Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DJI Mavic 3 Pro

dji.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#131

Post by tonyarkles »

nine_k wrote: post #107
andruby wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hybrid helicopter with 4 blades? There's a lower limit for weight to fit the ICE (we can't scale an ICE down much), so it might end up pretty close to a smallish helicopter

I remember two-stroke ICEs for model planes that comfortably set on the palm of my hand, not even being a teenager. A can of fuel possibly takes more space than a battery, but likely weighs less anyway. Say, this randomly found guy is pretty tiny: https://www.horizonhobby.com/product/15la-abn-.15-airplane-g...

The trick with the tiny little model aircraft engines is that you typically get a decent lift/drag efficiency multiplier with fixed wing vs. quadrotor. In my experience, there seems to be a somewhat scale invariant power requirement of ~200W/kg (applies to a 249g Mavic Mini and much larger 25kg units). For a fixed-wing, you can get a 5:1 or 10:1 L/D and get away with more like 20-40W/kg instead.

You also probably don't want to direct-drive a multirotor off of the gas motor but rather convert it to electricity so that you maintain the rapid control authority on the motors. There are companies that make suitable powerplants, e.g. https://www.pegasusaero.ca/hybrid-advantage

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#132

Post by jcims »

robotguy wrote: post #116
pwatsonwailes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does a similar sort of thing - asymmetric offset propellors shunt the frequency of what gets emitted way down. It still emits a similar amount of energy, but the direction of emission changes, and with the lower frequency, there's a lower perceived sound. Toroidal props actually have less sound coming off them, and at a lower frequency. I've got some ideas about how you'd potentially then have a greater spread of…

>I can get really boring on applications of acoustic design I found that fascinating. TIL about the car tire noise. I think you've got the right kind of audience here.

100%

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#133

Post by capableweb »

miohtama wrote: post #127
rektide wrote: post #79

DJI seems to be the one company that requires sideloading the Android app. DJI makes great products, but there's really few companies who I would trust less to give unvetted access to my phone. I know the Android app sandboxing should help a lot, but there's enough unknowns & potentially lurking security holes that I really wouldn't want to trust them. They also are 100% the most likely company on the planet to self-…

Is there any other reason to force sideloading except that China hates Google?

- No need to deal with Google or the Play Store and everything that comes with, having to do reviews and all that

- Faster deployments to actual devices. AFAIK, you could even implement self-updating if you're feeling brave

- No sharing of data to Google and/or Play Store.

- Basically everything that the Play Store is now allowed, as you set your own rules (besides local regulation).

Basically, lots of goodies for developers and companies who want to skirt whatever safety Google has setup, with minor benefit to the users themselves.

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#134

Post by [deleted] »

pphysch wrote: post #75
imiric wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. All this focus on improved image quality, battery life and whatnot, but no mention about noise levels, or even R&D into the area. Currently, only the video is usable from drone footage, which is a huge limitation. All drone footage either has music or an audio track from an external source overlaid on top of it. I wonder if the propeller and wind noise could be cancelled or removed with some fancy algorithms…

> Currently, only the video is usable from drone footage, which is a huge limitation. For what use cases? Outdoor concerts? The acoustics at 100ft in the air are unlikely to be great anyways. I wouldn't call it a huge limitation.

[deleted]

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#136

Post by blacksmith_tb »

capableweb wrote: post #133
miohtama wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any other reason to force sideloading except that China hates Google?

- No need to deal with Google or the Play Store and everything that comes with, having to do reviews and all that - Faster deployments to actual devices. AFAIK, you could even implement self-updating if you're feeling brave - No sharing of data to Google and/or Play Store. - Basically everything that the Play Store is now allowed, as you set your own rules (besides local regulation). Basically, lots of goodies for de…

Presumably, no benefits to users (other than being able to use app itself, that is). But I believe even sideloaded apps are scanned daily by Play Protect[1] which should spot if DJI started doing something sneaky?

1: https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect/client-pr...

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#137

Post by some_random »

rektide wrote: post #121
archagon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the future of computing will be in the hands of mega-corporations. Have an innovative app idea that goes against corporate policy? Too bad, won't happen. Strict sandboxing and a robust permissions model can still give you security with these kinds of apps.

It really bothers me that DJI is basically the one notable example that gives the anti-sideloading FUD-dites some ammunition. It's generally not a real issue, DJI are just extra punks, and yeah, sandboxing should offer really good protection in general, but maybe maybe your drone is live uploading all drone data to the CCP perhaps. Freedom enables choice. Humanity's greatness is built entirely off our ability to expl…

Yeah punks totally, doing punk activities like profiting off the genocide of an ethnic minority. I absolutely want to give unfettered access to my device to an economic arm of the CCP and anyone who's against that is just spreading FUD

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#138

Post by brokenmachine »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #91
rektide wrote: post #79

DJI seems to be the one company that requires sideloading the Android app. DJI makes great products, but there's really few companies who I would trust less to give unvetted access to my phone. I know the Android app sandboxing should help a lot, but there's enough unknowns & potentially lurking security holes that I really wouldn't want to trust them. They also are 100% the most likely company on the planet to self-…

I’m in the same camp. I got my son a Mini 3, which is a stellar quadcopter in its own right, but the DJI ecosystem is a spectacle to behold for some good and many bad reasons. One issue could be that they don’t communicate compatibility between devices very well, so it’s very hard to know if buying one thing will lead to being very limited and locked in — even within the DJI ecosystem. People often find themselves ne…

100%. I was thinking about getting an Avata, and I was just about to pull the trigger, then they released a recent update that includes Remote ID which means that now you have to connect your phone to the goggles to take off (something you never had to do before) so it can get a GPS location to broadcast the operator location. I'm not even sure why it would need to do that because the drone itself has a GPS so wouldn't it know where it took off from anyway?

I'm in Australia so we don't even use Remote ID, so I don't know what will happen if I bought one. Do I have to connect my phone to use the drone? Will I have to in the future? How can I find out? What if I'm in an area with no phone signal?

I am quite interested in trying out FPV drones, and I would like to have the (unique?) feature of the Avata where if I get in a bad spot I can just hit the switch to enable GPS auto-hover, but all of the uncertainty with DJI stuff has made me not buy one, and I probably won't.

I didn't even know you had to sideload the app until this thread. Spidey senses going off 2000%.

I don't need to spend $2k on another hacking project on my list of devices that I've paid for but still don't really own. Probably better to just buy a more DIY setup that I have full control over, and real ownership of.

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#139

Post by brokenmachine »

dron57 wrote: post #89
pphysch wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Currently, only the video is usable from drone footage, which is a huge limitation. For what use cases? Outdoor concerts? The acoustics at 100ft in the air are unlikely to be great anyways. I wouldn't call it a huge limitation.

I just want to watch Ukranian drone videos with glorious full sound Russian explosions without the annoying Ukranian techno.

K2 Battalion has some great videos with foley sounds done very well...

Re: DJI Mavic 3 Pro

#140

Post by lazycouchpotato »

robotguy wrote: post #116
pwatsonwailes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does a similar sort of thing - asymmetric offset propellors shunt the frequency of what gets emitted way down. It still emits a similar amount of energy, but the direction of emission changes, and with the lower frequency, there's a lower perceived sound. Toroidal props actually have less sound coming off them, and at a lower frequency. I've got some ideas about how you'd potentially then have a greater spread of…

>I can get really boring on applications of acoustic design I found that fascinating. TIL about the car tire noise. I think you've got the right kind of audience here.

There's a great video by Andrew Lam on YouTube about the engineering that goes behind making a tire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9aX0vohM_8

Post reply on HN