Question for the wise - E90 for mapping Vs P4p

[PatR]

Well, since you went there, hexes and 8’s have consistently performed better in wind, especially as wind speed increases. Dodeca’s have also performed with extreme stability.

If we look at makers like FreeFly and Intel/Falcon, neither has made less than a hex for anything outside of the totally computer controlled market, and even DJI tried to step up their game when they developed the s1000. That they have maintained a hex platform for their heavy lifter is telling. Unfortunately their flight controllers were not yet up to the task with the s1000. Those didn’t really improve until after they started raiding open source FC programs for product improvement. Yes, they did get caught.

Now if we desired to go back to DJI’s beginnings in multirotors we see they started with the hex design in the f450 and f550 but they departed the hex design with the P1, where you bought it built for about the price of a 550 you built yourself.

If we ask why some might produce high priced quads instead of a hex or more the answer is pretty simple; they cost less to produce and if they can manage to command a high price for an inherently dangerous system, why not? It’s not like they might get hung out to dry for product liability as most of them are manufactured in a country where the government has to grant approval before any legal actions can proceed.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Well, since you went there, hexes and 8’s have consistently performed better in wind, especially as wind speed increases. Dodeca’s have also performed with extreme stability.

If we look at makers like FreeFly and Intel/Falcon, neither has made less than a hex for anything outside of the totally computer controlled market, and even DJI tried to step up their game when they developed the s1000. That they have maintained a hex platform for their heavy lifter is telling. Unfortunately their flight controllers were not yet up to the task with the s1000. Those didn’t really improve until after they started raiding open source FC programs for product improvement. Yes, they did get caught.

Now if we desired to go back to DJI’s beginnings in multirotors we see they started with the hex design in the s450 and s550 but they departed the hex design with the P1, where you bought it built for about the price of a 550 you built yourself.

If we ask why some might produce high priced quads instead of a hex or more the answer is pretty simple; they cost less to produce and if they can manage to command a high price for an inherently dangerous system, why not? It’s not like they might get hung out to dry for product liability as most of them are manufactured in a country where the government has to grant approval before any legal actions can proceed.

Bingo, but why... more mount points of thrust / power around the circumference? We both know that's false, increase radial points from 6 to 12, 24 points won't improve stability... it'll go the other way.

Other than another opportunity for an injection of anti-DJI, this didn't express much more than stated... agree more points of thrust improve stability... but not solely as a flat 6 over a Y-6 or X-Oct. As you've (PatR) even previously indicated in other related posts, the large flat Hex or Oct dishes aren't as stable as Y or X with Push/Pull or with some you're referencing now, the V config. That indicates either multi-motor at fewer radial mount points or fewer motors at each of these mount points with improved performance (thrust & electronics). Recircles, stability doesn't directly equate to more radial thrust points.

Back on anti-DJI mantra, at this stage in market strength it's not relevant other than revisting historical path of growth & development of DJI. Did DJI take a straight path to success, did they play all phases as reputable as other developers would have preferred... No on both! Are they currently a major player, passing many previous leaders or contenders, have a lot more resources than most, touching / owning more associated assets than several other developers, can exert pressure, create component delays, other negative manufacturing tactics... affirmative. Did they learn and adapt from previous mistakes or flops... affirmative. Personally not my preference, just a business reality.

On a personal side, the S1000 with newer larger motors, modern A3 tri-GPS & LB2 is a vastly improved platform to the older A & N2 electronics. Personally my opinion, I think they abandoned S1000 and S900 when they took a new direction in their smart battery development... another profitable decision. The modified S1000 with LiPo tandem pak is basically a M600Pro minus the expensive smart batteries.

Cost of Quad over Hex, don't see that as a strong variable? Which is a lower cost & risk track: major investment in development of smaller compact, new concept design, foldable, packed electronics quad vs essentially cloning & improving a simple Hex design then out market & advertise absorbing the majority of the small Hex market? The money maker was the new untapped product, which is why all the other consumer brands including Yuneec's sad attempt to grab a portion.

Small Hex market, if Yuneec had Hex competition they most likely couldn't compete. If Yuneec lost the majority of the small Hex market, as their sole profitable product line, they most likely wouldn't survive. Indirectly, it's good for Yuneec Owners DJI has quads we can derate and they haven't wanted to compete in the small Hex platform.

 

[arruntus]

@Dougcjohn I totally agree with 99% of what you say. But a clarification, I have put the following so as not to extend to the entire market of drones, past and present.

Always talking about drones at the same level.

We can't compare an M600 to a P4P. They are not of the same category, a heavyweight versus a featherweight. And here we can focus on the weight. A drone that weighs 2 kg against one that weighs 6 kg. The H520 despite having a weight of 2 kg, I understand that it can compete with another that weighs 2 kg as the P4P, but not against beasts that are able to lift what weighs one of these drones, and more.

Then the evolution of electronics, which I think is a much more important factor than the evolution of firmware, is the basis for the evolution of firmware. We can't compare a current drone with one from 5 years ago. This is evolving at a very high speed.

But if we take drones from the same time, the P4P and the H520, we put them in the same weight category, we look at their characteristics, I think it would be a fair comparison. Then we would only have to look at the manufacturer's development work, at its own merits. And this is where I believe that Yuneec has done it in front of DJI frankly well, has put in 2kg a very stable aircraft with 6 engines compared to 4 engines of the P4P. He has put a retractable train in front of fixed legs that bother, and has a camera that rotates 360 degrees without visual interference of any kind. Just looking at these three things I think they have done much better.

Yuneec in all other aspects I think it has done a lot worse, but with a lot of difference. You only have to look at the functionalities that one aircraft has against the other, Yuneec fails in practically everything when I really think that they have a much better base. And here I include the lack of optimization. Both have gimbal, but if one goes soft and allows you to make good shots and the other is going to pull, as robocop, well yes, the two have gimbal but can not be compared. Something that I firmly believe should have been solved a long time ago. And this is just an example. By this I mean that I do not demonize DJI, if they have something better I say it loud and clear, like everything I say. Even though I will never buy one of their aircraft while they continue with their policy of trying to control everything, of attacking my privacy, of telling me where I can and can't fly. This is more personal preferences, a lot of people don't take that into account, or they don't care and buy DJI, it's not my case.

I haven't seen anything here that fences against DJI, we are comparing products from different companies, obviously there is a "war" between the two largest to gain more market share. But watch out and see if everyone opens their eyes, the buyers, the users, we have to be soldiers of that war? I think it's ridiculous, give me a good drone, nice and cheap and do everything I think I should do, and you'll see how quickly I buy it quickly forgetting the name of the manufacturer. I think it is one thing to exchange ideas about which is better and worse and another thing to talk about Anti-DJI or anti-Yuneec, because that makes people get into something that seems to be their life, that they defend it with nails and teeth irrationally, I don't understand it and I will never understand it. Looks like one of the companies paid them a payroll or something

But back to the wind, and comparing drones of the "same category". Only by physics and with drones that are minimally well constructed, a Hex will always be better than a Quad. And you've explained the reason very well. More thrust and control points on the aircraft produce better results.

I don't have much more to say, the comparison has been opened up a lot and I think it's fair to compare apples with apples and not melons ? ??

 

[Dougcjohn]

@Dougcjohn I totally agree with 99% of what you say. But a clarification, I have put the following so as not to extend to the entire market of drones, past and present.

We can't compare an M600 to a P4P. They are not of the same category, a heavyweight versus a featherweight. And here we can focus on the weight. A drone that weighs 2 kg against one that weighs 6 kg. The H520 despite having a weight of 2 kg, I understand that it can compete with another that weighs 2 kg as the P4P, but not against beasts that are able to lift what weighs one of these drones, and more.

Then the evolution of electronics, which I think is a much more important factor than the evolution of firmware, is the basis for the evolution of firmware. We can't compare a current drone with one from 5 years ago. This is evolving at a very high speed.

I haven't seen anything here that fences against DJI, we are comparing products from different companies, obviously there is a "war" between the two largest to gain more market share. But watch out and see if everyone opens their eyes, the buyers, the users, we have to be soldiers of that war? I think it's ridiculous, give me a good drone, nice and cheap and do everything I think I should do, and you'll see how quickly I buy it quickly forgetting the name of the manufacturer. I think it is one thing to exchange ideas about which is better and worse and another thing to talk about Anti-DJI or anti-Yuneec, because that makes people get into something that seems to be their life, that they defend it with nails and teeth irrationally, I don't understand it and I will never understand it. Looks like one of the companies paid them a payroll or something

But back to the wind, and comparing drones of the "same category". Only by physics and with drones that are minimally well constructed, a Hex will always be better than a Quad. And you've explained the reason very well. More thrust and control points on the aircraft produce better results.

I don't have much more to say, the comparison has been opened up a lot and I think it's fair to compare apples with apples and not melons ? ??

@arruntus, totally agree with ya! As indicated a few times on my above 2-3 posts, the H520 & Hex design would handle the wind better than quad in the size models of discussion.

I expanded the discussion on the merits whether that would regularly hold true; suggesting as you... with new electronics, software (FW), and motor performances the smaller scale "could" have different outcomes.

That spun a tangent off towards competition and design which invites anti-DJI, which is fine to include to gain a better understanding where the technology as traveled from, not certain it has same value looking forward.

When discussions deviate slightly, and several provide input it becomes both enjoyable and educational, in which I for one, always obtain new insight or knowledge.

The enjoyment of the Yuneec forum is the scope of the discussions... and how they tend to go deeper or slightly off tangent while the discussion pursues or collects additional thoughts, opinions or designs.
It often goes anti-DJI but as you suggest, that's more defensive or opinions... but still in the mix has value!

I visit other forums, and even though this forum gets a little heavy on the anti-brand at times, personally I feel it has the best in-depth discussions and value! Many professors of thought on the site!

Back on main track, the Hex would perform better than Quad in winds.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Well, since you went there, hexes and 8’s have consistently performed better in wind, especially as wind speed increases. Dodeca’s have also performed with extreme stability.

Wasn't aware of the Dodeca model, so explored a bit....
their are a lot of Dodeca done references... all different.
Are you referring to the huge Carrier Hx series... Hx8 & Hx12... large 315 lb payload Hx12.

Heavy Lift Dodecacopter Drone | Heavy Lift Drone up to 315 pounds

Dodecacopter Drone, heavy lift drone with a maximum payload capability of 315 lbs and 45 minute flight time. Shipping UAV, heavy lift UAV drone.

www.harrisaerial.com

The Dodeca Website URL points to a Inspire 2 survey company

Dodeca Drones Inc.

Dodeca is a startup company based in Mandaluyong City, Philippines composed of licensed drone controllers, engineers, and researchers working toward the vision of transforming the country with smart infrastructure and automated workflows.

www.dodeca.com.ph

Found reference in several cinema and videographer the Gryphon Dynamics Dodeca

그리폰 다이나믹스

Industrial Drone, UAV, RTF, Dual Landing Gear, Heavy Duty

gryphondynamics.co.kr

Drone operatør, København | Rotor Film

Rotor Film er Danmarks førende leverandør af drone optagelser til dansk film og TV. Vi kan flyve med RED Epic og Arri Alexa Mini

www.rotorfilm.dk

 

[PatR]

No DJI “digs” were intended, Doug. It was more about historical accuracy.

As for dodeca’s, I haven’t followed them much after their early developmental efforts. As they are sort of cost prohibitive to create there needs to be fairly specialized applications in mind before constructing one. Super heavy lift, multiple payload being amongst them.

As you mentioned earlier, more geometrically placed motors makes it easier for a well designed FC to provide stabilization input. A 4 corner system causes each corner to be fairly “busy” with constant speed alterations to offset atmospheric imbalance while steering the aircraft. The flat 6’s and 8’s can run into problems of their own creation though.

As propellers become larger they increase “disc area” that can be heavily influenced by wind. Large spinning props present what effectively become a more or less solid plate that act as a flat surface when encountering wind, and wind forces push against the disc and disturb directional flight. That’s partially how coaxial systems came about as they create more open area between propeller disc area. Some highly advanced coaxial systems even provide means to disengage the lower motors, stopping the props while in flight to further reduce effective disc area.

Where multirotors in general are concerned, the vast majority of them are quads, with a few hexes, but they were and are designed around consumer purchases. They are for the most part expensive toys. Some call them “investments” for some reason but the manufacturers for the most part are not making aerial tools until the price point increases considerably. Toy makers spend the minimum necessary to produce products that will generate maximum profit over the shortest time period. So quads rule due to economics. As they work pretty well it’s hard to find fault with the business decisions as related to the intended market and purpose.

 

[arruntus]

It is true that when this forum was created, just when the planned attack against "Yuneec" was undoubtedly in full swing, there was reluctance to speak or continue to appoint DJI. For some strange reason, that attack was favored by many youtubers "hot guts" DJI brand. I did not know anything about the subject, I saw with great surprise all the attacks, partisan reviews and lies about Yuneec. That Yuneec doesn't do well in many aspects we say it here many, but one thing is to say in what one brand fails and another is to lie brazenly.

For a long time that time has been forgotten, comparing the products of DJI with those of Yuneec is inevitable, especially because DJI is doing very well in almost everything, in other things as I have commented, not even with a stick i touch them.

Then the comparisons, because it is necessary to be a little consistent, to be as realistic as possible, as said, you can not compare a P4P with an M600, so talk about drones of the same "level". Then it is a realistic comparison and the discussion becomes enriching. And that without talking about price. Although the price often also marks the level, usually goes accordingly, although the H520 is at a price higher than the features it provides, also the price is set by the manufacturers, not us.

Although this forum is dedicated to Yuneec, I believe that we, the members of the forum, those who participate in it, have to be not only sincere, but say things as they are (or as we believe they are) and with the difference of opinions of colleagues, because change of opinion if necessary, that nothing happens. That we have to talk about DJI and in this way we make Yuneec grow? we do it. I learn a lot from all of you, I think it's a group work, that each one of you contributes what you can and that's how we grow together.

We have in the help forum, fixed, a thread about what things we want for our H520. Any ideas you have to improve the drone should be put there. A few things put there have already been implemented. I wish they were all already implemented, but well, if it were in our hand... we'd have the best drone on the market for sure ? (while we wait for that moment, all we can do is propose ideas)

 

[Dougcjohn]

No DJI “digs” were intended, Doug. It was more about historical accuracy.

As for dodeca’s, I haven’t followed them much after their early developmental efforts. As they are sort of cost prohibitive to create there needs to be fairly specialized applications in mind before constructing one. Super heavy lift, multiple payload being amongst them.

As you mentioned earlier, more geometrically placed motors makes it easier for a well designed FC to provide stabilization input. A 4 corner system causes each corner to be fairly “busy” with constant speed alterations to offset atmospheric imbalance while steering the aircraft. The flat 6’s and 8’s can run into problems of their own creation though.

As propellers become larger they increase “disc area” that can be heavily influenced by wind. Large spinning props present what effectively become a more or less solid plate that act as a flat surface when encountering wind, and wind forces push against the disc and disturb directional flight. That’s partially how coaxial systems came about as they create more open area between propeller disc area. Some highly advanced coaxial systems even provide means to disengage the lower motors, stopping the props while in flight to further reduce effective disc area.

Where multirotors in general are concerned, the vast majority of them are quads, with a few hexes, but they were and are designed around consumer purchases. There are for the most part expensive toys. Some call them “investments” for some reason but the manufacturers for the most part are not making aerial tools until the price point increases considerably. Toy makers spend the minimum necessary to produce products that will generate maximum profit over the shortest time period. So quads rule due to economics. As they work pretty well it’s hard to find fault with the business decisions as related to the intended market and purpose.

Always enjoy yours and other Sr inputs... now ya gave me more to explore. The coaxial that shutoff or pulse the upper or lower independently.

That Hx12 Dodeca is Huge, 30" props... found one pic on a websites for SAR team... had everything from P4P to Hx12 in group shot. It's huge, but handle 350lb payload stands to reason.

Have you come across any... probably more likely on the heavy lift platforms... has any design explored the collective prop in combination to the motor's RPM ESC control?
I'm thinking more on line to change lift catagory or Altitude zones not collective to fully control flight characteristics as in Heli. Pondered that with the electronics and strong stepper servos available in last 5 yrs or so.

 

[Dougcjohn]

It is true that when this forum was created, just when the planned attack against "Yuneec" was undoubtedly in full swing, there was reluctance to speak or continue to appoint DJI. For some strange reason, that attack was favored by many youtubers "hot guts" DJI brand. I did not know anything about the subject, I saw with great surprise all the attacks, partisan reviews and lies about Yuneec. That Yuneec doesn't do well in many aspects we say it here many, but one thing is to say in what one brand fails and another is to lie brazenly.

For a long time that time has been forgotten, comparing the products of DJI with those of Yuneec is inevitable, especially because DJI is doing very well in almost everything, in other things as I have commented, not even with a stick i touch them.

Then the comparisons, because it is necessary to be a little consistent, to be as realistic as possible, as said, you can not compare a P4P with an M600, so talk about drones of the same "level". Then it is a realistic comparison and the discussion becomes enriching. And that without talking about price. Although the price often also marks the level, usually goes accordingly, although the H520 is at a price higher than the features it provides, also the price is set by the manufacturers, not us.

Although this forum is dedicated to Yuneec, I believe that we, the members of the forum, those who participate in it, have to be not only sincere, but say things as they are (or as we believe they are) and with the difference of opinions of colleagues, because change of opinion if necessary, that nothing happens. That we have to talk about DJI and in this way we make Yuneec grow? we do it. I learn a lot from all of you, I think it's a group work, that each one of you contributes what you can and that's how we grow together.

We have in the help forum, fixed, a thread about what things we want for our H520. Any ideas you have to improve the drone should be put there. A few things put there have already been implemented. I wish they were all already implemented, but well, if it were in our hand... we'd have the best drone on the market for sure ? (while we wait for that moment, all we can do is propose ideas)

Very well stated... and it would be great to see the H520, Plus gain nice mods and the H920 revamp return!

 

[arruntus]

I think there is something in arducopter something I read a long time ago about the way of acting of coaxial motors. What I think is that the FC is in charge of doing it and I don't know if the ESC changes or influences anything. In something more than it is to do its function I mean.

 

[PatR]

I looked into collective pitch type prop development back when I was designing a very long duration, large heavy lift hybrid platform for an outfit a few years back. “Coincidentally”, a Chinese outfit somehow released a platform of extremely similar design about a year ago...

Back to the props, at the time, and I think it still applies, the cost of manufacturing them is prohibitive unless the customer has government deep pockets but there’s a considerable weight penalty as well. You either end up with a geared design controlled by an external adjustment drive or some pretty complex electrical controls governed by a lot of computational power. It’s been tried on medium sized UAV’s but the increased weight had quite an impact on flight duration even with “wet” engine platforms. As everything is designed around “minimums” these days anything that impacts max range, max payload, or max duration gets discarded quickly. Toss high expense into that mix and doors close quickly. Cost versus benefit, complexity affecting reliability type stuff.

 

[Dougcjohn]

I looked into collective pitch type prop development back when I was designing a very long duration, large heavy lift hybrid platform for an outfit a few years back. “Coincidentally”, a Chinese outfit somehow released a platform of extremely similar design about a year ago...

Back to the props, at the time, and I think it still applies, the cost of manufacturing them is prohibitive unless the customer has government deep pockets but there’s a considerable weight penalty as well. You either end up with a geared design controlled by an external adjustment drive or some pretty complex electrical controls governed by a lot of computational power. It’s been tried on medium sized UAV’s but the increased weight had quite an impact on flight duration even with “wet” engine platforms. As everything is designed around “minimums” these days anything that impacts max range, max payload, or max duration gets discarded quickly. Toss high expense into that mix and doors close quickly. Cost versus benefit, complexity affecting reliability type stuff.

I can understand the weight & cost, on one perspective... but surprised at the same time seeing the CNC high strength light weight aluminum components made for modern Heli's. These new small collective components beautifully crafted, so precise and the accompanying small servos that now have so much more torque & power from 8-10 yrs ago. Upscaling these components I wouldn't think would be overly costly if already CAD designed. The servos & associated links could now the stepper position accurately.

But as said, can understand the costs factored in too. I just thought maybe that avenue had reached a point of useful & cost to be considered.

Interesting tangent if someone could develope within a acceptable cost to get the ball rolling.

 

[PatR]

It would have to fall into the economics of scale category. As 4 or more would be required per platform there would need be a heck of a lot of buyers to make it happen.

Realistically, there are much more efficient platforms that can carry loads long distances much more practical to develop. Multirotors are absolute toads in the efficiency department, not to mention flight duration using current power supplies.

 

[arruntus]

The autonomy, the biggest pending problem that we have with the electric drones and it seems that we are not finished evolving to give way to another type of batteries, with how dangerous are the lipo batteries. Using Li-ion batteries in small planes does work quite well.

A few days ago Foxtech announced a new drone, a beast of 1600mm wheelbase, 20 kg weight that is capable of flying 110 minutes (which is specular) without payload. With a payload of 1 kg give figures of 88 minutes (which will be in hover and sea level and I think it will be reduced to 70 minutes or less in normal flight).

What surprised me the most is the power supply, it uses 4 Li-ion batteries of 16 Ah each. 64 amps is a barbarity and more being Li-ion, I don't even want to think about how long it will take to charge each of those batteries, but a lot.

Even so, even if it is 70 minutes of flight you can do a lot of things. For example, now I don't remember who here had to cover 300 or 400 acres, which is a very large area and has had to do it in phases, with the problems that this entails. With this drone, you mount everything in a car, you take off from a starting point, you start the mission and you move in the car monitoring the flight of the drone. You tell him to land at an end point and you are already waiting for him with the car. All with a single flight.

It is something very practical if you have to do many flights of that type, otherwise in a nonsense and that bearing in mind that you need the functionality of a multirotor and you can not solve it with a fixed wing that can give you 70 or 80 minutes without too much trouble, a fixed wing for duration is much more efficient. In the example of photogrammetry that I have given, fixed wings are usually used for large surfaces, you only have to be careful with the speed of the drone and that the camera is able to take the photos at a sufficient speed.

We are still waiting for the graphite batteries and if you start looking for some, you find that there are many scientific projects looking for alternatives to Li-po or Li-ion. Sodium batteries, Lithium-Sulfur batteries, solid electrolyte batteries, etc.

If we continue like this, and given that the Li-ion batteries are estimated to increase their capacity by 10% annually, will be responsible for dethroning the Li-po and while we continue waiting for the graphene, although it is true that it has advanced significantly, I fear that being optimistic we will not see even in 10 years.

P.D.: Forgive the paraphrase, but the issue of batteries for our birds is so limiting that I consider it very important. Every time I read battery, I go back to look for information in the hope of being closer to a significant evolution that will allow us to advance in that aspect

 

[PatR]

Something to be aware of about Li-On batteries. Many have been using them for flight systems in model airplanes, large model airplanes, for well over a decade.

If we were to look at the battery labels on DJI’s Inspire 2 we would see they are labeled as Li-On.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Something to be aware of about Li-On batteries. Many have been using them for flight systems in model airplanes, large model airplanes, for well over a decade.

If we were to look at the battery labels on DJI’s Inspire 2 we would see they are labeled as Li-On.

That is correct, for some reason they chose to write out the full wording instead shorter acronym... it states Lithium Ion Polymer, which is a LiPo battery. The DJI TB50 specs list as a LiPo 6S

On the matter of Li-On vs LiPo. A positive for LiOn is considered lower cost to manufacture. The LiOn is generally a little larger for same capacity and it's discharge is not as low, normally around 40% vs 20% per a few Electronic Power source sites. But the one I found a little interesting is that the LiOn is rated at less shelf life; which is totally opposite to my original assumption that a LiOn holds charge longer and has longer life duration.

 

[arruntus]

Regarding the life of Lipo or Li-ion batteries there is great confusion. Theoretically, Lipo batteries can withstand more than 1000 cycles and Li-ion batteries between 400-1200 cycles. The truth is that to any battery, if you manage to do 400 cycles, there is nothing to object, you can make leaps of joy, it is more likely that you will not get past the 200 cycles and that being optimistic. As everything there are exceptions, but I speak in general rule.

Then the reality is very different. The batteries, according to their use, their conservation and their life time, lower their load and durability in an exponential way. Some manufacturers, unfortunately few, publish the life curves of their batteries, how they lose charge and it is surprising to see how quickly they degrade. Overheating is also an important enemy. The Li-Ion is more stable than the Lipo and does not accuse the problem of the memory effect, lower explosion risk. They are also capable of storing more charge for the same weight. On the other hand they are able to provide less C-discharge.

Unlike the Lipo, the Li-Ion are constantly evolving, getting to charge more energy, as I put in the other post, it is estimated that they have a performance improvement of 10% per year, so in the end they will be better than the Lipo. That's how I understand it.

For drones with engines with few KV and large propellers, where the consumption per engine is very low can do a good job, we have to gradually forget the idea that they are only valid for small fixed wings, where more are used mainly because they are able to store the same amount of energy with less weight and have sufficient performance for the engines used.

For now, until there's an evolution to a new type of battery, I think Li-ion it's going to be the way to go, although it still has a way to standardize.

 

[Pavlos C]

Yes Arruntus,
the rolling shutter is due the lack of mechanical shutter that the P4P as.
Have to do a little "dig up" in Agisoft photoscan/Metashape to find the settings to correct the rolling shutter.

Hi, I am using H520E with E90X camera and i do mapping in RTK mode and then process to Agisoft. I suppose E90 camera is the same (newer version) as E90X camera. When import the photos to Agisoft and then go to Camera Calibration the Initial (values) are all empty except the f value which has a value. I suspect that the problem i have with the accuracy of the orthomosaic has to do with the Camera Calibration values. Any idea on this, do you know what values should i use? Instead with P4P after imprt images in the Camera Calibration settings the Initial values are automatically entered. Very importand to know what settings should i use in Agisoft to get the most accurate results. Thanks.