/RCG/ - rc general

>>938047
I'm not sure what that site is, but you probably got scammed.

File: eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwOi8vaS5pbWd1ci5jb20vWXBHcU9RdC5wbmcifQ.Ue09YGVh45LFhRHCmheakQ0SYXo[1].png (139KB, 1254x805px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1254x805px

>>938209
i dont think so, i believe its a database with a lot of different parts and it just does a lot of calculations.

pic related is my upcoming setup, includes GLB 3 axis gimbal but im not sure on the ESC's yet.

i want to do a quadcopter. Nothing big, a simple not to expensive quadcopter. I have 3D printer so i cen design and print frame parts, but i have no idea about electronics. What is good what is not? What goes together, what i need. So is there any good sites or guides for beginners? An open source community like raprap?

Got a bit of a potential project for my rc garden rally track... Been thinking about a laser timing system.

So far I've figured out i need a light activated relay to make the connection on the start/stop button on a stopwatch, with a laser pointed at the photo sensitive doodad, which will be otherwise shielded with a tube to prevent ambient light activating it. I'm a complete noob when it comes to this shit but if anyone has any ideas if any sort of off the shelf thingy would work do post it up.

It'll be a break beam to start the timer then break beam to stop it type affair, for single car timing.

>>938341
http://www.rcgroups.com/multirotor-beginner-940/
and fuck off with the 3d printer meme, its cheaper, faster and better to just buy a frame.

>>938345
i envy you. a backyard track seems like it would be a lot of fun to get together with your friends and see who can set the fastest time.

>>938351
>i envy you. a backyard track seems like it would be a lot of fun to get together with your friends and see who can set the fastest time.

Unfortunately I only have one friend with RC, and the only other friend I have doesn't get along with the one with the RC... Sadface.

Track is pretty cool though, I posted this video here when I first made it but take a look if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-1sq-_8W3k

>>938351
>and fuck off with the 3d printer meme, its cheaper, faster and better to just buy a frame.

It is easier, cheaper and better to just buy quadcopter, but that is not the point is it.

anyway Thanks for the link

>>938341
Before I spent that much time/effort into it, I'd tell you to go to Walmart/whatever local big box store you have, and buy one of the $30 nanos. See if you actually enjoy flying the little fucker (bigger ones are different, especially if you go 3D, but the little will give you enough of a taste to know whether or not you want to pursue it).

Glad to see there's a /diy/ community for rc. I'm very new to all this stuff, but I really like it so far.

Busy waiting on all sorts of parts right now, a steering assembly for a mini truck

File: 20151231_212555.jpg (436KB, 1874x746px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1874x746px

>build micro quad
>super fun
>flight controller and RX get water damage
>rebuild
>doesnt look like shit anymore

feels good man

>>938209
Nah man, ecalc is legit. Massive database of motors, and performs respectably accurate simulations of power systems so you can choose the best motor/prop combo and know what to expect in terms of thrust and current draw and so forth.

>>938870
good job, Anon. Looks much better.

>>938870
How far can that thing go? Does it have FPV? What is the frequency on the RC? Whats the weight on that thing? What motors do you use?

File: 20160131_150243.jpg (925KB, 1494x2656px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 1494x2656px

>>938982
its got about 1 mile range
yes its got fpv
2.4ghz controls, 5.8 fvp
246 grams with battery
dys 1306 3100kv

its one of many

>>938991
Do you use an app or something for FPV? Can drone be controlled through smart phone and RC receiver in a backpack or something for range and convenience?

>>939220
it isnt for taking pics or anything, heck the thing doesnt even self level. It streams to a pair of goggles i got for it, in analogue for minimal delay, and its hellafun

>>939222
What kind of goggles do you use for it?

Any tips for charging in the field?
I only have 2 Lipos right now. I might just get a few more.

>>939236
When I went to SparkleCon I brought my laptop to charge my drone battery

>>939228
fatsharks are the general goto

>>939345
Fat Shark is old news. Headplay HDs are the shit. Especially for the price tag.

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 9.07.01 pm.png (2MB, 2094x1164px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2094x1164px

>>938991
Noice collection, bro.

Anyone have links to Australian legislation about FPV frequency and power?
I'm guessing the limit is around 5.8ghz 200mw without a license, but I just want to know how low the standards are before I break these dumb laws.


Here's a frame that I cut out of 4.5mm MDF. I look back on it now and know that it's bad. I've since designed much better but have not got them cut out yet. I'll probably end up putting electronics on it anyway.

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 9.06.27 pm.png (2MB, 2086x1176px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2086x1176px

>>940141

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 9.06.42 pm.png (2MB, 2120x1174px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2120x1174px

>>940142

>>940141
If it's anything like the US or Europe (which it probably is; ITU's pretty good at getting RF regulations standardized), then you probably won't find a certified analog VTx above 25 mW. Certified digital/spread-spectrum transmitters (i.e. wifi) are usually permitted to broadcast considerably more power (typically 1 W), but only a handful of FPV systems utilize digital transmission and they generally suffer much more latency and less graceful signal degradation (video will usually freeze without warning instead of gradually degrading).

So yeah, in most countries you technically need a radio license to fly anything but the most entry-level FPV. In practice, nobody gives a shit unless you're being a massive dickbag flying around with poorly-filtered 5-watt amplifiers and interfering with everything.

>>940487
Okay, thank you very much.

That's really helpful

File: P1080842.jpg (410KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1200x801px

Been working on a new shell... Just paint so far, stickers to come later.

File: P1080839.jpg (379KB, 1200x733px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1200x733px

>>940767

>>940487
most of my stuff is 500mw or 200mw, and im UK, zero fucks given

>>940487
Oh, and for anyone interested in (/diy/ing) the digital/wifi/spread-spectrum option, there's a firmware tweak available (here: https://befinitiv.wordpress.com/wifibroadcast-analog-like-transmission-of-live-video-data/) to some off-the-shelf wifi radios that gets rid of all the handshaking bullshit responsible for the freezing and such, and turns it effectively into a one-way radio link with potentially more range and much more graceful signal degradation. And since it's all on the software side and leaves the standard spread-spectrum and collision-avoidance behavior of wifi intact, it SHOULD be legal (or at least, arguable in court) to operate without a radio license. And to top it all off, since it's ultimately an ordinary UDP network connection, it's capable of HD streaming.

Unfortunately, it still isn't exactly up to snuff compared to analog at this point in time. The demonstrated setup requires a Raspberry Pi, the Pi camera and the wifi dongle all installed into the aircraft and powered - bulky and potentially untidy components, to say the least. And the Pi camera itself does not have the best performance for FPV (in my experience, it's highly susceptible to rolling shutter/"jello" artifacts). And latency is still sometimes an issue, if h.264 encoding is used with typical settings (selecting better settings with frequent keyframes and no "look-ahead" compression can fix this, as can employing MJPEG encoding instead at the expense of image quality). Lastly, since wifi typically operates on 2.4 GHz, interference with 2.4 GHz spread-spectrum RC radio equipment is a concern.

>tfw never gonna be as pro as this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQkOoqHm7O8
>tfw never gonna have a qt3.14 like Quin

File: P1080864.jpg (871KB, 1200x1798px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 1200x1798px

>>940772
>>940767
getting closer now...

File: P1080863.jpg (383KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1200x801px

>>942629

>>939518
>Fat Shark is old news.
I still like the Dominator because of the integrated recorder. I already got enough cables and shit wrapped around me.

>>940487
>in most countries you technically need a radio license
The fun really starts when your country only allows ham radio for commuication between at least two individuals. Fucking laws man. Luckily no cops (and even less radio direction finders) on a field in the middle of nowhere.

File: P1080878.jpg (435KB, 1200x811px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1200x811px

>>942630
yet closer still..

>>942899

awesome.

i don't know anything about rc's aside from messing around with a little quadcopter. can anyone tell me how i can get my hands on kit like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX1JC9d2x0s

what are the planes? the controllers? the cams? the goggles? the costs...?

>>944301
>the costs
"a lot"

>>944301
weirdly i decided to look at ski areas on google maps a few hours after watching that video, noticed one called 'canyons', and thought hmm sounds familiar. scrolled east a bit and there it was, the park those two were flying in.

coincidence and a half.

>>938870
>>938991
how much does that thing cost to make?

Anybody have an Estes ProtoX FPV or Hubsan H107D+? I'm considering picking up the camera module for either of those (https://www.hobbyzone.com/este4562.html?gclid=CKj34KSg9MoCFQ6naQodNnYLhA http://www.banggood.com/Hubsan-FPV-X4-Plus-H107D-RC-Quadcopter-Spare-Parts-5_8G-PCBA-Camera-Board-Transmission-Module-p-1028404.html) as a lightweight all-in-one camera+DVR+VTx for micro FPV, but I'd like to know how bad the latency really is while recording first.

File: 1437431855393-P-2847072.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

What are some good Transmitter Telemetry System Controllers for drones for under $100 (preferably around $50). What should I pay attention to when buying drone controller?
Is this any good?
http://www.gearbest.com/rc-quadcopter-parts/pp_216678.html (picture related)

or this one
http://www.gearbest.com/rc-quadcopter-parts/pp_218270.html

File: 20160209_005549.jpg (1MB, 1494x2656px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1494x2656px

>>945316
I dont even wanna think how much i spent all together, probably $8k all together

although since then, ive gained 2 more aircraft

>>946383
Around how much does cost to make a left middle quadcopter on the bottom shelf?

>>946476
only spent $130 on it

ok, im not going to lie, all i want to do... the thing i have wanted to do for the better part of 9 years now, is mount a wireless camera onto an rc car, either inside or on the hood, and drive with it as though its a videogame.

i know in real life i will never be able to drive the way i would like to, i have given up on that, but rc... fuck i could make my own course at will.

anyone with knowledge on how this would work, cost, and the kind of lag i would be working with it would be much appreciated.

the smaller camera the better as ideally, at least from a building the track standpoint, 1:32 or 1:24 is what i want to hit.

>>946488
you need the same sort of gear FPV quads use.

i've never done it before but there are cheap options out there like the quanum fpv bundle from hobbyking, and obviously much more expensive shit too. I've heard mention of digital systems that might be of use one day but for lag reasons analogue is still very much king.

Basically it's a camera, transmitter, (powerd by battery, car supply or standalone) and on the other end you have a reciever and display (again usually powered by a battery). And as far as I can make out from my limited research into the subject for the exact same reason as you, that's it.

If i've fucked up any of this info, more experienced corrections are welcome.

this is the cheap quanum set:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__63646__Quanum_Complete_FPV_Bundle_Set_w_Goggles_5_8GHz_32ch_Video_TX_RX_CP_Antennas_and_Camera_PNF_.html?gclid=CLfXhICY-MoCFVYo0wodKc4BrQ

>>946553
the one thing i'd add is that the wider angle teh camera the better in my mind.

>>938047
OP, is your ecalc membership still good?

I'd kinda like to know what the DYS 1806 2300KV draws with a 6045 on 3s and 4s, or what sort of prop will put it right around 20-22A for each. Right now my mini quad has these motors and the BL-20As for ESCs, and the whole setup seems to just be far too conservative - nothing ever even gets warm except the battery. I'm not too worried about cooking the motors since I wouldn't mind replacing them with 2206s in the future but I'd hate to smoke one of the ESCs.

>>946488
>the smaller camera the better as ideally, at least from a building the track standpoint, 1:32 or 1:24 is what i want to hit.
One thing I've found with RC cars is that the smaller they are, the harder they are to drive at their limit. Gravity doesn't scale down with size, so even though your speeds and turn radii might decrease with reduced scale, your accelerations (longitudinal and lateral) will remain constant regardless of size. This makes racecar-style driving - that is, driving hard at the limit of traction - very challenging.

How hard would it be to modify a flying quad thingy to relay real time video to me from ~500 yards, but ALSO carry a loud speaker that can be heard clearly from ~20ft in the air, with a bright 800+ lumens light that can be toggled from the control station?

I have property that I rigged some alarms up to, but I would like to have a recon drone to go check on alerts.

Not including budget, how difficult are we talking about here?

>>946841
http://i.imgur.com/kReYD2C.png
http://i.imgur.com/MDdkdpO.png
http://i.imgur.com/hkJKbes.png
http://i.imgur.com/lEKvD62.png
http://i.imgur.com/xcSp42H.png
http://i.imgur.com/HSn7BRs.png
http://i.imgur.com/Egd8gFG.png

not sure if i fucked up something.
frame size doesnt seem to affect anything.

>>946855
i am very interested in this idea. you could use a cheap 100w led that puts out around 8k lumens or something less powerful. controling the light wouldnt be a problem.
im not sure how much a speaker would weigh or how much power it would draw but i dont think it would be a big problem.
do some research on the speaker and the rest shouldn't be hard.(i found this: https://www.digikey.com/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/PUI_668/PDF/PUI_speaker_power_distance.pdf?redirected=1)

its pretty much like building a normal multirotor with a few extra gimmicks.
whats your budget?

>>946843
oh, i'm well aware, however you get a camera mounted driver side on one of those cars and you could go a "to scale" 60-120mph and have it feel amazing.

basicly, i don't need to push it 100% all the time, especially if i get a driver side view of the track.

>>946855
>>946865

i have some ultrafire cree leds, if i remember right they are either 200 lumen or just under 1000 with the right battery, i honestly forget, they were cheap as fuck too, my 3 mode led cost 8$ and my 1 mode cost 3$ and it shoots a beam around 50-150 yards depending on charge, i bring up my led light because it's probably less than an ounce in total weight.

rigging it up to a controller, that may be a bit more difficult as i can only think of manual ways to turn it on, so some ingenuity would be needed but doable.

as for the video... im looking into that too, but you are on your own as of now... if i find something out in my searching ill let you know.

>>946859
Wait, where is thrust? I guess the multirotor version doesn't explicitly show static thrust?
I'm not concerned with frame details, Im only interested in powertrain performance.

In any case, it looks like nothing I do will make those motors draw 20A even on 4s, so I might as well go ahead with the 6045s or at least 6040s. Thanks for your help.

>>945206
abduct her pls. will pay in replacement props.

>>946865
>you could use a cheap 100w led

Be aware that most of the 'cheap' 100W LEDs are junk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKgPLeJ79Q

They also require substantial heatsinking, which would be hugely counter-productive to keeping quad weight down.

You'd be much better off with XM-L T6 or similar.

File: DSCN0899.jpg (228KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 900x675px

Spent today watching Flite Test & rebuilding the ZMR250 I put together badly a couple months back then never took outside because I didn't trust any of it. Now I actually trust it & look forward to crashing it straight into the ground tomorrow if it's not raining :)

File: 2000px-US-FederalAviationAdmin-Seal.svg.png (489KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 2000x2000px

When did you guys apply for your RC licenses? I just did mine the other day!

>>949642
>>949711
>>949715
faa plz go

>>949618
so you are back?

>>949642
gay

How would I go on about measuring battery endurance properly?

I got an octacopter loaded with a 4s, 10,000 mah battery and I want to know its limits.

I've tested it up to 6-7 minutes at ~40 meters or so above the ground, and that's enough bring the battery voltage from 16,80v to 14,9v which is the limit on these batteries or so I've heard.

What confuses me is the fact that my controller estimates mah draw from the battery, and it never goes past 50% of the 10,000 mah, yet, the voltage drops anyway.

Any help or tips would be appreciated.

>>950070
>What confuses me is the fact that my controller estimates mah draw from the battery, and it never goes past 50% of the 10,000 mah, yet, the voltage drops anyway.
Your controller might be wrong. A current sensor is the only option to know for sure while in the air. Models like https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10644 can don't add much weight and be read by common OSD firmwares like MWOSD. If the estimation of your FC can be calibrated (often called "virtual current sensor" or something like that) you can also test on the ground with a current clamp and calibrate to that. I have an Eagletree Vector with integrated current sensor and even that was way off and needed to be calibrated.
Another reason might be the temperature. I don't know where you are, but it's winter in the northern hemisphere right now. And like all chemical reactions, the ones in our LiPos are influenced by temperature. They reach their rated capacity at 20°C. At 0°C you might already be looking at 50% capacity. And at -20°C it's basically dead.
It might also be cheap chinese crap where you have to substract 25% from the C rating and the capacity. For example the Turnigy nano-tech 65C 2200mAh ones are actually 45C.

>14,9v
The problem is:
When under load, not resting, down to 3V for a cell->12V for your pack is fine. However if you are hovering at let's say 3,2V/cell, a burst of full throttle can send it down to 2,7V/cell and your voltage sensor might not be quick enough to catch it so you never see it happening. But this is how people kill batteries.
So you have capacity reserves, but in practice it's hard to utilize them.
This is why people compromise on something like 3,7V/cell->14,8V. It's not the actual chemical limit.
Personally I fly down to 14V on my 4S packs but I don't go hard on the throttle anymore below 15V because I fly 2208-200KV motors which can draw current spikes above 100A when going from low to full throttle.

>>950070
3.7v per cell (14.8v) is the nominal voltage (i.e. voltage at 50% charge) of a Li-Po with no load (or at least minimal load). The 10,000 mAh mark probably corresponds to more like 3.0v to 3.3v per cell cutoff. So pretty much, using the cutoff voltage that you're using, you're only really consuming about half of your battery's charge, and could double your flight time if you really needed to. (the 14.9v reading, is that at rest or under load?) However, since LiPos can suffer battery memory issues when overly-discharged, it's advisable to not make a habit of using 100% of your battery's nominal capacity, especially if flying a quadcopter which is incapable of gliding and must land with some energy reserve.

Now, another factor to consider is discharge rate and internal resistance. The higher the current/C rate you draw through your batteries, the less voltage they actually deliver to the external leads due to internal resistance. For high-discharge applications I will generally use a lower voltage cutoff (say, 3.2v per cell under load) so I can still use the better part of my battery's capacity; usually even after the cutoff the voltage returns to 3.5-3.7v per cell. For long-endurance low-discharge applications, I use 3.4-3.5v per cell straight and it doesn't generally rebound that much once the current/load is relieved.
>>950110
>However if you are hovering at let's say 3,2V/cell, a burst of full throttle can send it down to 2,7V/cell and your voltage sensor might not be quick enough to catch it so you never see it happening. But this is how people kill batteries.
Meh, I don't think that's exactly right. I've seen substantial voltage drops like this on some of my highest-discharge applications and never had the battery just suddenly quit on me for a momentary voltage drop. But I have had cells go bad after being over-discharged beyond their normal capacity.

>>950241
>just suddenly quit on me for a momentary voltage drop.
Of course they don't suddenly quit. But you take a few mAh capacity off.

>>950250
Maybe, but that's not what I'm talking about. I've over-discharged LiPos more than I'd like to admit, and while most have been recoverable, a few times I've actually outright killed cells this way, such that the individual cell itself drops to 0 and will not take a charge anymore (once with a brand-new pack with only 3 cycles on it). However, I've never been flying along, banging the sticks and had a battery do this just from a momentary <3v/cell voltage sag.

>>950304
Well and I wasn't talking about what you're talking about.
I was just explaining why people use less than the theoretical low of 3V as a cutoff.

File: 6wheel1.jpg (35KB, 600x299px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x299px

I need a very large (2kw continuous) sensored BLDC. I haven't been able to find any for under $170, which is my go kart motor budget. Does anybody have a suggestion? Alternatively, can anybody give me a substitute/knock off for the discontinued Turnigy C80/100? Does anybody know where I could buy one used?

>>949642
Wont do it. Fuck'em ill fly my drone and not give a shit. If they want to regulate them they can come and do it themselves...

>>950309

Why does it have to be sensored?

In any event, you can add your own sensors. They're dirt cheap.

>>950309
>sensored
Why?
>I haven't been able to find any for under $170, which is my go kart motor budget.
Is that JUST the motor? ESC excluded?
>Alternatively, can anybody give me a substitute/knock off for the discontinued Turnigy C80/100?
Well, that'd be the CA80: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__14426__Turnigy_CA80_160kv_Brushless_Outrunner_50_80cc_Eq_.html
Alternatively the Suppo 7035 is another low-budget 80cc equivalent.

File: DSCN0905.jpg (216KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 900x675px

>>949618
>>950029
Just got back from the park, flew 2x batteries, didn't lose it, didn't fall apart in mid air, didn't even break any props. Didn't really do anything but try to hover & a bit of walking the dog, all in self levelling mode, but I figured slow & steady is the best.

>>950565
i always recommend acro/rate over self leveling, as you dont have to fight the gyro in turns etc.

>>942899
thats pretty sexy

>>950628
I know, I have a mode switch set up on my transmitter to change between attitude/rate, but today I was literally just practising getting the thing off the ground & trying to remember what the two sticks do, not really much turning going on yet :3

are the cheapo ~$20 mini copters good for getting into this hobby?

>>950976
i own a hubsan x4 which is great, costs like £30 all in

>>950628
I have always found self leveling to be much easier than acro while line of sight. In FPV, I do agree acro is much better.

>>950565
I flew my ZMR-250 a couple days ago, started with FPV for three minutes of my timer then noticed a pedestrian entering the area I was flying in and decided it'd be best to fly the last minute off LOS. Turned out not to be a good idea after all, as I lost orientation and crashed pretty hard (deformed my battery and apparently damaged my HD camera). If I had been using angle or horizon it would have been fine.
Of course, I also fly helis (even micro ones) LOS and I do just fine without auto-level to cover my ass... why do these racing quads all need to be visually-ambiguous, black-colored gnats with no good orientation reference?
>>950976
Sort of. I do recommend getting one just because they're a total blast for the money, but there aren't very many that allow you to take the training wheels off and try rate mode. Also the radios that come with most of these toy-grade RTF quads are generally proprietary and thus incompatible with other hobby-grade models you may later acquire.

>>950565
DAL props?

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>938047

>>951255
>why do these racing quads all need to be visually-ambiguous, black-colored gnats with no good orientation reference?

I totally get what you mean - I've only really flown it pointing away from me so far, because I'm really intimidated by how disorientating I find it when actually yawing away from my own frame of reference. I guess it'll come with practice though?

>>951266
Diatone.

>>951255
>why do these racing quads all need to be visually-ambiguous, black-colored gnats with no good orientation reference?
Because most people only fly FPV.
LEDs strips with two different colors on the underside of the front/back or left/right arms are often used if people want to fly LOS but aren't as good as quadmovr yet.

Is there a good rule-of-thumb to determine how heavy a fixed-wing model can be while still being hand-launchable?

are the motors wired in parallel i.e current is the same for all but voltage is split between them? If this is true then if I have a 6S 22.2 V battery in a octocopter the voltage to each motor would be 2.8 V and if the kv rating of the motor is 300 this corresponds to an RPM of 840?

>>952634
>are the motors wired in parallel i.e current is the same for all but voltage is split between them?
No, not in parallel. All the motors would be sharing the same voltage, and splitting the current.

>>952637
yes sorry parallel is sharing voltage not current. So are multirotors wired series or parallel? looks like parallel to me

>>952673
parallel.

>>952673
The PDB or wiring harness places the ESCs in parallel, as well as any other components that need VBAT input (i.e. BEC/regulator, LEDs, perhaps VTx, etc). The only series connections you might find on a quadcopter are stuff that you as an ordinary hobbyist normally wouldn't screw with (i.e. multiple cells inside your battery pack, logic-level voltage dividers inside of various electronics, etc.).

>>952676
>>952684
thanks so this means the RPM of the motors with a 22.2 V lipo attached is 300kv times 22.2 V or 6660 RPM?

>>952739
The no-load RPM, yeah.
With props attached the RPM won't be quite as high.

How often do you goys discharge your LIPOs?

>>950110
Want to know a neat trick? Find a high farad super cap and your voltage will be MUCH less likely to have drops

>>953410
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Kemet/ALS40A104KF025/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMsh%252b1woXyUXj1M9%2fRbxVM31a8fLFWcoBQM%3d

>>953387
Only when I actually use them. I think I've only done about two controlled & monitored discharge cycles ever, to diagnose packs I suspected of going bad.
>>953410
You also get gnarly sparks every time you plug in your ESC.

>>953387
When I use them. Afterwards I charge them to half voltage for storage, then to full shorty before I use them again.
This way I also notice if a pack is on its way out because I also balance for the half-charge and will notice if a cell has drifted before I use them again.

>>953387
>goys
oy vey

>>946382
I own the 9x, It is only good if you upgrade the software to er9x or opentx.

>>951255
I find it easier to maintain orientation if the multicopter is constantly moving.

>>954720
I was moving.

One other factor which I hadn't considered that may have contributed to the crash was the fact that I had recently jacked up my rates by a good amount. It was still workable FPV with immediate visual feedback, but I think at some point just before the crash I kinda reverted partially to muscle memory and underestimated my heading change, leading me to assume the wrong orientation for what silhouette I could still make out.

>>951255
many small nano are now able to be flashed, I did it for my H8 mini and I can adjust settings and use rate mode on it now, pretty cool (read about it here http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2512604)

>>949642
Michael HueHueHuerta pls go, I bet you don't even like planes.

[spoiler]I can't get a third class medical without going through a battery of exams because I'm on Lexapro, yes I mad.[/spoiler]

I've been completely out of the RC car scene for about a decade, but I drove a friend's Revo the other day and now I've got the itch. But I'm kinda leaning towards an electric brushless this time around, and I'm not exactly ready to throw down $500+ on an E-Revo or the like. Any recommendations for a low-budget brushless truck, or a cheap but good chassis I could easily convert to brushless?

>>942013
Pretty sure I could outfly him.

Mad jealous of that butter-smooth tune though. And his gf ofc

File: Failed_Turns.jpg (750KB, 2159x1373px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 2159x1373px

I ran into an issue while building a Skywalker 1900 frame with Pixhawk autopilot, I'm planning to use this UAV for mapping missions with a cheapo S110 camera.

From the looks of it, it seems that the surface controls (flaps) on this plane aren't setup correctly, but I still haven't gotten to the core of the issue yet, if I inspect the movement of the flap servos visually, it seems that both are properly working and they seem to be aligned when traveling up and down. However, the plane behaves very abnormally when flying in AUTO and Manual modes, the turns it performs are way too "lazy" and I have a hard time performing turns in manual mode, since I need a large space to perform turns.

pic related is more descriptive of this problem, I noticed that it is harder to make turns toward one side than the other when flying manually, but I started compensating for it with the rudder heavily while flying it in manual mode.

Does anyone have any clue as to what could be the source of this issue? I would be grateful to hear any tips or pointers in the right direction.

Max pleb here, bought a Phantom 3 used.

Really fun thing, really stable and pretty much hard to crash.

What fun stuff can I do with this? I already used it to deliver a birthday present, and attached a headlamp onto it and zoomed around.

Aside from taking gorgeous video, what do?

>>958587
Unfortunately the APM auto-mode waypoint nav logic kinda sucks at this stuff. Between waypoints it will try to converge on the line, but as it approaches a waypoint it will not change course at all until it reaches the waypoint, thus causing it to overshoot the new course line after passing the WP. It will not turn early and "cut the corner" to align with the new course, as one might if they were flying manually.

But even so, your grid seems way too tight for the airplane to navigate even if the autopilot worked better (or if you were flying manually). I recommend either widening your grid or rearranging it into a zamboni/racetrack pattern so the turn radius can be larger; and perhaps adding additional waypoints off the end to help encourage the autopilot to begin its turn sooner.

Also, the Auto-mode controls may not be coming anywhere near the turn radius potential of the airframe itself either. If you haven't already, I would start with an autotune session, and if it's still not turning as tight as it (safely) could then try reducing TRIM_ARSPD_CM and maybe increasing LIM_ROLL_CD.

Also, if you MUST stick to a tight, non-racetrack grid, it can be immensely helpful to reorient the pattern so that the grid is perpendicular to the prevailing wind and the turns are into the wind, not with it.

>>938341
If you don't know how to fly one just buy a cheap one first before you build anything. Thank me later.

is naze32 good at flying fast in altitude hold or should i use some other flight controller.. i would use pixhawk but its expensive and was told its shit in acro/manual but good with gps stuff...

>>958638
Try FPV, then sell it and buy something more fun like a racing quad

>>959590
Never used the Naze32 full, but I don't see why not.

Pixhawk seemed fine to me in acro (certainly better than the KK2 or APM), but I only ever used it on a Flamewheel 450 and a couple fixed-wings.

tap

i tried a quadcopter simulator on my galaxy S6 and every time it felt weird. i will never understand how people fly these things, it is just weird

>>949711
>fly below 400 feet
You cant keep me on this planet, Im allowed to leave if I want
>keep the aircraft in sight
lol nope, fpv is good enough for me
>remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft
bitches dont know about my rc laser pointer
>dont fly within 5 miles of an airport
why would I do that, airports arnt that special.
>dont fly near people or stadiums
theres people everywhere.
>dont fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 ibs
so I cant fly your mothers stomach?

>>961033
>why would I do that, airports arnt that special.
5 miles is quite a ways, especially in urban areas. Pretty much everywhere I fly is within 5 miles of an airport. Fortunately my primary field is a sanctioned AMA site and has a standing agreement with the airport.
>>961021
The touchscreen interface is balls for RC. Tilt control is only slightly better, but you can only use it for two axes. I have a Parrot Bebop+Skycontroller and I also have PicaSim installed on my phone, and let me tell you, controlling an aircraft with a touchscreen is WAY weirder than using a proper transmitter (or even a tiny cheapo one like the Estes ProtoX tx).

>>961077
yeah i thought that too. i have had a quad before but i got rid of it cause i had many crashes and i thought i would try get back into it so i downloaded a sim to use for practice acro style flying but i could never pick it up without overloading my brain on my galaxy.

>>961077
>>961033
oh yea thats what I was going to say, I forgot so I just went with my post.
>dont fly withing 5 miles of an airport
Fuck you faa, then don't train newfag pilots how to fly over top of my house, in the middle of the city.
Pieces of shit are always flying out of the airport, into the city, doing a loop, then flying back to the airport.

File: 20150327_142010.jpg (4MB, 3303x1858px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3303x1858px

>>961033
the only thing that triggers me from that post is the do not interfere

i fly high sometimes, fpv and that, but never in a way that can harm proper aircraft, if i hear a helicopter or anything i look where it is, and stay lower.....

>>963054
>i fly high sometimes, fpv and that, but never in a way that can harm proper aircraft, if i hear a helicopter or anything i look where it is, and stay lower.....
Doesn't matter. Any sighting these days will be counted as a "near miss." The damn bastards are out for blood.

And this is coming from someone who flies full-size helicopters, too. Birds concern me a hell of a lot more than models do. But unfortunately my attitude is definitely in the minority within the aviation community. It's just irrational.

>>938047
I've always kinda wanted to get into RC submarines so I can explore the swampy creeks around me. but from my understanding, RC subs are one of the hardest forms of RC related stuff, mainly because radio waves and water don't mesh.. and the whole sinking and rising action is kinda a mother too.

Plus the FAA isn't gonna cuck me.
honestly the FAA only got into the RC community because all this customer grade quad copter shit.. up until quad copters where even a thought in the main stream market, the RC community in the US was mainly untouched and left the fuck alone..

The FAA thing enraged me and I've never even flown an RC thing in my life. [launched plenty of rockets tho] mainly because even from someone not even in that community could tell you that the rules are unjust and unfair and is going to both open the doors for more strict rules later on to be tacked on. and the way they are written, they basically don't allow you to fly anywhere. from a court standpoint, the rules basically ban quad copters everywhere besides maybe a fucking desert.

>Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles

Surrounding obstacles - Trees, buildings, any sort of cell tower. easily taken out of context because there's no fucking definition on surrounding obstacles.

>Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times

Unless you've got super hawk eyes balls you pretty much only have like maybe a 200 foot range. to fly in.

>Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations

Manned aircraft fly into my RCing operations, but its MY fault THEY flew into MY area. and basically as others have already said here, a pilot see's a RC flying, they report it because they are fucking assholes, like crying to their mommys because your big bro pushed you into a wall.

>>963070
Cont.

>Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying

where I live 5 miles is a huge ass range. because there are lots of major airports, and dunno if that falls in for the smaller airports either. but if so theres lot of those too! again limiting your area of freedom.

>Don't fly near people or stadiums

here's the big one. Basically can set you up for any legal action against you, because there are 318.9 million people in the US as of now.. the chances of not being near a "person" again limits you to a fucking desert.

>Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs

because rounding to 60lbs was so fucking hard.

>Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft – you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

Again, careless and reckless is not defined. Its easily for a judge in a civil court to say because you were flying 200 feet over someones house for a mere 2 seconds, while that persons kids where outside in the pool. that you were careless and reckless.

This whole ordeal is a steaming pile of shit, and I don't even fly RC to be able to tell you how people will manipulate the shit out of this wording to get what they fucking want.

>>963070
>radio waves and water don't mesh
Most ROVs (both professional and DIY) are tethered. Have you considered that option?
You could also have a radio mast or tethered buoy to act as a radio relay. Or if neither of those are viable, you could try programming your sub to autonomously surface (or at least rise to "periscope depth") whenever signal is lost.
>the whole sinking and rising action is kinda a mother too.
Doesn't have to be. You don't really need full-fledged ballast tanks; if your buoyancy is neutral enough (but ideally slightly positive) you can control depth entirely with thrusters or dive planes (depending on sub configuration). Most ROVs actually work that way.

And would you drive your sub visually, or through FPV or perhaps some other method of navigation? Come to think of it, role-playing submarine captain, navigating solely by pilotage with a compass, charts and an FPV periscope would be pretty fucking badass, though perhaps not in a creek.

File: It's easy.jpg (49KB, 331x275px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 331x275px

>>963075
>>963070
>Tfw live in Canada and don't have to deal with this shit.

File: 1.jpg (181KB, 2100x1350px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 2100x1350px

>>963070
>a pilot see's a RC flying, they report it because they are fucking assholes
Not that guy, but there is actually proof for that. The AMA analysed the actual reports from pilots that were the basis of the FAA statistic of “near misses” where "drones" are at fault.
What they found was:
>Some sightings appear to involve people flying responsibly and within the FAA’s current recreational guidelines
>Not every sighting or report was a “close call.” Many were just that – sightings. Only a small fraction was legitimately reported as “near misses” or “near mid-air collisions"
>It’s not just uninformed consumers causing problems; the data includes several reports of authorized or unauthorized public entities and commercial operators flying
>Many things in the air – from balloons and birds to model rockets and mini blimps – are mistaken for, or reported as, drone sightings even when they are not. One pilot in Minnesota even reported seeing something that “resembled a dog.

I mean, WTF is up with that last bit.
It seems like "drone" is the he new UFO. But it's a scary new thing, so instad of UFO they just say "drone" when seeing random shit they can't make out, and suddenly they're not crazy anymore but everyone takes their side.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/docs/AMAAnalysis-Closer-Look-at-FAA-Drone-Data_091415.pdf


Meanwhile, the govt. is also up to no good: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/03/16/senate-bill-could-ground-home-built-drones-no-exceptions-for-hobbyists-or-students/#66c8c479a6f2


This shit's getting outlawed faster than skateboarding in the 80ies. Why the fuck can't we have nice things.

>>963173
The problem with tethers is all the grasses and sticks. And when i researched the thing i wanted to do was to compress the air inside the ROV to raise and sink it. Was kinda expensive for the compressors but not too much. I also wanted FPV so i can take pictures of fish. But also have a main camera that did the picture taking.

>>963950
>The problem with tethers is all the grasses and sticks.
How dense? In some ways a tether might actually help in this regard, because you can explore more adventurously and if you get stuck you have the option of pulling it out by it's tether.
Here's a video of a guy playing with an RC sub amongst some weeds, with a tethered buoy serving as a radio relay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhrr89HSV8I
>And when i researched the thing i wanted to do was to compress the air inside the ROV to raise and sink it.
Why? I could understand wanting to do that just for the cool-factor and the engineering challenge, but it sounds to me like you'd rather not deal with the challenge anyways. So what's wrong with a simple alternative like a vertical diving thruster to propel the sub upwards and downwards? Is there something in particular you want a static dive system for over a dynamic one?
>Was kinda expensive for the compressors but not too much.
The depths and pressures involved with RC submarines aren't all that high. You don't need a SCUBA-tier air tank or even CO2-tier pressures. 30 psig should be plenty to evacuate a ballast tank. Cheap plastic hoses and valves would be plenty strong enough. And you don't even necessarily need a dedicated, consumable compressed air tank at all. One proven option is to use a simple water pump to transfer water in and out of an internal ballast tank, without venting any air (seen about halfway down this page: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1104273). Since no air is vented and the air remains contained (and compressed) within the ballast tank, there is nothing to replenish between outings except charging your batteries.

>>964315
crap, forgot to add text.

Built a new Mixuko, I should probably buy a smaller reciever.