Super Heavy Lift x8 multicopter

[Old Man]

Sounds like someone is looking for an education without having to invest any effort. People with a little experience/knowledge know that APM boards have pretty much been superseded by a more advanced and versatile system.

Might be nice if the OP told everyone a little about himself and how he intends to fly such a beast in Spain. Pretty country!

 

[stevemaller]

Well, I insist on using APM because I want it to be open source so I can make some changes, I want to make a 100% autonomous flight with loads of waypoints

Making changes to the flight control source code and "100% autonomous flight"?
Oh, good grief.

 

[FerdinandK]

I am sometimes not sure, if everything that is possible should be shared via internet/forum. Especially crafts being able to carry >10kg for >30min.

best regards
Ferdinand

 

[maxwelltub]

Agreed

 

[Old Man]

A brief, well, perhaps not so brief, word about that. In my work I'm subject to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and the amount and type of information that cannot be safely and legally shared in open and uncontrolled discussions is mind boggling. What's interested is even if the information shared is normally in and of itself "open source", if multiple sources of open source information are accessed and shared they can become "controlled" information and subject all participating in a legal conundrum. Even if they were completely unaware the subject matter or how such could be combined to of any potential laws or restrictions covering how open information could become combined to create restricted information relative to technology. This area is especially sensitive to technological discussions involving UAV technology since our (United States) Department of State and Department of Commerce view anything "UAV" as "controlled". The UK has similar information exchange controls. That's sort of why 3D Robotics now lists export document reference numbers on all their products and is restricting many of their sales to North America, and some only to the U.S. Bear in mind that just about everything 3DR handles is based on open source technology, with most of the source origins being outside the U.S. and sending info to us. The catch is that open source information is being combined to develop products and technologies in a manner that causes our government some concern, with said concerns adequate to place export restrictions on various products.

So @FerdinandK, you are 100% correct in your feelings. Based upon recent security briefs I've attended there is a large group of people doing all they can to obtain info related to UAV technology so it can be used for purposes few of us would be happy with. Although I don't feel the OP has much chance of being part of that group it never hurts to think a little before hitting a "post reply" button. Everyone likes to help out a Bro but sometimes that help can end up re-directed. The internet is very much a Pandora's Box.

 

[EastCoastJib]

I am sometimes not sure, if everything that is possible should be shared via internet/forum. Especially crafts being able to carry >10kg for >30min.

best regards
Ferdinand

Exactly.

 

[Lanzar]

Wish you all the best in your project. Hope that money will be well invested.
Please test your aircraft extensively on large open non populated fields before you do something which you will regret later on.
Play it safe and don't jeopardize this copter business for others.

Probably before the end is over this open source electronics will be banned all over the world for serious copters. For 2-3kg hobby they will be allowed but for 7+ this will not be in compliance with the law. POI flying will also be strictly regulated and range limited or the amount off papers needed will be just too much to handle.

 

[eskil23]

I am sometimes not sure, if everything that is possible should be shared via internet/forum. Especially crafts being able to carry >10kg for >30min.

Knowledge is a double edged sword.
If you do share information, the newbe might give up when he realizes the magnitude or he could start building the mega-drone after best practice.
If you don't share information, the newbe might give up due to lack of knowledge or he could go ahead and hack together a frame large enough for the biggest motors and props he can find, put a Naza Lite in it and it will fly like a pile of s**t.

 

[FerdinandK]

Knowledge is a double edged sword.
... could go ahead and hack together a frame large enough for the biggest motors and props he can find, put a Naza Lite in it and it will fly like a pile of s**t.

That was exactly what I did here:

Right now multicopter is more about doing, than about knowing.

@Lanzar
Here I do agree, that as time passes open-source FCs will no longer be allowed on commercial copter.


best regards
Ferdinand

 

[Old Man]

Knowledge is a double edged sword.
If you do share information, the newbe might give up when he realizes the magnitude or he could start building the mega-drone after best practice.
If you don't share information, the newbe might give up due to lack of knowledge or he could go ahead and hack together a frame large enough for the biggest motors and props he can find, put a Naza Lite in it and it will fly like a pile of s**t.

For the most part I agree with you but there's a couple of issues that bar complete agreement. One is providing extensive info to people that reside in countries with severe restrictions regarding the use of such technology. Another is is unloading massive amounts of information to people that are too lazy to perform due diligence in personally researching openly available build threads at numerous source locations. Academics, and most others, love to share every bit if information they have, often without considering how that information could be used, or thinking about who might be requesting it.

Information is indeed a double edged sword and should therefore be disseminated with caution. Too many things have been weaponized after someone obtained information about a subject that started out with intentions of serving the public, not killing them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[binlagin]

@Lanzar
Here I do agree, that as time passes open-source FCs will no longer be allowed on commercial copter.

Completely disagree.

Opensource software runs the world.

A closed source software system, is exponentially more expensive and significantly easier to hides issues.

 

[FerdinandK]

If there is an accident (and there will always be accidents), you as a user of opensource-FCs are responsible for the software/hardware, and if you are not skilled to develop FC-software your are already almost in prison (since it is careless from you to develop something you have no idea about with opensource FC you develop as you use). Every opensource FC-software does state, "development only, your own risk only". Not useable for commercial operators, please that does not mean that others are better, it is more or less a legal issue, a matter of responsibility.

Opensource in the past really was great, but now is seems to become another wording for "no support", "I don´t care", "I can use all of that", ... . Especially at universities there are graveyards of opensource software which nobody is able to use. The project is over, and the software was good to get the final report, but no lasting contribution.

And if you really want to earn money with something that uses opensource software, you cannot earn enough money you will need for the lawyers clearing the IP for your product (and responsibility). Now here are tow strategies to overcome this:
a) you do not care, which works if you stay small enough, if your business explodes, they (the lawyers) will toast you.
b) do not use a single line of open-source software rewrite every single piece. (no even a jpeglib or a zlib)

Possibly the developers behind run the opensource-world, but they make the world turning also within another environment. (And there is always ONE developer behind)

best regards
Ferdinand

 

[dazzab]

@FerdinandK - I hope people are aware enough to see your post as an emotional rant rather than factual. You seem to be a bit confused about open source in general. There are many examples of very successful open source software projects both commercial and free. The code produced by open source software developers is all around us and has changed the world as we know it. Indeed, you were probably using a fair amount of it to post your comments. How ironic.

Have a read of the GPL if you are concerned about legal issues. I share your concerns however in my case I'm concerned more about the commercial flight controllers as we really have no idea what processes have been used to produce them. I think you'll find that the commercial flight controllers have the same type of disclaimers as open source.

 

[eskil23]

I totally agree with binlagin. Open source software is safer to use because you can audit it yourself and verify that is does what it is supposed to do. If you don't have the knowledge to do it yourself, look for someone else who already done it and published it.

If you, like RedinandK, thinks that closed-source developers take some kind of responsibility in case of an accident, read the EULA and think again.

 

[Carapau]

The problem as I see it with open source software (and I am the first to admit that I don't know the first thing about it) is that there is an accountability issue. Closed source software at least will have an accountable manager and an organization behind it that can have its processes, procedures and documentation audited. Is this something that can be applied to open source code?

 

[Lanzar]

Well show me one airplane that has open sorurce code in the navigation and control and that ist FAA approved.
THen we can start discussing this. All things that can fly have all the small details like screws, windows.... down to smallest part written on papper and certified. Except experimental aircraft ( who ever has the pilot licence probably knows way more than i do).
THis is why i think that someone should not be able to temper with code and play with settings and fly after.

 

[dazzab]

Well show me one airplane that has open sorurce code in the navigation and control and that ist FAA approved.

What a silly statement. You might be surprised that some of the people writing the open source code used in our flight controllers actually work for the companies that write the code for commercial planes as well. These people are professional software engineers, some of whom work for aerospace companies. You might also be surprised to know that some of the open source code has ended up in use by the military. That's the great thing about open source. Anyone can use it for any purpose they want and even modify it to their needs as long as they stay within the license it's been released under.

 

[dazzab]

The problem as I see it with open source software (and I am the first to admit that I don't know the first thing about it) is that there is an accountability issue. Closed source software at least will have an accountable manager and an organization behind it that can have its processes, procedures and documentation audited. Is this something that can be applied to open source code?

Isn't DJI the biggest seller of consumer grade flight controllers right now? Do you really believe that they can be held accountable and are willing to have their processes, procedures and documentation audited? Fat chance is what I say.

 

[Old Man]

I think the last post put a quick end to code accountability. BTW, there are quite a few military grade systems that start out using open code. That's how they maintain the capability to modify the code to tailor fit the application and make improvements. However, they do try to lock it up after being put into service to minimize hacking.