Anyone here a drone expert or know any good articles on building your own drone (quad copter), I want to get to know the basics first then understand how to build one from products that I can already buy.
>>975061
>>974249
this is you, isn't it?
ask the US government haha
>>975076
What a great idea!
What kind, exactly?
http://blog.oscarliang.net/
This site is extremely helpful if you're looking to build a race quad. I'd also recommend Flite Test for RC stuff in general (i.e.: http://flitetest.com/articles/anycopter-hub-build)
Not OP here
Can I build my own quad as good as a Walkera Runner 210
or should i save the headaches and just buy a quad ready made
I already have a Cheerson CX20 and got my hands a little dirty by adding an OSD etc, but I want to learn more
>>975368
dont buy ready made plz.
its not that difficult.
>>975481
Would you do a 250 or 210 build?
Can you recommend a guide either way
btw why are goggles so expensive http://www.banggood.com/Wholesale-FPV-System--c-2734.html
>>975494
goggles are expensive because the screens and lenses used to make them decent were only invented in the last few years and are STILL hard to source at cost
see also why there was no Oculus meme in the 90s
>>975061
>I want to understand
Read all of the RCGroups all the time
>>975061
Check out hak5's drone building series its on JewTube
>>975061
I'd recommend deciding what are you gonna do with the drone first. Photography? Videography? Speed flying? Acrobatic flying? These will all determine what built you should go for. Without a plan, you'll be wasting money.
>>976943
on unnecessary/over-powered/under-powered parts.
Not OP, but I'd like to make a small drone about the size as one of those walkera ladybirds as an FPV trainer. What is recommended for this?
I've heard you can get pcb quadcopters about this size, that are almost ready to go
If anyone is still interested, I'm fairly knowledgeable about multi rotors and I have built them before. AMA.
>>975368
>Can I build my own quad as good as a Walkera Runner 210
Possible? Absolutely. Will it save you money? Not really.
>or should i save the headaches and just buy a quad ready made
That's entirely for you to decide. It is a helpful learning experience, but in hindsight I kind of wish I had gone with a Nighthawk Pro 280 instead - would've been just as good as the quad I built and even cheaper to boot. But that's me.
>>975494
>>975760
Don't get the binocular-type goggles (Fatsharks, Skyzones, etc.). They're expensive and there's absolutely no point to it with FPV. Barely anyone does 3D FPV, and for the few that do, the distances involved are too far for stereoscopy to make a noticeable difference anyways. It gives rise to IPD and diopter focus issues which are a total bitch if you're sharing goggles with anyone. The eyecups are uncomfortable and fog up like crazy. The cramped layout requires the manufacturer to use smaller, more expensive, special-snowflake displays (as anon pointed out) which have narrower FoVs and poorer visual quality; not only that, but the goggles need TWO of them, hence substantially more cost. Seriously, fuck that noise.
By comparison, you can pick up single-display goggles, sans VRx, for as little as $30 (see the Quanum DIY kit), and they already have a FoV rivaling top-of-the-line $600 Fatsharks. Spring for some Headplay HDs like I did (which rival bottom-barrel Fatsharks in cost, btw) and you've got Oculus Rift tier FoV and immersion. And on top of that, IPD headaches are gone, focal problems are almost eliminated, and they do. not. fog. up. ever. When I got my Headplays, the difference from my Fatsharks was night and day, and everyone I let try the Headplays is amazed by them and nobody has ever complained to me about them being uncomfortable or awkward or out of focus. I cannot express how much I love my Headplays, and I'm tempted to get a set of the cheap Quanums as a peripheral display for others to spectate through.
>>978265
>Don't get the binocular-type goggles (Fatsharks, Skyzones, etc.).
Yeh not gonna lie though, I prefer the Fatshark style because it's 'cooler'
Can you recommend a headset which doesn't look like a fridge strapped to the face?
>>978265
btw what size would you get?
I prefer straight line speed and gentler handling over crazy turning, so 250 or 280 right?
All I've flown before is Phantom-style camera quads
>>978358
>Yeh not gonna lie though, I prefer the Fatshark style because it's 'cooler'
Right up until the moment you put them on, anyways.
>Can you recommend a headset which doesn't look like a fridge strapped to the face?
In good faith? No. They're all shit by comparison.
>>978360
>I prefer straight line speed and gentler handling over crazy turning, so 250 or 280 right?
It really makes almost no difference. An RX122 is every bit as fast as a 3S 280 race quad. I would consider what kind of equipment you want it to carry first. If you want to haul a gopro then you'll probably want something in the 250-280 range. If you're happy with a Mobius, 180-250. If you're happy with a micro FPV setup only and no recording, a micro quad seems pretty great. Just make sure your motors and props are well-matched and you can't really go wrong. And if you're really crazy about speed, I would make sure your frame can accommodate a good lot of camera tilt.
>All I've flown before is Phantom-style camera quads
Stagility/horizon mode is your friend. You're gonna wanna work on getting comfortable enough to use rate/attitude mode in the future. Also work on that throttle control - you're not going to have a barometer helping you out anymore.
there are HUNDREDS of places to look, start with fucking google.
ive built a couple
Why weren't quads around as a hobby 10 or 15 years ago?
Because of the flight controller tech, battery tech? Or was the technology there but the market had not developed?
>>978826
lipos, brushless outrunners, and flight controllers are all rather new.
I used to fly my planes with NiCad batteries and brushed motors. Early multi rotor platforms used individual gyro units for each axis. Those were originally ment for single rotor helicopters.
>>978826
The flight controller. Quads are a terrible, inefficient and unstable configuration, whose only advantages are simplicity and robustness (and I guess clarity of view for FPV). They only became possible through the miniaturization and cost reduction of electronics required for artificial stability.
>>978833
Holy fuck, that thing must've been expensive. IIRC a good heading-lock gyro like that used to cost around $80 EACH back before quadcopters really started getting big. Crazy to think you can do the same thing on three different axes with a $20 control board now.
>>975494
Get the quanum fpv headset from hobbyking
>>979261
>Get the quanum fpv headset from hobbyking
I'm gonna be a retard and get the Sky Zone V2s
They have diversity which is good for my long range CX20 plus a 3D camera to stick on a race quad
Is this guide legit and/or slightly outdated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jbpwqCCVbs
also what transmitter
>>979310
you are making a mistake. the 3d aspect is 100% useless and you are better off using a quanum which you can just pair with the receiver of your choice.
>>979332
You can buy kits of a near-complete 250 racing quad for $80, the only things missing are battery ($15) and transmitter. There also are some kits that come with decent transmitters around $120-$140. This is on aliexpress.
>>978914
>$80 each
Try $40 for a set of Esky ones.
What happened to the rc general?
>goggles what the hell are you people talking abo
>>979310
So how practical are these for zooming in on ladies
>>980841
depends, do you want to be silent/stealth? you need to go to about 150-200m before you can not notice the screaming motors. if you are going up high you need telephoto lens with precise gimbal and it would work.
honestly i would not bother unless you have lots of $$$
speaking from experience... i tried to make one but since i didn't have a gimbal i could not aim it where i wanted. it was static mounted
>>980841
Pretty much >>980879. I guess if the women in your area are inclined to stand there, strip naked and start showing off in the presence of noisy flying cameras, then sure. If they're more inclined to taking actions against an easily-noticed invasion of privacy, you're probably way better off practicing voyeurism the old fashioned way. in a tree with some binoculars.
Or you could just, like, I dunno... talk to women like a normal person.
>>980888
well the thing about voyeurism is it is not the reward but knowing the victim did not consent/know they were captured. i bet there are guys who can pick up chicks but find it no fun and look to voyeurism for a challenge/rush
Please critique this build.
The main difference between a 3S & 4S build is the motor cost so I thought fuck it, build a 4S.
1) Are there cheaper motors? The cost of those Emaxs I'm reluctant to buy a CW & CCW spare
2) How laggy is the 960H ccd? I really want widescreen but I don't want to buy a Fatshark cam
FrSky ACCST Taranis X9D
ZMR V2 carbon fiber frame
ZMR spare arms
DYS BL20A Escs + 1 spare
Emax RS2205-2300 Racing Edition motors
Naze32, the full one with the best barometer
Mini GPS for Naze32
Naze32 PDB / BEC
800TVL 960H CCD & config board
FrSky D4R-II receiver
>>980899
>1) Are there cheaper motors? The cost of those Emaxs I'm reluctant to buy a CW & CCW spare
There are, but I've heard good things about the EMAXs. Might be worth the few extra bucks.
>I really want widescreen
Why? A taller aspect ratio's usually better for a quad.
>>980899
you are buying a fucking taranis and yet dont want to spend money on spares? just get a damn turnigy 9x they are fine.
you dont have prop size, which makes the difference between kv rating and battery cells
virtually any motor will work fine as long as it can handle the current. shit, fucking cheapo dys 1806s are even possible
gps and barometer is basically useless on a 250 especially if you are doing fpv. you fly those in rate mode.
fatsharks suck, get a sony superhad an quanum v2 and call it a day. you also need video tx and rx
>>981185
Not him, but IMO a transmitter is not something you want to skimp out on. If you're really into the hobby, you'll probably build/buy several, even dozens of models, and buying top-dollar parts on every single one of them isn't really feasible, but you'll probably use the one transmitter for most if not all of your models. On account of this, I really think a good transmitter is something really worth investing in.
>>981239
i have a 9x and see no reason to spend 4 times the amount. you get certain fancy features, but the range goes farther than you will be able to see the thing in the air and you still get 6 position switch effective and other shit.
worst case scenario is you put whatever that open source firmware is for it. but most of the time people are just trying to justify the money they spent when $50 gets you the same thing in the end without some voice telling you bullshit.
And once again, memes become reality.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/drone-believed-to-have-hit-british-airways-flight-may-have-been/
>>981257
>i have a 9x and see no reason to spend 4 times the amount.
Fit and finish, gimbal quality, ease of programming, receiver selection... there are reasons. The 9x is a great value for the money, and if you aren't spending thousands of the hobby already then the major extra investment for a somewhat-nicer transmitter, but if you're like me and you have dozens of models that you fly all with the same transmitter, then a couple hundred bucks extra is worth paying.
And for what it's worth, I probably wouldn't pick the Taranis. The gimbals are a good improvement over the 9x and it has a somewhat broader rx selection using the stock module, but the fit and finish isn't stellar and the programming isn't as easy as it could be.
>the range goes farther than you will be able to see the thing in the air
That really depends on the size of the model and the intensity of background noise/interference. I've had brownouts before, even with fullrange transmitters. That said, I wouldn't think the 9x on the Flysky protocol would have any worse range than any other fullrange 2.4 GHz transmitter.
How much budget do I need to make a drone?
Super noob here
I see drones on ebay at around 30-50 dollars. I'd like to build my own, but realistically how much will it cost me? I want to have one that can fly for starters, and then I want to implement computer vision stuff (like detect humans or colours and do tricks or something).
Any tips about the budget that I'd need?
>>982698
A drone or a quadcopter? Assuming you want a quadcopter, the bare minimum is about $120 for a 250 quad including a half-decent transmitter, $160 nets you a decent transmitter though.
>>982699
Those cheap toy quads are good for absolute beginners, they are very hard to crash, not dangerous at all, pretty fun. Building your own is same as above, but adding AI functionality is not all that clear cut and judging by your description of what you want it to do you may be lacking the technical knowledge necessary. In any case, with eBay and aliexpress, the hardware will not cost you much.
I might just get the 9X. I only need it for a race quad, my CX20 stock transmitter is fine. If I want telemetry I'll use an OSD.
Looking at the Quanum V2. I dunno if the forthcoming V2 Pro is a repackage including all the accessories or if it's a new LCD panel. Skyzones/Fatsharks seem very bad bang for the buck.
>>982726
>the bare minimum is about $120 for a 250 quad including a half-decent transmitter
I assume that's excluding FPV as well.
>>982743
Yeah, if you only have the one race quad then anything other than the 9x is probably overkill for you. You'll probably want to pick up a module on some other protocol for it too (probably DSMX or some LRS module, depending on your priorities), since Flysky protocol the 9x comes with has a pretty lousy receiver selection.
>Looking at the Quanum V2
Don't forget, these don't come with a built-in VRx so you'll have to buy that separately (which will probably cost you more than the goggles themselves).
>Skyzones/Fatsharks seem very bad bang for the buck.
They are. Seriously.
>>982726
>judging by your description of what you want it to do you may be lacking the technical knowledge necessary
maybe you shouldn't judge too fast anon kun cause i'm doing a master's in ML, i'm ranked master on kaggle, and i was first in computer vision class in undergrad
>>982913
Excluding FPV, but FPV equipment isn't very expensive, camera+transmitter is about $20, antennas $5, then you can either get a receiver + LCD which is about $35, or there's a headset for $50 that has a 800x480 LCD and built-in receiver on banggood for about $50.
For the record the cheapest quadcopter diy kits and standalone LCD displays are on aliexpress, not on eBay.
>>982965
Good on you, it's just that most of the time people appear on /diy/ with vague descriptions of what they want, they have a tendency to have no idea about how hard it is to do. You should know what hardware you want better than someone else though, Raspi A with a camera is about $40 but there are a number of alternatives.
Could I make a little side income from producing FPV antennas?
The quality would be a little higher than China, plus people buying from me wouldn't have to wait so long for the item.
>>983129
There already are people producing and selling FPV antennas but if you can compete with them in price, possibly
Quads are for fags who can't fly, go fixed wing my man.
>>983338
Auto-level with a quad is certainly for scrubs, but a racing quad in acro mode (as it should be) flies a lot like a flybarless helicopter and takes more skill than a fixed-wing.
Headplay or Quanum V2 ??
These two wires came off while replacing the shell on my cx 10 would it be worth fixing or buy a new one... It's really small and I have miniscule soldering skills...
>>983656
Get a 25w + soldering iron with a small tip and some helping hands
And heatwrap
>>983654
Depends on your budget. The Headplays are pretty sweet, and they come with everything (except an RHCP antenna), but the Quanums are WAAAY cheaper and you'll still spend a lot less even after buying the VRx and everything else you need to get 'em going.
>>983692
Leaning toward Quanums now
Headplay has built in VRx but the Quanum I can choose a diversity VRx
>>983701
For what it's worth, the Headplays have an external A/V input too, and HDMI input as well. But yeah, if you're going with an external VRx anyways then it's really hard to justify spending the extra money on the Headplays.
I managed to spunk £600 on
-Taranis (seems like wise future investment)
-Quanum V2 Pro
-4S quad build
Amazing how it all adds up. It's all the little things like the spare ESC & motor, chargers, heat wrap etc etc
>>983687
>not a soldering station
lel
>>975061
>drone
I thought you were going to talk of the MQ-9 Reaper.
>>984705
Yeah, it does. Especially if you don't already have some stuff on-hand.
Every time someone claims to have built a brushless quad for <$200 "all-in," I'm always extremely skeptical and suspect they're leaving a lot of major expenses out (some justifyably, some not).
>Transmitter? Well I already had one
>Charger and batteries too, those don't count since they're not specific to this quad
>Oh and I had to buy the receiver separately and forgot to account for it
>Oh and it doesn't have FPV yet so yeah
>But when it does I'll use the goggles I already have so those don't count either
>>984810
>quad with everything but battery, incl. spares, $80
>Radiolink AT9 $95
>battery $15
>charger $10-$20
working quad with good transmitter for $200, from scratch
>800x480 FPV headset $50
>transmitter + camera $20
>antennas ~$7
FPV+quad at $280. Three times less.
