This makes me wonder what the "best" vehicle for human racing would be like, if there was no requirement for a human driver. Let's say your task is to move a human from A to B (by a pre-designated route) as fast as possible. The only conditions are vehicle weight, no outside radio contact and no damaging the road (assume each vehicle goes separately, so e.g. slip stream effects don't matter). You can rely on the huma…
Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
151–160 of 342 posts
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I imagine the slower speed is a closer fit to combat drones A lot of comments are trying to draw connections to combat drones, but drone racing like this has been a hobby thing for a long time. The capabilities of the drones are set to have an even playing field, not to match combat drones or anything. These aren't meant to have any parallels to combat drones, drones that fly long distances, or drones that carry pa…
We all understand that. People are simply observing that there an obvious path from this technology demonstrator to something similar in the battlefield.
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Here in Sweden we instituted mandatory military service we did so because we wanted to ensure that there was no military class that if they decide to can take over. We knew the cost, and the cost is worth it. In normal times the cost is simply to do ones mandatory military service. This protects against coups, ensures your power in society and prevents groups of officers and soldiers etc. from taking over.
This is similar to the argument behind the American constitutional right to own guns. In both cases I very much doubt that people lacking the training, organisation and weaponry of the professional military will be able to beat them in contemporary circumstances. I realise military service means people have some training, but as much as the professionals? What about air cover, heavy weaponry, communications? What abo…
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is similar to the argument behind the American constitutional right to own guns. In both cases I very much doubt that people lacking the training, organisation and weaponry of the professional military will be able to beat them in contemporary circumstances. I realise military service means people have some training, but as much as the professionals? What about air cover, heavy weaponry, communications? What abo…
Maybe it's unrelated to the thread topic, but the benefit of the American 2 amendment system is that the conscription officer knows he can be shot in the face when visiting the home of an unwilling conscript. Maybe this would have prevented the war with Ukraine
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is understandable pure-logic thinking until you're the one to be made battlefield-relevant. And if you look at Russia your logic does fail on that example - no amount of human losses affect Russia's behavior in the current war as they are sure that Ukraine will run out of soldiers before Russia does. So, from Russia's POV the faster the grinder the sooner their victory.
In a war of attrition (actually any war or even battle for that matter) the war is generally won by the enemy's morale breaking, not by literally running out of soldiers. When one side is losing and they know they're losing (or they see the conflict as not worth dying for), most people would prefer to save their own lives rather than die for nothing. So you get desertion, refusal to enlist, rapid surrender, and so on…
The problem is, in Afghanistan the Western nations didn't do much else than depose the Taliban that took around two years and provide education abilities for women afterwards. But in order to actually achieve change, you have to invest significantly more resources to actually build the foundations for a viable society: democracy, rule of law and an economic perspective for the populace.
In Germany, the Allied Forces stayed for about 45 years, two generations worth of time. Just think of the massive amount of money and resources invested... the first years were taken similarly to Afghanistan - depose the Hxtler regime and rebuild a rule of law afterwards and, as in the Luftbrücke, ensure basic survival. But then, they stayed in for over three decades to make sure that a healthy democracy would not just form but also establish and entrench itself against threats, and that Germany had an industrial base which was used to provide employment and income for the populace. Also, thank God for the Americans deciding not to follow the "Morgenthau plan" that proposed turning Germany into a purely agrarian state with no industrial capability ever again - that would have caused us to follow down the Afghanistan path with utter certainty.
In Afghanistan however, the situation after the immediate war and short post-war period was markedly different. The troops were locked up in their bases outside of bombing jihadists, which meant that local warlords had little to no oversight in their atrocities and stuff like "bacha bazi" (organized child sexual abuse) and slavery went on with effective impunity. The local puppet government barely had any income sources other than foreign aid (and selling opium on the black market) which meant there was no way to form a national identity and storytelling or even a common purpose, and a lack of oversight of the occupying forces over the puppet government led to widespread corruption and looting of the external investments, which led to it losing support across the country. And on top of that, we didn't even do decent oversight over our own troops. Abu Ghuraib is far from the only scandal that was barely prosecuted, not to mention all the other shit that was quietly swept under the rug - that led to the populace despising our troops even more.
We didn't lose Afghanistan because the Taliban are a strong army - they were and are not, just look at the videos from right after the takeover. We lost Afghanistan because we didn't give anyone in the wide population a reason to fight for themselves and not just submit to the next best warlord.
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. It's entirely onboard. 2. The video they're seeing is worse. Spectators typically see the frames saved directly from the camera, but the pilot will be seeing them compressed and beamed over the air to their headset. See vid. 3. The human pilots do actually have access to it. Not directly, but the flight controller translates their inputs and makes use of the IMU to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMGRLGkm0Q…
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMGRLGkm0QE I’m reminded of when the US military figured out it should just replace all its proprietary field drone controllers with Xbox controllers because every single grunt that enlisted already had 10,000 hours on the things. If the future of warfare is drones, Christ, that video is terrifying.
1. Less precise. Gimble size matters.
2. All inputs sprung. This is exactly what you want for your three rotational axis, but you absolutely do not want your throttle resetting to 50% when you lay off. You can fix this using 3D mode where the zero setting is in the middle, but then you lose even more precision.
3. Circular inputs. This means at low or high throttle you have less roll available.
The main reason you'd want a gamepad is the size and shape. They do make gamepad-style radios, like the Radiomaster Pocket, which combine the best of both worlds.
You can pick up a simulator for $10-20 if anyone wants to give it a whirl, and many are even on Steam, but the general recommendation is to pick up a dedicated radio as soon as possible.
Note that this mainly applies to FPV quadcopters, due to how sensitive and twitchy they can be. When it comes to controlling pretty much anything else (I'd argue even most planes) these advantages are no longer relevant.
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. It's entirely onboard. 2. The video they're seeing is worse. Spectators typically see the frames saved directly from the camera, but the pilot will be seeing them compressed and beamed over the air to their headset. See vid. 3. The human pilots do actually have access to it. Not directly, but the flight controller translates their inputs and makes use of the IMU to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMGRLGkm0Q…
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMGRLGkm0QE I’m reminded of when the US military figured out it should just replace all its proprietary field drone controllers with Xbox controllers because every single grunt that enlisted already had 10,000 hours on the things. If the future of warfare is drones, Christ, that video is terrifying.
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#158This is only a few days after the massive drone attack in Russia. Only a matter of time until we have drones smart enough to dodge bullets (or at least dodge out of where guns are pointing) while flying at breakneck speeds being controlled by AIs we don't fully understand. The tech industry is working hard to bring about the Terminator future.
All hard countered by a laser like the Iron Beam, no? Unless there's a hard counter to the hard counter?
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
All hard countered by a laser like the Iron Beam, no? Unless there's a hard counter to the hard counter?
a laser needs a line of sight and dwell time. drones flying 3 ft off the ground, in between bushes and trees, at 100+ mph? not an easy situation. ramp up power levels so dwell time might only be 1/2 second? maybe. but then there is a race for rapid target discrimination. and then ablative armor on the drones (cheap and easy to 3d print), and backup cameras, etc.
Re: Autonomous drone defeats human champions in racing first
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
OTOH there's no mass adoption of autonomous drones after 3+ years of real active war between two technologically advanced nations.
Maybe we should come back to this in a few years, I think this will have aged worse than the old dropbox comment. Governments are falling over themselves to: acquire drones, figure out how to defend against existing and future drones, and to figure out how to exploit them well. Given the recent attack against Russian bombers, I find it hard to take you seriously here. Hell, the US knows it can't compete with China on…
These bombers attacks were done with manual control too. These drones had LTE modems and on footage it's clearly visible that they controlled by operator.
People can't read these days, especially if it doesn't match the reality they build in their heads.