Thread Tools
Aug 24, 2016, 09:11 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunCam
Thanks Keith Luneau for sharing this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0P...ature=youtu.be
Keith always has great video's... He has the Ultimate Air Port and flying area.....
Last edited by Mike54; Sep 01, 2016 at 10:54 AM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Aug 26, 2016, 01:30 AM
Born for RC Fanatics
RunCam Eagle
Pre-order Now! http://shop.runcam.com/runcam-eagle
Aug 27, 2016, 08:51 PM
Registered User
$65US for a cmos with 45ms delay and wierd lensing in the image??? Bahahahaha. Good luck with that.
Aug 27, 2016, 09:39 PM
Wait...what?
gbmarsh's Avatar
Lol, yep!! Mind you, I'm sure they'll sell a bunch before people figure out how bad it is.
Aug 29, 2016, 11:05 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunCam
Thanks Brian Morris ( take the second place in the Dubai World Drone Race) for sharing this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smpzg9qM8Lo
Awesome flying, but I find it interesting how most of the top pilots still aren't using FPV camera tilt compensation. Is it they have no time for the training or do they just not trust it? Hmm
Aug 29, 2016, 11:06 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by smash77
$65US for a cmos with 45ms delay and wierd lensing in the image??? Bahahahaha. Good luck with that.
Yeah, the magnesium alloy case is cool, but a CMOS camera w/ 45ms latency for this much? nope

I know magnesium can really drive-up the price of things like power drills and such. I wonder if that's really what's driving the price increase..
Aug 29, 2016, 12:21 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by AILERON8
Awesome flying, but I find it interesting how most of the top pilots still aren't using FPV camera tilt compensation. Is it they have no time for the training or do they just not trust it? Hmm

You are talking about the cam yaw/roll mix function in Betaflight?
They learned manually, compensating for it themselves and just do it automatically without any thought.
Putting the cam mix on their racing MR's would be a bit like giving a professional racing driver an interfering, computer controlled, corner stability driver assist function to their machines that ultimately slowed them down unless they relearned... and old habits die hard.
Aug 29, 2016, 03:09 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari33
You are talking about the cam yaw/roll mix function in Betaflight?
They learned manually, compensating for it themselves and just do it automatically without any thought.
Putting the cam mix on their racing MR's would be a bit like giving a professional racing driver an interfering, computer controlled, corner stability driver assist function to their machines that ultimately slowed them down unless they relearned... and old habits die hard.
Yeah, I figure it's just old habits, but it's been shown that pilots have a slight edge with this functionality enabled once they've adapted to it. It only slows them down at first, but eventually when your brain rewires itself it wished it had it all along. Until the super fast loop times I read that it was a hindrance, but now it runs smooth as silk.
Aug 29, 2016, 03:49 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by AILERON8
Yeah, I figure it's just old habits, but it's been shown that pilots have a slight edge with this functionality enabled once they've adapted to it. It only slows them down at first, but eventually when your brain rewires itself it wished it had it all along. Until the super fast loop times I read that it was a hindrance, but now it runs smooth as silk.
It's good to hear some positive feedback on it.
It was actually myself that suggested the idea to Boris to implement it in Betaflight after reading Shrediquetes blog about his version.
I was both surprised and pleased that he did but initial feedback from the 'old guard' was not very positive and it was widely deemed as an unnecessary flying aid.

Maybe you should give Boris your feedback on the Betaflight thread, I'd also be interested in hearing more testimonies in it giving a slight edge.

I've recently been thinking that an additional mix based also on FC angle so that the mix was variable depending on attitude might help when turning at an angle below the cam angle to remove the opposite effect at the lower attitudes but that is probably only valid if a constant height was maintained and we didn't ever climb or dive dunno, not sure if it would help overall... or not.


Sorry for going OT.
Aug 29, 2016, 04:56 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari33
It's good to hear some positive feedback on it.
It was actually myself that suggested the idea to Boris to implement it in Betaflight after reading Shrediquetes blog about his version.
I was both surprised and pleased that he did but initial feedback from the 'old guard' was not very positive and it was widely deemed as an unnecessary flying aid.

Maybe you should give Boris your feedback on the Betaflight thread, I'd also be interested in hearing more testimonies in it giving a slight edge.

I've recently been thinking that an additional mix based also on FC angle so that the mix was variable depending on attitude might help when turning at an angle below the cam angle to remove the opposite effect at the lower attitudes but that is probably only valid if a constant height was maintained and we didn't ever climb or dive dunno, not sure if it would help overall... or not.


Sorry for going OT.
That would be an interesting addition for sure; I don't see why it couldn't be added. While it's true most of the racing quads aren't using barometers these days, and if they are they're not being utilized, I don't see why they couldn't. Then the height could be measured and integrated that way.

I rarely post in the Betaflight FB page, but I'll definitely make sure to add some feedback about this functionality.
Aug 29, 2016, 05:52 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by AILERON8
That would be an interesting addition for sure; I don't see why it couldn't be added. While it's true most of the racing quads aren't using barometers these days, and if they are they're not being utilized, I don't see why they couldn't. Then the height could be measured and integrated that way.

I rarely post in the Betaflight FB page, but I'll definitely make sure to add some feedback about this functionality.

Sorry for not being clear enough. That isnt quite what I meant, the barometer wouldnt have enough resolution tin any case.

I was meaning that when you have cam roll/yaw angle set at around 25 deg for a 35 Deg cam angle (See Joshua Bardwells video on the subject for why).... but when you are angled in forward flight at less than the 25 Deg, you have an unwanted opposite roll coupling for the cam which is not natural.
If they made the cam roll/yaw angle also mixed proportionaly with the forward angle (FC level) then it would be more natural? as far as a fixed wing POV at least.. but... if you were intentionaly climbing or diving at the time then it would apear unnatural again and would probably require a 4th mix with throttle percentage for it to work, I dont know, might also incur too much CPU usuage/cycle time.... just thinking out loud
Aug 30, 2016, 04:51 PM
define("BEASTMODE", "1");
Bonafidepirate's Avatar
Runcam Eagle, ground video from 8/28/16 (9 min 5 sec)
Aug 31, 2016, 04:22 PM
Registered User
If you want widescreen from a CCD camera, you can go the expensive route I developed a few months back.

http://flitetest.com/articles/widesc...-flight-camera
Sep 01, 2016, 02:43 AM
Registered User
I don't get it, 16:9 viewing is so popular, CCD based cameras are popular, everyone wants a CCD 16:9 why hasn't anyone done it ?? Am I missing something here ? Is it not possible ?


On another note has anyone compared the Eagle to the HS1189 ? I can't find anything
Sep 01, 2016, 03:31 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by 185skywagon
I don't get it, 16:9 viewing is so popular, CCD based cameras are popular, everyone wants a CCD 16:9 why hasn't anyone done it ?? Am I missing something here ? Is it not possible ?
They're out there, just not affordable... yet

I'm assuming the increased differential in hor/ver lines is more difficult to process for CCD, because it's reading the entire chip simo vs scanning on a CMOS. Or, more likely it's just all the R&D that had to go into making the change for FPV cams, when 16:9 is'nt necessary for surveillance cams, the original camera users.

Just an assumption though..

http://www.getfpv.com/fat-shark-900t...pn0aAk768P8HAQ