https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_6AkYW6Kg4
Why didn't any of you supposed geniuses think of this? Do you seriously think it's enough to be an A+ exam baby your whole life without having these kinds of breakthrough ideas?
This basic idea is very common... I own one I bought at a local store for 30 dollars. so how is this breakthrough....
>>7849947
>with onboard optical and thermal imaging you can see everything
>plays a game of Packman, where the drone is Packman and the victims are ghosts
>>7849958
>so how is this breakthrough....
You forgot the le helping le people maymay(read:marketing ploy)
>>7849958
You might have bought one with a protective shell but the rotating mechanism thing is novel.
>>7849947
>It takes a PHD in flying robotics and 5 years of work to put a rolling cage on a drone.
Not sure how I feel about that.
>>7849947
It was invented at EPFL, which is fucking based as far as robotic goes. It is the result of years of work on making flying robots that can continue to operate after colliding with things:
http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/190790/files/collision_resilient_flying_robots_LIS2014.pdf
Now OP, if it's so simple then why didn't you come up with it?
>>7849947
Awsome
>>7849958
>I can buy an RC of a Lamborghini
>which is the same thing as a real Lamborghini
>>7849947
>Nov 2, 2014
Motherfucking breaking news here.
>>7849958
I thought the same but I get it now, because the cage rotates independently of the drone if it gets knocked it wont affect the motion of the drone. Its actually very different from other caged drones on the market.
>>7849967
>>7849981
>>7850127
Lol /sci/ full of the worst losers, you all do nothing but shit on the research of others when as OP said your greatest "achievement" is passing an exam.
/sci/ btfo
>>7849947
No, /sci/ is only about solving trivial puzzles, bragging about majors and circlejerking IQ threads.
>>7849947
It's obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal
The only reason /sci/ didn't think of it is because we didn't know there was a need. The vast majority of times a drone is flying up in the sky there is no need, and this would just add weight.
Sounds pretty good. I think I'll go with that.
>>7850730
Why are you desperately clawing at reasons to shit on their work?
>"It's obvious"
>"The vast majority of times there is no need"
>"Would just add weight"
If it was so obvious why didn't you develop it? I don't even know these guys or OP for that matter but damn the replies in this thread are word for word the exact smug basement dweller-tier posts that I get when I post my own ideas on here. /sci/ needs to drop the insecurity complex. I personally think it's a damn good invention, very simple yet effective solution to their problem and I have to watch them take shit from some 21 year old fuckhead who can't even show up to his calculus lectures on time? I feel insulted that you have the audacity to insult them.
>>7850023
DELETE THIS
>>7850765
>If it was so obvious why didn't you develop it?
he answered that question in his post already, are you by any chance illiterate?
>The only reason /sci/ didn't think of it is because we didn't know there was a need
and he's right
if you aren't deep into either specialized drone development or recovery operations you won't find out there's a need for this
the "no need" + "add weight" was VERY OBVIOUSLY refering to the "vast majority" of drones that fly through the sky
again, if you're not into recovery operations or university-tier robotics research then you'll probably not find out there's a market for this type of drone technology
because all you can see from an average guys viewpoint is the normie market of drones, the ones that can fly up in the sky and take pictures of your neighbours hot wife sunbathing nude
either your reading comprehension sucks or you're consciously misinterpreting his post just to use the contrarian boogeyman
>>7850841
Why are you implying that a crash-proof drone that's completely safe to fly around and collide with humans is somehow a super niche thing that no one but a few people will be interested in.
>you'll probably not find out there's a market for this type of drone technology
t. basement-dwelling NEET with no business experience
>fly up in the sky and take pictures of your neighbours hot wife sunbathing nude
This has an HD camera and who says it can't fly high.
>>7850912
>Why are you implying that a crash-proof drone that's completely safe to fly around and collide with humans is somehow a super niche thing that no one but a few people will be interested in.
this isn't about what the actual market share might be when it comes out
the initial idea of building a drone that's safe to bump into things came from the flaws of normal drones for rescue appliance
that's where the idea started, this is a fact, and if you don't have any play in either rescuing people or aren't part of a research team then you'll not notice that there are people who need drones that can go into collapsed buildings and not crash at the first bump
>This has an HD camera and who says it can't fly high.
nobody, that's just you being a fucking moron who assumes shit that aren't actually written down in the post you're quoting
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension
all you're doing is taking sentences out of context and interpreting them wrong in order to build an argument for yourself
>>7850960
>the initial idea of building a drone that's safe to bump into things came from the flaws of normal drones for rescue appliance
Bullshit. It came from people crashing their expensive drones by bumping them into things.
>nobody, that's just you being a fucking moron who assumes shit that aren't actually written down in the post you're quoting
>>again, if you're not into recovery operations or university-tier robotics research then you'll probably not find out there's a market for this type of drone technology because all you can see from an average guys viewpoint is the normie market of drones, the ones that can fly up in the sky and take pictures of your neighbours hot wife sunbathing nude
Your argument is basically "duh ppl are dumb so no one will buy it?? lol". All it takes is a commercial that shows this thing going up high and taking pictures. You have no argument, which is why I think you're becoming visibly upset. Don't worry, you'll invent something interesting one day (maybe) and then everyone will see how smart you really are!
>>7851008
>Bullshit. It came from people crashing their expensive drones by bumping them into things.
have you even seen the video?
>>7851021
They market it as being good for rescue applications =/= it is only conceivably good at or useful for rescue applications.
>>7851008
>Your argument is basically "duh ppl are dumb so no one will buy it?? lol".
do you really think I was talking about the people buying this thing in the sentence you quoted?
holy shit what a top-tier illiterate you are
Drones with rollcages exist everywhere, the fact that it has the rotors in different places doesn't change anything.
Just looks like a fusion between one of those flying UFO toys and a small drone.
>>7851037
>They market it as being good for rescue applications
the video shows how they came up with the idea in the first place
which is the whole point of my post
they didn't think "oh consumers like bumping their drones into things but can't, we should work something out"
they thought "current drones are shit for rescue operations because they die when they bump into things, we should work something out"
>>7850010
Have there been helicopters before that used this coaxial props + 4 control surfaces configuration?
>>7851053
So what's your argument again?
>>7851067
>video shows how a team of robotics researchers noticed that rescue operations can't use normal drones because when they bump into things they crash
>so they worked something out
>OP asks why /sci/ didn't come up with
>answer to that question is that the majority of sci is neither involved in robotics research nor rescue operations, so they don't have the viewpoint necessary to work out "DRONE THAT BUMPS INTO THINGS" as a favorable product feature in the first place
this has fuckall to do with who may later on buy these things, normies will buy everything related to drones, because they gobble that shit up
it's about where the idea comes from and wether you have access to the enviroment necessary to formulate that idea
![716RN6eb7IL._SX522_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5gEd2Sa.jpg "716RN6eb7IL._SX522_[1].jpg")
>>7849947
Nice original invention you got there bub.
>Product on sale since 23. November 2009
>>7851094
>>answer to that question is that the majority of sci is neither involved in robotics research nor rescue operations, so they don't have the viewpoint necessary to work out "DRONE THAT BUMPS INTO THINGS" as a favorable product feature in the first place
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itwQKMGl22Y
One need only watch this video to realize that their might be demand for a collision proof drone.
>>7851146
Your video only proves that we need more regulation to keep idiots from endangering themselves and their surroundings.
This fucker slaps your girl in the ass
What do you do?
>>7849967
>You forgot the le helping le people maymay(read:marketing ploy)
this. you can see the poor little indians exploited to build this thing through outsourcing. it is quite funny that they want to make money thanks to human misery, while claiming to help the humanity.
>>7850010
>Now OP, if it's so simple then why didn't you come up with it?
you do understand that only hedonists care about toys ?
>>7851189
Holy shit you are grasping at straws.
>we're a team of engineers led by a PhD in Robotics
you still want more proof engineers are just stem monkeys?
>>7851367
>exploited
>misery
>cuck photo
WHEW LAD
H
E
W
L
A
D
>>7851189
Moron.
thought controlled version
>>7851094
I think OP was actually asking why hasn't /sci/ come up with anything at all despite constantly bragging about their intelligence.
>>7849967
Making the world a better place
>>7852204
>Why didn't any of you supposed geniuses think of this?
>this
while that might have been his goal, he still stated that question very specifically towards the product he showed us and I answered on that
if he doesn't want to hear it he can just keep on ranting with broad and baseless assumptions, I don't care
>>7849947
> Basic flying camera drone you can get at any gaming store
> Put a plastic cage around it.
> Build in a bump sensor that tells it, hey, there's shit there
That will be $100,000 please.
> if it's so simple then why didn't you come up with it?
What, put a cage around a drone? Shit, I did that in grade school so that the niggas down the street couldn't knock it out of the sky with a T shirt and steal it.
The only difference is, I didn't have a team of fucking lawyers to patent and market it.
Disaster response my ass. Strap a camera to a rat. You get the same effect.
