Thanks for the video, now i have to practice.

Originally Posted by Brandigan

I see no reason for them to diverge. Just add more props and a larger frame - as is already done - to get more stability. My brother has a monster that has 8x motors with 14" props on it and is 1.2m in diameter from prop centre to prop centre for Aerial photography. Personally, I think he's gone a bit far, as I get great results with an X450 and a quick pass of deshaker on the results. With FPV for actual flying rather than hovering for Photography, don't think it matters all that much TBH.

I'm not sure I agree with you here that more is better. while it would likely be more stable, I don't see a large octocopter as having the same 3D performance potential as a smaller/lighter quadcopter.

at the moment, all multirotors have very limited 3D capability, but many multirotors have already become quite specialized for FPV/Aerial photography. I could see these specialized multirotors continuing down that path and becoming more specialized. I don't think I would be comfortable flipping and looping one of these large and sophisticated machines.

however, if the variable pitch quads catch on and the gap starts to bridge over time between fixed pitch quads and collective pitch helis in terms of 3D performance, I think we will be begin to see multirotors starting to be built that are specialized for 3D acrobatics. (yes, you could probably mount a keychain camera on this theoretical 3D quad, but it would not be able to carry the sophisticated equipment that a specialized aerial photography octocopter would have)

as it is I already have 1 quad I use for filming and plan to make it a FPV platform, and my other is specifically for 'sport' flying.

makes sense to me

Originally Posted by Brandigan

I see no reason for them to diverge. Just add more props and a larger frame - as is already done - to get more stability....

2 places where things can diverge a bit:
Settings:
stable with heavy lift - use 6 axis (gyro + acc), not so high A,E,R rates
aerobatic - use 3 axis gyro and crank up the A, E, R rates

Motors:
stable with heavy lift - lower kv motors with larger props (more thrust, but lower speed propwash, so lose thrust faster when flying or rotating (flip, roll, etc.) at high speeds)

aerobatic - higher kv motors with smaller props (less thrust, but higher speed propwash, so maintains thrust better when flying or rotating at high speeds)

Originally Posted by skitchen8

Okay was wondering about that, most escs offer a braking feature which, if I understand correctly, shorts out the motor and effectively locks the coil in place. I actually think if you could program the esc to do it going from forward to brake to reverse might be faster than applying just reverse. My thinking is that going from forward to reverse directly would also be very taxing on the esc while it was overcoming momentum, similar to running a motor while a prop is being blocked from spinning....

Besides being taxing on the esc, my guess is that it will also be taxing on the motor, with large currents running through both.
I would not be surprised if some escs have a built-in maximum rate in which they will try to switch from forward to reverse to protect themselves and the motor.

well, my skills are far behind the ones of Chris, but I thought I might share a little best of with you that I got out of 3 batteries MJX and almost 25min of raw material (which kinda tells how BAD most of the stuff still is ... ... anyway, once I get another MJX, I will keep on practicing - this one still flies, but it lost the ability to flip controlled - now every attempt to flip leads to a mean crash ...

Anyway, here is the vid (have mercy ...)

FLIPS and ROLLS with the MJX X100 best of part1 (1 min 49 sec)

Originally Posted by beerassassin

I'm not sure I agree with you here that more is better. while it would likely be more stable, I don't see a large octocopter as having the same 3D performance potential as a smaller/lighter quadcopter.

Ah, I wasn't clear. I think we're probably agreeing here.

Yes, do what you like for 3D, but for FPV/Photography, adding more props does add stability. That's what already happens with current technology. Maybe you're suggesting improved tech means you can use less props for the same result?

Unless you want some sort of hybrid 3D / FPV where you get to fly upside down, but I don't think that's what you are saying. Although I'd quite fancy it. I've seen some pretty sporty flying with flips out over the sea and around a beach done flying using a set of FatShark goggles on a 450 size quad.

@erdnuckle, lol! The end was hilarious, bet you couldn't do that again if you wanted to,....sure you wouldn't want to, lol.
Thanks for the video! That mjx looks a lot more controllable than the u816....I could only do one...maybe two max before it was unstable.

Originally Posted by erdnuckel2

...

Anyway, here is the vid (have mercy ...)


http://youtu.be/FDy9BtyAqTs

That ending was hilarious! I'm by myself and I actually Laughed Out Loud. LOL
I can't wait for my X100 to arrive. It looks like a lot of fun.

Originally Posted by gwrivest

That ending was hilarious! I'm by myself and I actually Laughed Out Loud. LOL
I can't wait for my X100 to arrive. It looks like a lot of fun.

Thanks! And thanks to all who had some kind words for me. That was the reason why I put the ending in - if one SHOULD get stuck with the prop in the ceiling (to be correct, between the ceiling tile and the lamp) it would with absolute certainty have to be called MISSION IMPOSSIBLE ... and then, when I watched it for putting together the clip with the best attempts, I felt like I look at Curly from the Stooges for a moment ... so even if I dont want myself to be seen all over the internet, this HAD to stay in there ...

And it LOOKS like a lot of fun ... ... it can actually be painfully frustrating ... on the first battery almost every attempt to flip ended in a crash - many of them full speed into really hard objects or the floor ... so it is a wonder this thing even still flies ... however I cant flip it anymore ... something IS wrong with it ... but I will stick to my claim: This is the best micro quad I have flown for indoors so far ....

I really wish that it was larger. I know it can support a keychain cam even with its smaller size but being able to see it is a huge concern with my eyesight.

Also, I have my license plate number and face on YouTube, I am sure it could be bad but rcg seems to be a pretty safe place, and I haven't shared my videos elsewhere. Thank you for sharing your video

for me, micro quad is first and foremost an indoor solution (winter is approaching in light speed and before you know it, itll be here) so the size is a secondary (or even tertiary concern ... even to the contrary: the smaller the better as far as the size of my indoor flying areas is concerned ...

Got the syma x1 quadcopter just now,waited a long time for it,really impressed by size at the first sight,I thought the size of the syma quad would be similar with the v939,ladybird,ect,but it's even bigger than the wltoys v929!!!unexpected!
The V929 battery and the tigers battery can fit it perfectly.I will shoot a little video afternoon and see how it perform!

So one Syma X1 comes with 3 canopies (bee, spaceship, UFO)? Or we get to pick only 1? The quad structure looks very similar to the V929, just that the white circuit board has a plastic cover and the battery holder looks odd. Can you remove the plastic cover to take a close up photo of the board?

Hmmm... seems like the X1 has no LEDs.

Originally Posted by FyreSG

So one Syma X1 comes with 3 canopies (bee, spaceship, UFO)? Or we get to pick only 1? The quad structure looks very similar to the V929, just that the white circuit board has a plastic cover and the battery holder looks odd. Can you remove the plastic cover to take a close up photo of the board?

Hmmm... seems like the X1 has no LEDs.

Looks like that plastic cover is to protect two whacking great capacitors and there are a lot of chips on there. That can't be a production model, surely? What happened to miniaturisation? And the motors are soldered to the board. I'd quite like that BumbleBee canopy for my v929 though

Originally Posted by Stenkryparen

I think its nice with a flying MWC board. When the Rx issue i clarified i will buy one at once.

Looking at the board, it looks like most flight controller or 3-axis gyro units that I have seen in that it has connection "pins" to connect to an external Rx: I see connection "pins" to yaw, roll, pitch and thro(ttle).