I would like more durability, waterproof, a camera that sits further off the ground, maybe swappable cameras, payload release, better electronics with redundancy, better positioning, Litchi app features on the GO app, overspeed motors that allow you to lose a prop or motor in flight and perform emergency maneuvers, extended range batteries with better performance - that are less expensive (maybe they would stick out a little further to contain an extra cell) an extra 2 channels on the radio (payload and auxiliary lights) and tree branch repellent.
Phantom 5!!!
- Thread starter Big Al KY
- Start date
That isn't possible without going up to a 6 rotor. Losing a motor is a balance issue, not a power issue.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 791
- Age
- 65
I don't care about the P5. I'm just going for a new power source on my P3S:
Has Anyone Tried This Power Source?
Has Anyone Tried This Power Source?
Maybe it is possible. Imagine a quadcopter with one dead motor. The opposite motor's upward force is unbalanced, and the craft spins over. However, if that outboard motor were reversible, and the onboard computer were programmed to manage it, you could do a balanced emergency descent by rotating the outboard propellor in a back-and-forth direction, alternating at a high rate. In theory, you could keep the craft level.
Not true. It might be the case for current DJI quadcopters however to say it isn't possible to fly to a safe area and land on three rotors for a quadcopter isnt incorrect. With the implementation of suitable code in the flight controller the AC can enter a rotating yawning hover (not pretty) allowing flight to a suitable landing area. It won't be precise but it is controlled any you will probably have your AC without and damage.
Even with rotating yaw, I don't see it. With one weak motor maybe but not a complete loss.
But then I'm not an aeronautics expert.
But then I'm not an aeronautics expert.
Do a quick google, I would share a link but it's a while since I read about it. You can completely loose a prop/motor/esc. It won't fly pretty but you can fly it to a safe area for a landing.
.
...would be nice, but IMO would make it ridiculously expensive, chk the price of the Matrice 200, in fact I think 2200$ is a bit steep for the Phantom-Vaporware 5... (I'd like to see the next Phantom in Hex Form..! or possibly an V22 Osprey Quad variant, but thats been done, Walkera)...
.
IIIDaemon
www.GasRecovery.net
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2016
- Messages
- 619
- Reaction score
- 168
I'd like to see full left and right obstacle avoidance in a P5 in all normal operating modes. Why? The Phantom is designed as photography/videography drone, but, unlike Inspire, its camera is fixed facing the front of the aircraft. Problem for videographers? Not at all! That's what the Course Lock and Home Lock modes are all about. Use the left stick to aim your Phantom (including its front-facing camera) in any direction you like while flying in any OTHER direction you like with the right stick. But full Left and right obstacle avoidance would make these maneuvers safer.
With the vents on the bottom, p4 does a pretty good job of getting back to home if it starts raining, for me anyway. Has anyone else had issues flying in sudden rain? Any failures?
You can't take video/photos anyway because the lens gets wet, so surviving rain is needed primarily just to get home, safely.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 720
- Reaction score
- 259
- Age
- 61
DJI can just coast with their current crop or they can literally fly with more advanced and capable models. I've only had my P4 since last April, so my frame of reference is way too short to have a good idea what DJI is up to.
I'm hoping the next Phantom level aircraft will be similar to a Mavic Pro, but be large enough to be stable in moderate winds, and be able to accept the newest and greatest cameras which are zooming past 4K. A folding design for portability, a camera forward design to limit prop and prop shadows, and a top mounted battery so increasingly larger batteries can be installed. A great sensor array on all sides would round out a GREAT drone.
I'm hoping the next Phantom level aircraft will be similar to a Mavic Pro, but be large enough to be stable in moderate winds, and be able to accept the newest and greatest cameras which are zooming past 4K. A folding design for portability, a camera forward design to limit prop and prop shadows, and a top mounted battery so increasingly larger batteries can be installed. A great sensor array on all sides would round out a GREAT drone.
I'm not sure something higher than 4K is useful now. You reach a limit and then there is no point going beyond i.e., Apple will 'never' resolution beyond retina as that's beyond what the human eye can discern anyways. I'm not sure about TVs and cameras though, maybe a bit better than 4K, but NOT much better. Yes I know, some vendors came up with 5K, but I think at this stage it's more of a marketing gimmick ...
What I would REALLY like to have in the phantom, is the option of a camera zoom. Now that might be heavy/expensive, but to me it is the next logical 'evolution'. And no, digital zoom (as Sony calls it) is just another piece of useless cr*p.
I disagree. DJI's lossless digital 2X zoom is very useful, and virtually no degradation occurs since it's cropping the 4K sensor while shooting 1080. Have you used it? Works nice, definitely better than nothing.
My opinion about digital zoom' is not from commercial claims or first-hand experience. A while back I took a graduate course in digital image processing at MIT, and there we worked through the 'math' of digital zoom. All it is really is digital interpolation. You get values for the intermediate pixels by averaging the surrounding ones. In a sense, to me digital zoom is available on any piece of basic image processing software and as such, it is not a 'capability' of he hardware that shot the video to begin with. That is why I say it's a pure marketing 'gimmick'.
THink of it this way: A while back you could buy converter boxes (upscalers) that took SD video and convert it to HD. What you actually get is NOT true HD, but interpolated HD, which is never as good (or as sharp) as true HD. Of course, you can play all sorts of tricks with image processing and sharpness filters, but in the end, it is not as good as 'native' true HD.
You opinion/experience might be different, and I respect that, but the true purists are more likely to side with me
Similar threads
