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

Lily – Drone camera

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 496 posts

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#341

Post by jonjenk »

evo_9 wrote: post #139

It's impressive, no doubt, but I wonder about the actual utility of the device. My main concerned is the 20m battery life/record time - that is pretty limiting. If I were to use this to record myself snowboarding (like the video shows), that would be a problem. Here in Colorado a typical blue rated mountain run is easily 20m from top to bottom, esp. if you aren't gunning it the whole way. When I ride alone I can mayb…

"When I ride alone I can maybe go top to bottom in slightly under 20m but I'm flying and really pushing it the whole time, I wonder if the drone could even keep up in that situation (speed would be over 25mph almost the entire time)."

Where do you ski? 20 min at 25 mph implies an 8.3 mile long run.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#342

Post by dakridge »

ceequof wrote: post #253
baddox wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been able to figure out how these work. GPS alone wouldn't give the resolution and responsiveness required. It doesn't seem to be CV-based either, since there's often no line of sight of the tracking device. Perhaps the tripod has two directional signal strength sensors so it can tell if the beacon is to the left or right, and move in order to keep the beacon centered.

The popular theory is that it's a RTK differential GPS system: base station in the tripod transmitting correction information to the remote unit. The explains the warmup time, the accuracy, as well as the big price tag. http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73083/how-doe...

This was my question on Stack Exchange! I was so angry because I was so curious how this worked, but I was downvoted to hell.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#343

Post by gridspy »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #337
relet wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is until your cheap drone hits a paraglider, or other light vehicle that is actually allowed to operate in this air space. In most legislations I am aware of, RC flight requires an operator to be in control of the drone.

I would love Mythbusters to throw the biggest drone you can get into a jet engine. Pretty sure nothing, but some good entertainment would happen.

I'm fairly confident it would destroy the jet engine. The shrapnel from the drone is likely to blow the very tight tolerances between the compressor blades and the body of the jet engine, causing jams.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#344

Post by jonjenk »

tajen wrote: post #254
grecy wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an avalanche you can't call anyone to save you. It will take them too long to reach you, and you'll suffocate before they can reach you. The chances of survival drop severely after 15 minutes of burial. The only people that can save you in an Avalanche are the people in your group. Source: Canadian ski patroller.

What if the drone has a 2-3m acuracy of the position? At least in ski resorts the bystanders can immediately rescue the person. Off tracks, it often happens that 1 person is aside of the snow corridor.

That level of accuracy would be hard to achieve. Most radio signals (eg. BTLE) don't travel well through water (eg. snow).

Additionally, if you've ever dug someone out in the field (or practiced doing so) it takes a lot of effort to move snow. Being within three meters isn't good enough.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#345

Post by coldtea »

jahewson wrote: post #317
cpks wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can buy a gun. You can still (barely) buy model rockets. You can buy glass windows (which shatter into thousands of sharp pieces if broken). I want proper insurance, liability, etc. when things fail, and good risk management. I don't want stupid safety.

Well, you knocked those straw men down. I guess that settles it. Drones are exactly like windows aren't they?

Talking about straw men, he also mentioned guns and toy rockets.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#346

Post by steven2012 »

Sorry, but I'll believe it when I see it being sold in stores. This has Kickstarter syndrome written all over it. Meaning, a really cool idea and flashy video, but it's in "pre-order" and there's no guarantee when it will actually ship. And even when it does, I'd rather wait for reviews to tell me how good it works rather than trust a marketing video.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#347

Post by coldtea »

windexh8er wrote: post #307
bglazer wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fall into camp 3. I have a DJI Phantom that I crashed into my neighbor's yard due to my own incompetence and inexperience. I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers. Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people fly…

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the point you are trying to make. The problem I have with it is, it seems by your own admission, you're somewhat hypocritical. You'd like for someone else, a la the manufacturer, to provide a guarantee that you can be lazy and not take precautions so that you don't have to worry about a $1300 radio controlled vehicle that flies doesn't hurt someone else? I only mention the gener…

>I only mention the general cost because - there's not that much margin in these things to achieve what you want. Nobody will spend $2300 on a Phantom if that additional $1000 is for upgrades to safety and ignorance factors.

Well, not that I agree with the need for what he says, but what you describe is easily solved:

People WOULD pay $2300 on a Phantom if the "upgrades to safety and ignorance factors" were compulsory and so every drone on the market had to bear that extra $1000 in its cost.

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#348

Post by CamperBob2 »

nine_k wrote: post #142
bglazer wrote: post #131

This is really, really cool. That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had. There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (f…

I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature of cars, bikes, and can openers, too. Unfortunately, currently we probably make do with a few less nines on all these items.

Great, no problem. Your next bike is going to cost $9,500.00. Will that be cash, credit, or PayPal?

Re: Lily – Drone camera

#349

Post by semi-extrinsic »

grecy wrote: post #326
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually measured your speed though? Because the difference in speed sensation between a snowboard and a car (or bicycle) is just unbelievable if you haven't measured it. The pull rope I linked above is for kids with small/medium jumps, and that's 40 km/h.

Yep, sometimes we race with GPS to see how fast we can go. 80 km/h on a snowboard is fast .

That's interesting. Way back when I was a ski racing kid (about 14) we once did a speed test where we closed off 400m of one of the children's slopes and put a photocell at the bottom, and we would hit 90+ km/h on that thing. Mind you, this was in racing gear with racing skis, but that was a flat-ass slope. The fastest we ever clocked in a race was around 120, when I was 18, in the worldcup downhill course in Åre.
Post reply on HN