Surprisingly the Daily Mail has a much more extensive write up of the vehicle and drone [0], along with plenty of photos. Normally I'd avoid linking to the Mail!
Jag's SVO group does some remarkable vehicles from the gorgeous F-Type Project 7, to bullet proof Range Rovers.
I'm sure there's a point in on the adoption graph of any technology which should be labeled as "Used to generate PR buzz". Second Life, 3D printers, etc. My gut feeling is that it comes just before the mass realization that something isn't ever going to be mainstream.
Maybe I"m missing something, but what's the purpose of launching from a roof box? It just seems like a gimmick. I can launch a multi-rotor from the roof of my car, but that's hardly news-worthy.
Second, why a quad-copter? Anyone that knows anything about multirotors knows that a quad-coptor has multiple single points of failure, where a hex or octo can be controlled with single or multiple failures respectively.
Seems like they just slapped a hobby drone on the roof of a car "because marketing". It doesn't deserve to be on HN.
I think the idea is you can be driving around and launch and recover it without leaving the vehicle. While one person is driving, another navigating, another operating a radio, a fourth person can operate a drone without interfering with any of them.
That seems useful to me. I guess it must be useful to the Red Cross as well since they're using it. Do you have more experience in search and rescue than they do?
> "because marketing"
Who are you quoting with these quotation marks? That's not why they say they've done it. If it's your opinion don't make it look like you're quoting someone else.
Your argument is weak, and clearly you recognise that, as the to appeals to authority, and mistaken [1 8a] questioning of something as trivial as the use of quotation marks are a poor attempt to distract from the question.
No I didn't appeal to authority, I appealed to the fact that they had used the tool and nobody in these comments had. That's concrete relevant experience in the topic at hand, not just authority.
Why is that cool? Many cars are made from wholly or partially recycled raw materials. The only thing that is hard to recycle is certain plastics but future recycling is already part of the design phase of almost all vehicles.
Not OP, but my understanding is that aluminum paneling is uncommon enough and supposedly superior due to lighter weight than conventional steel paneling. Perhaps the major draw is aluminum paneling, with the 50% recycled material a nice extra?
That's reflected in the vehicle price, aluminum vehicles are substantially more expensive (and more expensive to work on after an accident) than steel.
Aluminum is extremely well recyclable, pretty much everything you buy that is made of aluminum will have a substantial portion of recycled material in it.
It's pure marketing to make it seem as though that's special somehow. The whole idea of something like an SUV being somehow green is a nice example of how 'green marketing' can be ridiculous.
"Magnets lock the drone in place while the Discovery is login, ...",
"... extending the Red Cross staff’s ability o cover terrain beyond ...",
"... partnership Land Rover has had with the Red Cross across the glob, ..."
I was going to go and post a link to Paul Graham's "Submarine" article[0], but instead, I have to ask: What ever happened to editing? I know it's fashionable to be first with the news these days whether you know the full story or not, but this is just terrible. I'd be ashamed if it were my name on the article.
(Any typos in the above are a clever use of irony ;-) )
Couldn't agree more. Did the author not even bother to run this through a basic spell check? Even my browser will highlight words in a text-entry field that are misspelled.
Drones are nice and all, but using a drone as a dash-cam, that's going to be expensive as hell since the drone would have to have a top speed equal to the top speed of the vehicle. Weather conditions, powering the device, obstacle detection.
A drone with a camera that could be deployed when required rather than permanently could be useful for parking manoeuvres, extra visibility when overtaking, checking out why traffic has stopped, and so on.
Drop a buoy with a sensor to reflect off the bottom of the "Creek" or different bands ultrasound/vs other frequencies to tell ground vs. Water I don't know.
Haha that sounds complicated. It could just be a little bouy that you drop with a winch (this isn't complicated?) and it's pretty much a simple ir-range finder type deal. I just don't know the water would play out. Use a lower-frequency like the submarines do haha.
I saw an overlanding video that showed some stunning overhead views of the vehicles traipsing through Canada and now I'm obsessed with getting a Mavic Pro this year to use when I'm offroading.
Unfortunately I suspect that, even with auto-follow, using a drone while driving off-road will prove too much of a hassle. I'll probably need a passenger.
This is a bit of a wall of text, but please don't ever try to fly a mavic with your hands off the controls.
I love my mavic, but I feel DJI's advertising is super misleading and a bit immoral in the fact that they imply you can just press a button and make it follow you while you put away the controller and do your thing. The reality is that the detect and avoid capabilities of consumer MAVs are laughable.
The reality is this: the current generation of consumer drones aren't anywhere close to attaining safe autonomy at low altitudes or urban areas. They can also do a lot more damage than you'd expect; those flimsy plastic props carry enough energy to cut you to the bone no problem. You're legally required to maintain direct control of any MAV you operate, more importantly, it's really irresponsible not to. Things like the mavic seem like they're really predictable and easy to fly, and 99% of the time they are at this point, but at some stage it WILL have a gps glitch or experience gps occlusion, and it will fuck shit up unless you intervene. I'm really uncomfortable with a whole wave of people buying stuff like the Mavic today and flying them near other people or property with 0 training on what to do if the hand-holdy autonomy fails - which it will at some stage.
If you want to break the law and experiment will hands-off operation, please at least do it somewhere far away from populated areas and really far away from airports. Better yet, just don't.
I was planning to stop completely and operate the clone to check ahead about water-crossings, mud, bulldust, loose scree, things over the crest of steep hills and dunes and other hazards.
Jag's SVO group does some remarkable vehicles from the gorgeous F-Type Project 7, to bullet proof Range Rovers.
[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4288250/Red-Cross-he...