Gimbal looks good but Is it good quality?
http://www.rctimer.com/index.php?gOo=goods_details.dwt&goodsid=885&productname=
http://www.rctimer.com/index.php?gOo=goods_details.dwt&goodsid=885&productname=
RCTIMER 2-Axis Brushless Gimbal For NEX / DSLR
- Thread starter Zzr
- Start date
FerdinandK
Member
But what does it help without motors and board?
Just saw the board now at rctimer, is this a clone, copy, ...?
best regards
Ferdinand
Just saw the board now at rctimer, is this a clone, copy, ...?
best regards
Ferdinand
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
it's made in china by a company known for copying other people's designs. frankly, i hope anyone that buys this stuff gets ripped off like the people that did the design and development have been ripped off by rctimer.
when i go to china there are markets full of knock-off products and the sentiment of the crews that fly there is that it's all crap. zippers rip out, golf club heads fly off, handles break off........i can't see how the folks at rctimer would be any different.
fwiw
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
I'm actually waiting for BLG motors to arrive from RCTimer, first time I've ordered from them. I'll see how it goes. I would love to be able to purchase a ready-made gimbal for $200, but I just can't bring myself to use something designed that badly. Ugh. 100 grams of lightweight high strength carbon fiber tubes. 50 grams of weak, flimsy plastic boom clamps. And 100 grams of steel screws holding it all together.
It wasn't price that held me back from buying gimbals like this before. As a Mech. Eng. I just can't accept this.
It wasn't price that held me back from buying gimbals like this before. As a Mech. Eng. I just can't accept this.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Actually, turns out that this board is not a copy of the AlexMos board, but is manufactured according to an Open Source project coming out of Germany. I think it may be completely legitimate? I haven't been following that project too closely. But I may take a look at it. I didn't realize the AlexMos project was now completely closed. I think we can help them solve some of the problems they have, but they don't sound interested in talking. Totally hush-hush. Maybe the German guys will be easier to work with.
Anyway, I'm full up with projects for now. So I'll build with what I have and hope for the best.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
It's all about the bling bling baby! Gotta have that carbon fiber!
At least if they used aluminum screws or something....
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
this is what i had in mind when i set out to design my gimbal. it's why i used all aluminum construction with a proprietary bonding process holding it all together. it weighs the same as the mounts it will be competing with but it's much stronger.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Proprietary bonding process = welding?
My H-8 frame is going to be welded aluminum. I found the carbon fiber plate is way overrated. 1/16" aluminum is stiffer than 1/16" carbon fiber plate. Flat carbon fiber plate is just pure bling. You will never seen anything professionally designed made of carbon fiber plate. CF monocoque layed onto a foam core, yes. CF on a honeycomb or foam core flat plate? Yes. CF as a skin layed over an aluminum wing structure? Yes.
Ever see a CF tennis racket designed with the head connected to the handle with boom clamps? LOL.
A well designed and CNC machined aluminum gimbal will be far stiffer, and the same weight as anything made out of CF tube and plastic boom clamps with steel screws. that was the beauty of the Zenmuse. The S800 was a disaster, but the Zenmuse was brilliant.
Bowley
Member
This makes me ponder why I have not heard of Freefly releasing a brushless mod for the Cinestar gimble. the RCTimer one looks like a Cinestar clone.
I've heard the question asked plenty.
The Movi looks to me like a cinestar 3x with brushless motors. If the prices I've heard mentioned are correct I would be left a little confused. If they are correct, I have to wonder if the prices have been set competively on the benchmark of the filming industry now that they are diversifying into the hand held side of things.
In this case it seems RC Timer are a step ahead. I dont really think its ethical to use copyrite immunity to clone things to sell on the international market, however it would be difficult to design and produce a carbon fibre tube and clamp gimbal without it looking the Cinestar.
Having recently bought a CS2X and radians, its not viable for me to even consider the Movi MR. so I will be forced to look at the lower cost options if I want to go down the BCG route.
I've heard the question asked plenty.
The Movi looks to me like a cinestar 3x with brushless motors. If the prices I've heard mentioned are correct I would be left a little confused. If they are correct, I have to wonder if the prices have been set competively on the benchmark of the filming industry now that they are diversifying into the hand held side of things.
In this case it seems RC Timer are a step ahead. I dont really think its ethical to use copyrite immunity to clone things to sell on the international market, however it would be difficult to design and produce a carbon fibre tube and clamp gimbal without it looking the Cinestar.
Having recently bought a CS2X and radians, its not viable for me to even consider the Movi MR. so I will be forced to look at the lower cost options if I want to go down the BCG route.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
I really don't think FF could have a "copyright" on that gimbal design. I don't see any new or unique ideas there. I would bet if I bought my 7 year old son some Lego Technic and told him to build a gimbal, he would produce something looking pretty much like that.
I want to see something that is DESIGNED!
View attachment 10997
I want to see something that is DESIGNED!
View attachment 10997
Attachments
Bowley
Member
I really don't think FF could have a "copyright" on that gimbal design. I don't see any new or unique ideas there. I would bet if I bought my 7 year old son some Lego Technic and told him to build a gimbal, he would produce something looking pretty much like that.
I want to see something that is DESIGNED!
View attachment 14015
Indeed...is it real? collective pitch Y6??
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
designed doesn't have to necessarily be stylized. simplicity can be by design. functionality can be by design. ease of repair and upkeep can be by design.
if there's a job to be done and it can be done reliably, it takes a lot of design to get a product matched to that goal.
you seem to want something that has been stylized to a greater degree than most of what's out there.
if there's a job to be done and it can be done reliably, it takes a lot of design to get a product matched to that goal.
you seem to want something that has been stylized to a greater degree than most of what's out there.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
No, just a rendering. But isn't it gorgeous?
No, not at all. If you've seen the things I've done, you know I'm all about function over form. What I really complain about is that so many of these designs lack function, forget about form. The only reason people think they look good is because of the pretty carbon fiber chequer pattern. They might as well be ABS tubes with carbon fiber vinyl wrap. I like the look of the Photohigher Hero/Halo? gimbals. They aren't "stylized" but they seem to be nicely made. Using CF sensibly.
Here's the Octo I designed/built.
View attachment 11000
The construction isn't that much better or different than everything else on the market that I'm complaining about. But it's what I could manage. In my basement. That's the thing. All these basement-grade designs being sold for high dollars.
At least this one has a few good ideas you don't commonly see.
- Dedicated space for ESC's in the main frame instead of just asking the user to zip tie them wherever they find a space.
- Multi-level, logically layed-out, avionics section seperate from the power section. With a dome for protection.
- Landing gear, batteries and gimbal (not shown) mounted on a rigid, vibration damped subframe.
- Center frame large enough to contain all components with no wires or ESC's ziptied outside it.
- Arms short to only provide prop-to-frame clearance. Short arms are stiffer, and allow smaller diameter tubes to be used.
- Overlapping props keep the overall size of the thing very compact with no loss in lift like a Coaxial. This thing was only 670mm, but could lift 5 kg, IIRC.
- Since it's small, no need for complicated, weak, and failure-prone disassembly or folding mechanisms.
Attachments
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
They would still have airflow there, due to induced airflow through the frame, and I left huge cut-outs in the frame. Plus the ESC's were over-specced. Plus I cut out a window in the wrap to help. I had no problem at all. The design worked well. But I'm just going to try an H-8 because I learned how hard it is to keep the props out of the frame with these layouts.
My design will actually be sort of similar to your XY-8. Except it won't require any landing gear at all since all the props are on the top.
My design will actually be sort of similar to your XY-8. Except it won't require any landing gear at all since all the props are on the top.
vulcan2go
Member
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
It's on RCG. It was said to me directly when I asked them a few technical details and offered some advice. They said because of people copying it/cloning it/whatever, they have closed the project.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1815204&page=167&highlight=gps#post24626024
ChrisViperM
Active Member
I really don't think FF could have a "copyright" on that gimbal design. I don't see any new or unique ideas there. I would bet if I bought my 7 year old son some Lego Technic and told him to build a gimbal, he would produce something looking pretty much like that.
I want to see something that is DESIGNED!
View attachment 14015
Jesus Christ....that thing would make my day. Best looking rig I've ever seen....dunno about funcionality.
http://www.tuvie.com/hatchet-concept-uav-by-jurmol-yao/
http://www.yankodesign.com/2012/12/10/the-hexicopter/
http://www.truonex.com/projects/7452
As for design and functionality in the heavy lifter segment, this one joins both worlds perfectly: http://www.multirotorforums.com/sho...-octocopter-quot-KRATOS-quot&highlight=kratos
I think it's about time that functional based design comes into the industry.....especially with all the electonical components. Still don't get it that a great product like the HF Pro board (and many others) come along like a piece from a second-hand radio dealer...no housing, just a board with bits and pieces soldered on wher you can't put it somewhere flat on your rig, at the most covered in shrink wrap....zip-ties are the most used item on our work-benches. Does anyone think that DJI was such a sucess (so far) because they have sooo great and reliable products ? ....It's mainly because their stuff LOOKS GOOD and is easy to assemble.....the more this business comes to the masses, the more functional design will become important....like it or not. Look at the Zero-UAV, which is a far better product, but the design is a bit bulkier than DJI, so the majority of people stay away. The whole MR-business is about to rise from the nerdy back-yard-garage days into a big industry, and the guys who don't know how to combine form AND function will not be the leaders of the game....at best they will be in a little niche and dream about better days and be bitter about the sucessfull.....
Chris