Anyone want to collaborate on an OpenSource FPV/Camera frame?

[Crash]

I want a frame that I don't think exists yet. Maybe there's a reason for that?

Here's what I'm thinking let's hear your ideas:

It will be for a basic FPV/camera platform with vibration isolation. It won't be a pro mount so maybe design it for a GoPro and small FPV cameras.

Basically the idea is that the 3, 4 or 6 arms would meet at the center in the typical sandwich design. On top of this would be a rubber mounted board that holds 1 or 2 batteries, an area for a controller stack, a RX , a TX, and a camera nick mount. All the weight on the board should help dampen any vibrations. Maybe that board can even be a one sided circuit board that acts like a power distribution board for the motors and electronics. EMI may be a concern.

I don't think a camera roll axis is necessary for this particular use. I'm open to suggestion though.

It would be nice if the props were out of the picture to allow for panos. That may dictate something like a T copter or a quad with unequal length arms. Or maybe it should be designed so that a GoPro with a sunex lens will not see the props but the wide angle lens will see the props.

I'll be away for the weekend but let's hear some ideas or see some napkin drawings.

 

[DennyR]

Crash
Check this out, Vimeo.com/24278737 it is the first part of a five part series of videos that pretty much describes how to make a breakaway concept design that floats and flies better than the norm. New materials and better ways to isolate the number one cause of bad footage. It will also go on to explain why the existing designs out there are totally wrong from the landing gear upwards - A little controversial and will be met with some degree of skepticism. But as that old saying goes. When the flag drops the bull sh.t stops. At the end of part five there will be a few out there that will have to kiss mickey on the mouse.

 

[DennyR]

This is the part one

 

[DennyR]

Crash you idea is great and can work, it does not have to be this complicated but you can achieve a small light economical design that uses balsa wood and builders insulation foam board as the basic airframe. With the vibration issue solved you could make some impressive videos without any camera movements. Just mount it on a long soft mounted beam and go fly an interesting route.

 

[Crash]

That is a very nice airframe.

How did you do the soft mounts?

 

[DennyR]

Crash.
From the experience that I have had with Octos and hexas I see the quad as being the most efficient layout, but I have not tried 3 motors yet. I think that could end up as the best solution in terms of field of view and power efficiency. I never met anyone who had a redundancy escape with 8 or 6 motors. So the best solution is to use the highest quality motors and controllers that are not being stressed.

 

[DennyR]

Those soft mounts are standard MK 10 mm, the hard points that they attach to go into the foam board so I make some long alum. parts that epoxy in place from the bottom. They need a flange so that they do not pull through.

 

[DennyR]

As for the roll axis, I wouldn't bother with that. I often turn that feature off when shooting certain types of look.

 

[Bartman]

MK can't but will the OP FC boards be able to accept an offset from the CG so they don't have to be mounted right down where all the weight is?
I'm told offsets are standard features on heli gyro products.
Thanks,
bart

 

[Bartman]

denny,
are you able to get the same stability of flight with four that the MK eight's and sixes have? my MK okto is insanely stable and smooth.

 

[DennyR]

I have better stability with my quad than I had with Okto. but it's all down to motors and props to get the lift efficiency plus length of the arms and then It is a gyro set-up thing. My set-up is very different from standard MK. You can get anything to hover in a stable mode but it takes time with set-up IMHO.

 

[jes1111]

MK can't but will the OP FC boards be able to accept an offset from the CG so they don't have to be mounted right down where all the weight is?
I'm told offsets are standard features on heli gyro products.
Thanks,
bart

I campaigned for James to include board offsets in the OP code, but he did one of his famous "back of an envelope" calculations and concluded that they weren't necessary - his answer included phrases like "angular error" and went right over my head, but it sounded convincing.

My view now is that the board may need to offset from the actual CG point only on larger frames - and the larger the frame, the less it matters that the board is slightly offset. Does that make sense? If anybody can prove to James that it is necessary, then I'm sure he'll add it to the code.

One interesting feature of OP is the ability to mount the board in any orientation - you have it rotated by any amount on any of the three axis: just enter the rotations in the configuration tool then calibrate the accels. Cool.

 

[jes1111]

Denny - love your amphibious quad! Maybe a bit too complex for many to build - wet fibreglass and all that? But you obviously have a great handle on the vibes issue. Can you characterise the aspects of your design that could be translated into a simpler construction?

There's a thread going elsewhere about vibes and engine mounting. The theory says that motors should be rigidly mounted to the arms and the arms should be rigidly mounted to the fuselage. You've obviously proved otherwise - I'd be fascinated to hear more about it.

I'm very excited about 3D printing with nylon (PA220, PA12 and PA12-GF). The price of small parts created using this technology is now down to the realms of "sensible", and the possibilities that are opened up are tremendous. Unfortunately (in a way) MR frames seem to have developed with the sole aid of gantry CNC machines, to the extent that everything seems to be "cut from flat sheets". Kind of like the old saying "if you've only got a hammer then everything looks like a nail".

I'd love to participate in the creation of the frame Crash talks about - let's consolidate our ideas/experiences and make a frame that is worthy of the fabulous work that the OP guys (and gal!) have given us.

I'm not an engineer or a coder (I'm actually a photographer), but I love solving three dimensional problems and I'm a whizz on Solidworks. I view the fact that I've never even flown an MR as an advantage - no preconceptions, no vested interests: just clear logic and lateral thinking

 

[Bartman]

Denny,
Just watched the video, very creative approach to the problems we all encounter. I see what you're doing with the soft mounting of everything but is there anything you've learned so far that can make the typical MR frames and their camera mounts perform better or do you see it as too much of a lost cause to bother trying?
Thanks,
Bart

 

[Bartman]

Denny,
You've got me thinking now (and I can't stop), thanks!! You obviously went the route where everything has a degree of flexibility so nothing couples and vibrations disappear. Did you give any thought to going the opposite route where you kept things fully rigid (not semi rigid like a lot of frames) and only tried to isolate vibrations at the camera mount?
Bart

 

[DennyR]

Bart as I get further into the full explanations, it will become clear why this system is the way that it is. It is a no compromise solution. We are going to take a journey thro. the history of how camera stabilisation has evolved. From the basic principle of what a balanced beam achieves, to the milestones and breakthroughs of key inventors. The state of the art aerial camera system today costs half a million USD, so it is nothing short of remarkable that this can do what it does for comparative peanuts. The next part will show the value of a home made rate table where we see why the current model gyro's don't work and what servos deliver the resolution needed and what ones don't. I covered the vibration suppression issue first because nothing can ever work until that essential ingredient is fulfilled. Some areas must be very rigid and others not. That will be explained.

 

[Droider]

Ill try to contribute but I thik most of the time Ill be just following it with great interest!

Dave

 

[Bartman]

Bart as I get further into the full explanations, it will become clear why this system is the way that it is. It is a no compromise solution. We are going to take a journey thro. the history of how camera stabilisation has evolved. From the basic principle of what a balanced beam achieves, to the milestones and breakthroughs of key inventors. The state of the art aerial camera system today costs half a million USD, so it is nothing short of remarkable that this can do what it does for comparative peanuts. The next part will show the value of a home made rate table where we see why the current model gyro's don't work and what servos deliver the resolution needed and what ones don't. I covered the vibration suppression issue first because nothing can ever work until that essential ingredient is fulfilled. Some areas must be very rigid and others not. That will be explained.

so, in other words, stay tuned for part 2. no problemo muchacho.

 

[matwelli]

looking forward to part two - good stuff !

 

[Emowillcox]

Wow you had me at hello !

When are then next parts coming out?