I would think the FAA and MOT in Canada, if they had any brains, would mandate this feature to be mandatory as it would make flying a whole lot safer.
Personally, I think this feature will be required on all drones sooner than later.
I agree 100%.
But in the long run we would both be wrong, we live in an age where people expect, count on technology to replace their incompetence.
We can not control the irresponsible, but if we can reduce the amount crashes they have with a bit of technology, it's a win win for everyone.
Yes and hopefully those noobs are not in any goverment and demand this on all drones in the future.The noobs will be lured to a false sense of security and still mess them up by coming up under overhangs and tree branches.
No, it is statisticaly proven that you are not right. I have extensive knowledge in road traffic safety, and vast exerience in automotive industry, technology and driver education, so I have plenty of real world case studies that prove otherwise...
We can control irresponsibility - that is what are laws for, that is what we pay our goverments for, that is why we educate drivers and operators, issue licenses etc.
On the other hand, car or truck with speed controler (tempomat), with side cameras and lane departure alarm and with distance-tracking "radar" which engages automatic brakes - does not garantee in any way that you will not make huge mess if you do not pay attetntion to the road and the traffic - these systems will just help you to correct your error more quickly and increase your chanse of survival...
As long as you have human operators, it is not technology which makes any significant difference but education and training and attitude of human operators. Tech aids can make their human tasks a bit easier if they KNOW strenghts and weaknesses of technology, as long as they are trained to know how to use tech aids, as long as they have responisble attitude which does not rely on tech but on attention and sound judgement... So, until we get extensively tested and completely autonomus vehicles and drones - tech aids would not compensate for lack of training and attention.
Therefore I am realy scared of tap-fly pilots and drones...
I agree with you and we'll said.There are rare industrial use cases where "collision avoidance" can be useful - but arial cinematography is not one of them. Matrice is experimental test-bed and industrial special-use platform, and even with all possible add-ons it still can not reliably autonomously fly itself. P4 collision avoidance is just marketing gimmick - way for lamers to tap-fly and for aircraft to selfguide itself without instantly hiting first obstacle...
For me, as a pro user, P4 sensors redundancy and sensors error correction is much higher on my wish list. Next to that P4 has some kind of dust-proof and weather-resistant motors, while weather-profing of Inspire is also high on my wish list... So, there are advantages of P4 which are much more obvious and simpler to implement in next Inspire, then any AI and self flying...
Agree with all the comments above.
Collision avoidance can be another tool in the toolbox like GPS positioning. It's there but should not be relied upon and people should know how to fly without all the technology.
I am sure we have all had some near misses and with collision avoidance in place maybe a few aircraft would be saved but I fear it will become show off gimmick the same way auto take off is.
People will aim their aircraft at a brick wall/building/tree etc and say "Watch this"
There's going to be a few of those videos on PooTube."Yeah, watch me dispose of $4k in 2 seconds flat."
There's going to be a few of those videos on PooTube.
A little harsh Phatzo (interesting handle) but I do agree. With all due respect fitz, I believe that the more "idiot proof" manufacturers try to make things, the more it lulls people into a false sense of security. Sure, they want and expect it but why feed their laziness. I can say that when I'm flying, the adrenaline is flowing and it keeps me sharp. As a result, I have had no problems and I don't take silly chances because I know I'm, in control and I alone am responsible for what the aircraft does. That said, collision avoidance is coming to more and more copters whether we like it or not. So, Phatzo, you best suggestion is make quad (hexa) copter flight schools mandatory. Heck, this would even help our economy because independent (but FAA certified) drone flight schools would be created much like drivers license schools. More small businesses mean more jobs. Everyone wins.sorry but learn how to fly. that is the most safest way to be in the air. puting that mandatory is the dumbest idea. everything can fail - you know DJI - what do you do then if you CAN NOT fly manually which only half true since DJI hold gps and position and hight automatically. if you learn how to drive automatic in a tesla really knowing how to drive is FAR away from you. start with a LADA (russian car) stick shift, no power stiering and forget ABS acually ALL comfort things. when you know how to handle that- you can say you are probably good to go for a little drive on the country road. later you can then sit in a 86 bmw or 190e benz or similar and start going with that.
no offense meant but people have to LEARN how tod do things to KNOW what to do when these go wrong. i started off with an octo i built myself and had no assistance in anything. i had my close calls and my bad days. then i built my hex and had some fun and training and a crash or two. before i flied on the simulator 20+ hours before my first REAL life flight- that was my LADA time and the checked the benz and the bmw to know what comes at me.
mandatory should be ground school with mandatory simulator flyghts and lessons you have to achieve and pratice before actually going out and maybe hurt, damge something or kill someone because you did not know enough about the physics or craft specs or did not have a preflight check list that says: make a sight survey and check places to land for emergencies etc.
this post is not aimed against you - i am guessing you are activly flying or having 333 or something. if not then i am asuming you are a responsible thinking person. but saying that a feature that is one more part on a craft that can brake and is not even or real help or use besides "dogding" something that is in front of it should be mandatory is just plain useless. if it were around by 360degrees then it might worth thinking about but even then i would say ine has to LEARN how to fly and not rely on automatic **** that fails sooner or later. stand up for what you do and take the consequences or let it be and do not touch it.
my 2c
sorry for any offense. non meant just got carried away a bit by the first post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A little harsh Phatzo (interesting handle) but I do agree. With all due respect fitz, I believe that the more "idiot proof" manufacturers try to make things, the more it lulls people into a false sense of security. Sure, they want and expect it but why feed their laziness. I can say that when I'm flying, the adrenaline is flowing and it keeps me sharp. As a result, I have had no problems and I don't take silly chances because I know I'm, in control and I alone am responsible for what the aircraft does. That said, collision avoidance is coming to more and more copters whether we like it or not. So, Phatzo, you best suggestion is make quad (hexa) copter flight schools mandatory. Heck, this would even help our economy because independent (but FAA certified) drone flight schools would be created much like drivers license schools. More small businesses mean more jobs. Everyone wins.
Possibly but the Inspire can already do this with the app from Vertical if you want it now.I wonder if the Inspire 1 will receive a firmware update which will allow the object follow & focus selection on screen within the Go app. Surely this is just a software feature, and with the 360 camera on Inspire this would make a fantastic addition.
Did not know this! Thanks!Possibly but the Inspire can already do this with the app from Vertical if you want it now.
Dead nuts. I want to fly this baby all by myself, without considering any avoidance system. Your right avoidance or not doesn't change my flying the Inspire with the utmost care.Yes while I was intrigued as to the new avoidance system on the P4, I wouldn't even trust it anyways, or trust it enough to fly it at a wall to see what happens. 'Collision avoidance' is last on my list of desired features for a drone, as even if it worked perfectly (which it won't), I wouldn't fly any differently or recklessly. I think it's just encouraging people to become more reckless and rely on the failsafes, when in reality it only senses obstacles right in front of the drone and not to the side or behind... Meaning really it doesn't offer a whole lot more 'safety' than an Inspire or P3 operated by someone with common sense. Yes I realize common sense is uncommon these days.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?