OTA updates (harder for them as there's dozens
| of different hardware vendors with diferent designs and
| limited flash space on them) to RX's, there's no reason
| to do crossfire. The only remaining issue with ELRS is
| that there are bad vendors with poorer quality hardware,
| but it's only an occasional problem.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Thanks, that's excellent info!
| maicro wrote:
| There are a lot of options out there, but from what I
| understand most of the common FPV controllers you'll see
| around will work as a HID when connected to a computer over
| USB.
|
| I personally have a Team BlackSheep Tango 2 - though I
| haven't been flying as much as I would like, and have done
| little simulator time, it's worked fine for both.
|
| If you want to get into the hobby in general, look up Joshua
| Bardwell on youtube - a lot of great information, including a
| variety of controller reviews, simulator reviews, and general
| "here's how to get started" videos. There are of course
| others, but Bardwell is the only one I'm actually subscribed
| to (not that I'm any great metric).
|
| EDIT: for a lot of great information, see my sibling comment
| from Matthew.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Radiomaster Zorro. This is a matter of taste, but I don't
| understand the form factor of the rectangular ones!
| cjonas wrote:
| I was able to fly the DJI avata in full manual mode with maybe
| only 4 hours in a sim. I'm not sure if that's because it just
| "clicked" or if the avata is just way easier than other FPV
| drones. I definitely think the ability to exit FPV with a click
| of a button and it's crazy durability have allowed me to be
| comfortable taking risks, which has made me a better pilot.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| It is not quite the same as FPV acro and has some additional
| safety features
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Great point. Using Liftoff and similar is a game changer.
| Flying in acro mode is something where you will crash
| repeatedly at first. (At least I did... in Liftoff thankfully!)
| Then after a relatively short time, the controls will be
| intuitive, it will feel easy, and you don't forget. Like riding
| a bicyle is a perfect analogy.
|
| I think 20 hours is excessive. I'd say 30 mins to 2 hours is
| fine, depending on the user. The most dramatic learning will
| happen in the first 10 mins or so.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| Depends on what you intend to do IRL if it's just fly around
| then a couple of hours in acro will get people up to the
| point where they can bimble about and sort of land but will
| easily get way out of their depth.
| sizzle wrote:
| Curious, do pilots learn to fly using sims?
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Private Pilot training tends to be in aircraft but when
| training for expensive, hard-to-book aircraft which require
| special certifications to fly there's often sim training
| involved. Sim training is also useful if you're about to fly
| an aircraft that's similar but not the same as an aircraft
| you're familiar with.
| mosfets wrote:
| Absolutely. Nowadays sims get more and more realistic and you
| can definitely learn a lot from them and transfer a big chunk
| of the learning to real drones.
| MrFantastic wrote:
| Velocidrone $20 is the most popular sim with the pros. It's
| designed to be the most accurate at as cost of graphic detail.
|
| They have open races every week.
|
| I can place in the top 300 sometimes.
|
| You can see the FPV of any of the races. The fastest pilots fly
| so fast it's insane. It's hard for me to comprehend how they
| can even comprehend what they are seeing.
|
| They will fly though a 3 gate ladder(aka corkscrew) in 1.5
| seconds.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| There is a reason why these fpvs are so successful in the
| Ukraine/Russian war. Much quicker than a regular soldiers
| reaction. And it's over.
| tekdude wrote:
| One other note about simulators is that they include PID tuning
| (at least Liftoff does), which can be an incredibly time
| consuming and tedious process with a new quad if you're new to
| it. It's better to learn that process in a sim where you can
| change values and see how the results affect behavior right
| away. In the real world, you typically have to fly back, land,
| plug the quad into your laptop/phone, change the values, sync,
| unplug, and take off again.
| mosfets wrote:
| Definitely agree. FPVSIM allows for PID tuning as well. You
| can learn a lot on how they affect drone dynamics by playing
| with the PID values once you know the basics of PID
| algorithm.
| fvdessen wrote:
| Not entirely unrelated, but FPV drones are now the main weapon of
| the Ukraine war. They started using them against tanks, then
| groups of soldiers, but have now found that they are cost
| effective enough to go against individual soldiers.
|
| The drone soldiers operate in small teams from underground
| bunkers close to the front from which they launch hundreds of
| drones a day, with different types of drones for different
| targets. The limiting factor is the amount of drones, Ukraine
| plans to build one million of them this year domestically.
|
| Apart from jamming, there's not much to defend yourself against
| drones except staying underground, or moving fast enough that
| there is no time for you to be spotted and tracked. But drones
| can see kms away and move at hundreds of kmph, then go after you
| personally, even inside buildings, and even at night with
| infrared vision.
|
| In an interview they asked a drone-ace how many ennemies he
| killed, he said he couldn't remember; "Do you remember how many
| cups of coffee you drank last year?".
|
| I am not sure what to think about all this, but it is certainly
| fascinating
| coldtea wrote:
| > _In an interview they asked a drone-ace how many ennemies he
| killed, he said he couldn 't remember; "Do you remember how
| many cups of coffee you drank last year?"._
|
| On the other hand, that's also what someone bragging
| insincerely would say...
| 05 wrote:
| Bombs and artillery is the main weapon, FPV drones are a
| novelty and they're being limited by being tied to the remote
| pilot. Pilots don't really scale that well - it takes a long
| time to train, and they have to be relatively close to the
| drone, so they're vulnerable to counter attacks.
|
| Autonomous drones are supposedly already used for oil
| refineries (vision based navigation, to mitigate GPS jamming),
| once this tech trickles down to smaller drones things will get
| really scary..
| is_true wrote:
| I think the problem is with the autonomy.
|
| Someone is gonna end up using something like a global hawk
| (spy drone) to deploy smaller kamikaze drones.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Ukraine already does the mothership thing using a larger
| multicopter, and there is a company working on the autonomy
| part. They are supposedly close to releasing the product.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40428492
| is_true wrote:
| it's "cool" tech but unfortunately not in the industry I
| would like
| lm28469 wrote:
| There are only two forces of creation in tech, the porn
| industry and the military
| Ringz wrote:
| As they are for life in general.
| bambax wrote:
| > _once this tech trickles down to smaller drones_
|
| We're almost there: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
| 369380266_Channel-A...
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| > it takes a long time to train, and they have to be
| relatively close to the drone, so they're vulnerable to
| counter attacks.
|
| You'd think so. I mean to fly a quad properly, you'd need
| like 20-30 hours. To just crash a drone into a large enough
| target, 6-7 hours is more than enough.
|
| As for having to be relatively close to the drone, range
| extenders these days seem to go a long way.. or even having a
| receiver outside a safe bunker - that seems to be how the
| Ukrainians/Russians fly these days.
| kqr wrote:
| > To just crash a drone into a large enough target, 6-7
| hours is more than enough.
|
| I know nothing about this but this makes it sound like the
| target is cooperative. Isn't it harder to crash into a
| target that actively tries to avoid you?
|
| (E.g. listening for propeller whine, shooting at objects in
| sky, ducking into small openings, having signal jammers,
| moving/arranging personnel to limit the impact of drone
| damage, running counter-drone efforts, etc.)
|
| I remember reading that book about the Predator drone and
| being surprised how much of Predator effectiveness came
| down to pilot skill, rather than technology. The predator
| was just a slow, small prop plane, after all. What made it
| powerful was that the pilots knew exactly how to use those
| properties (along with knowledge of the enemies' technology
| limitations) to evade detection and interception.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| I wouldn't describe the large scale use of FPV drones in
| conflicts over the past couple years as a "novelty". They
| perform reconnaissance on a scale that wasn't previously
| possible; harass, pin down, provide target coordinates for,
| and even directly attack infantry squads; and destroy
| immobilized or poorly armored vehicles. That's not even
| mentioning the single-use specially made drones with larger
| warheads, which are capable-enough of taking out armored
| vehicles that tank designs have been forced to evolve.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| We're already there
|
| Headed to production
| thadt wrote:
| Flying a drone from inside a bunker is, for all intents and
| purposes, playing a video game. Call of Duty and Flight
| Simulator have been training _very_ capable pilots for years
| now. If you want to see the (near) future of warfare, hop on
| an open COD game.
|
| As for optional, full autonomy on small drones - I suspect
| it's further along than many might expect.
| topspin wrote:
| > once this tech trickles down to smaller drones
|
| That is here now. Small drones are appearing in Ukraine that
| target vehicles and infantry using machine vision and thermal
| imaging. This is driven by RF jamming that limits FPV. Also,
| the terminal phase of a small drone attack is often where the
| attack fails and automating that improves effectiveness even
| when FPV is possible. Less skill is necessary when a fighter
| can just designate a target and hit the 'kill' button, so
| this is a force multiplier.
|
| An interesting story on this is found here[1]. Quantity
| serial production is underway and it will be in wide use very
| soon, as in the next couple weeks. One thing they've done is
| secure the software to prevent reverse engineering.
|
| [1] https://mil.in.ua/en/news/drones-with-machine-vision-are-
| bei...
|
| Another thing that stands out to me in that article is the
| claim that production is limited by component availability.
| An obvious thing to do is further enhancing these drones by
| converting them from suicide drones to bomb delivery vehicles
| so they can be reused.
|
| > Bombs and artillery is the main weapon
|
| That's a generalization that overlooks a great deal in
| Ukraine. It's like selecting some organ in the body and
| calling it the "main organ." These drones frequently provide
| precision forward observation that enables artillery and
| precision missiles. It's a system, and without FPV
| observation, FPV interdiction and other contributions Ukraine
| wouldn't be performing as well as it has.
| josefresco wrote:
| > FPV drones are a novelty
|
| I can't find the link, but I believe I read Russian doctors
| claiming that drones were now the #1 cause of battlefield
| infantry injuries.
| 05 wrote:
| That's really impressive, - although for more deadly
| weapons deaths/injuries ratio would be different than with
| drones.
| wyldberry wrote:
| This makes sense because of the other aspects at play in
| the war, namely no one having clear air dominance, which
| allows artillery to shape the battlefield. In the shaped
| battlefield, the hunter-killer type drones have a target
| rich environment.
| exar0815 wrote:
| Drones basically have flipped the total modern artillery
| doctrine on their heads.
|
| With the proliferation of fire-finder-radar, modern artillery
| started to switch from dug in stationary guns to highly mobile
| "shoot-and-scoot"-tactics, in which a gun quickly fires half a
| dozen rounds in a time-on-target salvo and relocates to dodge
| the counterbattery fire. For this, modern Artillery systems
| like PZH2000, Archer, RCH155, Dana and Caesar are optimized.
|
| Since the advent of quick and cheap FPV drones, moving
| artillery on the road is much more in danger, and dug-in guns
| with jammers, SHORAD and overhead protection again regained the
| survivability edge - albeit mainly because russia lost most of
| its modern radar.
|
| The only western SPA with any chance of survival seems to be
| the PZH2000, as its on a tracked carriage allowing it offroad
| movement and concealment and being better armored than most
| wheeled contemporaries on Lorry-Chassis
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Uh, I'm not sure FPVs have all of the effects that you're
| discussing.
|
| FPVs are significantly range limited (~10km), and have
| relatively small surveillance footprint. It's true that
| persistent ISR is significantly increasing the danger posed
| to all vehicles within the 10-30km (perhaps further) of the
| 'front line', but these are predominantly coming from
| different classes of drones.
|
| And yes, while FPVs can be queued onto SPGs (or whatever) by
| these other drones, so can other means of fires (like
| traditional artillery). As a reminder, tube artillery can
| usually reach out to at least 20km.
|
| I am not downplaying the impact that drones in general have,
| and I'm also not claiming that FPVs cannot significantly
| shape artillery operations within 5-10km of the front line.
|
| Here's the rub - Russia is clearly cable to assembly company
| sized AFV elements (though not consistently) to attack. And
| yes, we see these attacks generally get repulsed (with
| significant FPV drone involvement). So we know that Ukrainian
| ISR + FPV combination (Ukraine has been limiting its
| artillery usage) can be overwhelmed in the deeper space - it
| is possible to mass company sized elements, and transit them
| through into the line of contact, reasonably intact.
|
| There's no denying that PzH2000 is more survivable than
| Archer or Caesar (that is infact the entire point of Archer
| and Caesar - trade suitability and tactical mobility for
| strategic/operational mobility). But you're also missing
| like... M109? Like by numbers, there were more M109s donated
| than any other western platform.
| exar0815 wrote:
| >>And yes, while FPVs can be queued onto SPGs (or whatever)
| by these other drones, so can other means of fires (like
| traditional artillery). As a reminder, tube artillery can
| usually reach out to at least 20km.
|
| Yeah but that's the whole point thats been discussed in
| interested circles - the shift of the vulnerability of SPGs
| from the firing to the travel phase in absence of
| accompanying VSHORAD. (If they just had 2000 Gepards) And
| as Gunlorrys have to travel and fire on certain roads, that
| decreases the problem space.
|
| For the M109, you are completely right. I missed that one.
|
| I am not saying that tube artillery has a problem, but that
| ~10-20km around the line of contact seems to be the place
| you don't want to rely on mobility alone for survivability.
| Rheinmetall currently seems to be developing a 100km ranged
| base bleed grenade for 155mm pipes.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Ok that makes sense.
|
| I agree that persistent ISR has dramatically increased
| the vulnerability of especially road bound SPGs behind
| the line of contact.
|
| I guess in my first post, I was emphasizing that the
| catalyst for this increased vulnerability was not the FPV
| drones, but rather of ISR drones.
| praptak wrote:
| Domakha has ~50km range.
|
| Here's a report (in Polish) from a FO mission to correct
| HIMARS fire (sadly the drone was lost but the Russians had
| to send a fighter jet to shoot it down with a rocket):
| https://x.com/Aldohartwinska/status/1792838189494706220
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| FPV drones have been used at much longer ranges than that -
| it's pretty well documented with videos that with repeater
| systems there's now been strikes in excess of 25km using
| FPV, by both sides.
|
| That's not to downplay artillery though: you simply cannot
| deliver the volume of fires with drones that you can with
| tubes.
| rainworld wrote:
| Primary reason the 2000 fares better in terms of survival is
| because they are being extra careful with them. Likely the
| condition under which they were provided. But that means
| fewer missions, greater distance and so on.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Lancets are much bigger problem for artillery as they are not
| as limited in range as FPVs.
| hylaride wrote:
| I'm not going to go into details of why I know (other than
| I'm an FPV pilot with a drone licence in my country and I
| have direct connections to pilots operating in a certain
| conflict), but you're more wrong than right. FPV drones have
| become a factor and like all new technologies, had an
| immediate impact that has since been blunted by adapting, eg
| EM warfare/jamming, "cope cages" around tanks, and the fact
| that it's still artillery killing the most soldiers.
|
| FPV drones carrying anything more than antipersonnel grenades
| are heavy, with limited range and can have EW sensors track
| the control link signal sources that can then be responded
| with artillery.
|
| Since a lot of the adaptions have happened, FPV pilots on
| both sides have become more about harassing the enemy than a
| strategic flipping of artillery doctrine (which was shifting
| to more mobile batteries before FPV drones came into the
| picture).
| simion314 wrote:
| Hopefully this will make invasion much more costly, so smaller
| countries will have more chances to survive their imperialists
| neighbors. Sure the criminals can level your city but they need
| toe eventually move their troops in to pillage the resources
| and then you can make them pay. Only downside is with countries
| that can afford to lose 1000+ men a day for years, it will cost
| them and you a lot.
|
| Anyone knows if in China such men loses are acceptable for the
| population.
| tylergetsay wrote:
| OP is refering to this vid (which is great):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WipqeFgzdTc
| lnsru wrote:
| Today I left major European defense company. It's fantastic how
| tax payer pay for real outdated, but properly certified crap.
| Long story short: Bundeswehr soldier can't use improvised drone
| at all. In fact he also needs a license and insurance. This
| renders earlier mentioned Bundeswehr useless in modern conflict
| against an enemy with many improvised drones. With
| certification 500-1000$ diy drone costs suddenly 10 times more.
| Maybe this is nice business opportunity to team up for?
| vdfs wrote:
| How do they control them? Is it using Internet/4G? Isn't easy
| to jam those signals?
| btreecat wrote:
| Is there a native Linux client yet? That's why I stick to
| velocidrone, liftoff, and wings.
| mosfets wrote:
| You can play FPVSIM web simulator on any devices with a
| Chrome/Safari/Edge browsers. Which means -
| Windows/OSX/Linux/Chromebook/Android/iOS etc.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Does anybody fly Ardupilot? Last time I was really into flying I
| used DRonin, which sadly got abandoned. I have a real aversion to
| BetaFlight, though I know it's got 90% of the market; however,
| Ardupilot seems to have a reasonably active community.
|
| I don't really care about freestyling - I'm more interested in
| cruising over forest canopy, and having a reliable return to home
| function if radio signal gets lost. (I have probably 15 built out
| airframes; over time I probably need to replace defunct hardware,
| but a lot of it still seems reasonably acceptable. Quite a few f7
| controllers for example.)
| thadt wrote:
| Ardupilot is quite good, but I would say it's kinda similar to
| Linux in terms of an operating system for your drone. It can be
| configured to work with a wide array of hardware and
| operations, but its 'off the shelf' interface isn't going to be
| as polished as some other more hardware specific systems. If
| you want to build your own, and have full control over your
| system, Ardupilot is a great place to start.
| kqr wrote:
| Having been intrigued by this (see my other comment) I decided to
| try out one of the more featureful higher-fidelity simulators,
| and discovered something else: I get really motion sick after
| just a few minutes.
|
| Is this
|
| (1) because my turns are uncoordinated,
|
| (2) because I have an incorrectly configured viewport,
|
| (3) because I'm not cut out for FPV flying, or
|
| (4) a matter of persevering and getting used to the perspective?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-23 23:02 UTC)