We love those provocative headlines?

[PeterLester]

The editor and staff despise a particular politician to the point where they put his face on the cover of a magazine so as to warn and sway public opinion.
The intended headline was "This Man is Dangerous"..... but the editor is scared of a libel suit so he rephrases it to say "Is this Man Dangerous?" The public understands the implication, the magazine cannot be sued and the politician's popularity tanks.... mission achieved.

I see this all the time here on MRF where individuals point the finger at the Flight Computers.... then as you read down thru the entire posting threads, 7 out or 10 times you begin to see that the individual has very bad troubleshooting skills and blames the FC and not the real cause... which is typically a misconfigured RC radio system, ill-conceived MR DIY design, mismatched motor/escs or wrongly configured/programmed ESCs.

We all need to blame somebody but just maybe we should be more careful about the wording of the headlines....

 

[Electro 2]

I see this all the time here on MRF where individuals point the finger at the Flight Computers.... then as you read down thru the entire posting threads, 7 out or 10 times you begin to see that the individual has very bad troubleshooting skills and blames the FC and not the real cause... which is typically a misconfigured RC radio system, ill-conceived MR DIY design, mismatched motor/escs or wrongly configured/programmed ESCs.

Agreed, and it's worse on the other forum where there are a higher percentage of beginners. I have ceased reading such posts as it gives me indigestion. It took me a long time to discover that not all are coming at this passion from the same place I am, or are headed toward the same goals. I've never had any of the horrors described in the posts happen to me. Each and every issue I've encountered was carefully researched, quantified, and solved with little drama.

 

[mangoats]

Hello great people,

I used to be a field service technician in R@D automation. I worked with some of the best engineers in the industry and learned everything I could from them.

I can tell you, the first place you point the figure is always at yourself. If you cannot, and everything and everyone else is to blame, you'll never learn true trouble shooting skills.

Every time I think it's not my fault, it bites me in the butt. Every time I think I really understand a product a certain way, someone shows me something new about it. Always keep your mind open. Always!

Some people have these skills and are a truly knowledgeable person when trouble shooting. Others just don't have the back ground for it, but think they do because of one reason or another.

You find this on the forums all the time, there are certain people you just listen to when they talk or make a post.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[wolph42]

The editor and staff despise a particular politician to the point where they put his face on the cover of a magazine so as to warn and sway public opinion.
The intended headline was "This Man is Dangerous"..... but the editor is scared of a libel suit so he rephrases it to say "Is this Man Dangerous?" The public understands the implication, the magazine cannot be sued and the politician's popularity tanks.... mission achieved.

I see this all the time here on MRF where individuals point the finger at the Flight Computers.... then as you read down thru the entire posting threads, 7 out or 10 times you begin to see that the individual has very bad troubleshooting skills and blames the FC and not the real cause... which is typically a misconfigured RC radio system, ill-conceived MR DIY design, mismatched motor/escs or wrongly configured/programmed ESCs.

We all need to blame somebody but just maybe we should be more careful about the wording of the headlines....

Hi,

I see what you mean and I have to agree. Funny thing is though, in the 'new posts' your post was very close to this one:
http://www.multirotorforums.com/showthread.php?17865-Bad-FC&p=154152#post154152
which obviously made me wonder whether that post triggered your post? (the drop that made the bucket spill so to say). Which is also funny as this poster appears to have it correctly (it really looks like he has a faulty FC although his forum posting skill lack a bit).

Still you're righ in that you don't want new-comers (like me) coming to a forum like this with wild enthusiasm and ideas for a build and the first thing they're bombarded with are loads of post-titles about failing parts...
On the other hand, I don't think its the posters *intention* to denigrate certain parts of their builds (but maybe I'm just positive or its because I'm not living in the US). Like with the post I linked here, its the posters intention to clarify what the topic is (potentially) about not with the intention as the editor you speak of in the OP. It does however have the adverse effect I described and forum posters should be aware of that!

 

[PeteDee]

So much technology built in to such a small area, I am amazed we ever fly.


Pete

 

[jbrumberg]

So much technology built in to such a small area, I am amazed we ever fly.


Pete

I am a newbee. I have absolutely no disagreement with what I have read so far in this thread. IMHO the more one is dependent on all that technology packed into that FCB in order to fly that multi-rotor the more one must be proficient in and understanding of that particular FCB's programing needs and capabilities and be capable of correctly programming that FCB. Failure to meet the requirements of the FCB result in operational failure in some fashion. I think some newbee owner/operators have great difficulty accepting the fact that they are the reason for "the problem". Another reason for some of these "headline" banner-type part failure diatribes is just lack of knowledge and maybe an inability to articulate their questions due to this lack of knowledge.

I also agree about the need for problem solving skills. FCB's and electronics will fail at some point. This puts responsibility on the owner/operator to determine the cause of the failure. Everyone seems to want a quick analysis and a quick fix. This is not always possible.

My beef is the newbee owner/operator with a lot of ego, with enough smarts to program a powerful FCB to get a really nice multi-rotor airborne, but knows jackpoo how to really fly it, and when that FCB fails for some reason or another blames everyone and everything (in a very public way) but themselves when that multi-rotor flies away.

 

[jes1111]

I agree that diagnostic/troubleshooting skills are often lacking. And I'll add to that something I've observed myself: that the fault is invariably assumed to be in the electronic units "connected", rather than in "the connection" itself. Put another way, there is common "blindness" to wire quality/suitability, connector quality/suitability and soldering (or crimping) quality/suitability.

 

[SoCal Blur]

The editor and staff despise a particular politician to the point where they put his face on the cover of a magazine so as to warn and sway public opinion.
The intended headline was "This Man is Dangerous"..... but the editor is scared of a libel suit so he rephrases it to say "Is this Man Dangerous?" The public understands the implication, the magazine cannot be sued and the politician's popularity tanks.... mission achieved.

I see this all the time here on MRF where individuals point the finger at the Flight Computers.... then as you read down thru the entire posting threads, 7 out or 10 times you begin to see that the individual has very bad troubleshooting skills and blames the FC and not the real cause... which is typically a misconfigured RC radio system, ill-conceived MR DIY design, mismatched motor/escs or wrongly configured/programmed ESCs.

We all need to blame somebody but just maybe we should be more careful about the wording of the headlines....

Sometimes it really IS the FC. There is just too much empirical</SPAN></SPAN> data to deny it.

By suggesting that its usually the end user that is to blame, aren't you are guilty of exactly what you are saying you have issue with? "The intended headline was "The User is Actually to Blame".... rephrases it to say "Is the FC Actually to blame?" The public understands the implications...the Poster with the issue is looked down upon...

People enter this sport/hobby/industry with varying levels of technical compentency. When they have an issue they try to deduce the cause based on what they understand at that time. If they are new, it may not be much. However, they do their best to determine the cause. When people post with things like "Is the FC to blame" they have come to the conclusion that the FC is a possiblity...again based on their understanding at the time. They are looking for help, opinions to either confirm or provide alternate possibilites, things to try/test. They hopefully learn from the experience of other and may well find that it wasn't the FC after all. Most are probably hoping that it is NOT their expensive FC but rather something simple and less expensive. Keep in mind that even the most experienced "troubleshooters" sometimes begin by looking at the most difficult thing, overlooking the simple things - is it plugged in? If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit, we've all done it.

At least for me, I would rather focus on helping that poster (if I can) get to the bottom of their issue than worry about if they prematurely blamed their FC. :friendly_wink:

 

[jbrumberg]

"At least for me, I would rather focus on helping that poster (if I can) get to the bottom of their issue".- SoCal Blur

That's the first priority. I'll pontificate later from my soapbox. I am certainly no expert, I am certainly on no ego trip when I am trying to help. My goal is only to get that poster airborne and hopefully flying a better aircraft and better than I do which really should be pretty easy. I gain a lot from helping others as I learn through research in the process. It makes me a better RC'er and person.

We are all in this together.

 

[gtranquilla]

I had been thinking of posting this item a long time before yours was posted and the headlines of others were far more provocative and accusing.
And we all understand yours to be a very honest and forthright posting with no bad intent whatsoever.

Hi,

I see what you mean and I have to agree. Funny thing is though, in the 'new posts' your post was very close to this one:
http://www.multirotorforums.com/showthread.php?17865-Bad-FC&p=154152#post154152
which obviously made me wonder whether that post triggered your post? (the drop that made the bucket spill so to say). Which is also funny as this poster appears to have it correctly (it really looks like he has a faulty FC although his forum posting skill lack a bit).

Still you're righ in that you don't want new-comers (like me) coming to a forum like this with wild enthusiasm and ideas for a build and the first thing they're bombarded with are loads of post-titles about failing parts...
On the other hand, I don't think its the posters *intention* to denigrate certain parts of their builds (but maybe I'm just positive or its because I'm not living in the US). Like with the post I linked here, its the posters intention to clarify what the topic is (potentially) about not with the intention as the editor you speak of in the OP. It does however have the adverse effect I described and forum posters should be aware of that!