@Sandro: Yes TBM is our US distributor. But most importantly 80% of the document applies to any UAV, just the numbers presented are always recalculated so and example is always illustrating Pteryx UAV among other things.
I think almost everybody is neglecting roll stabilisation because that leads to airframes that are more demanding and much harder to sell to newcomers. The whole market is biased by this. The 'workaround logic' UAV mfg use is that they claim to have so stiff aileron control that the deviation is small - but it is so only with no windspeed changes - hence they pick a special data. Also such stiff airframe roll control is generating low amplitude oscillations and increases blur, thus forcing shorter exposures and higher noise ratio - but this comes out only after experimenting - what is never published.
Still, you can have very good results without roll head stabilisation - yet you must do a lot of tricks to adjust for it, all coming down to smaller average surface per flight and shorter acceptable weather+lighting window.
You've covered a thing that people have been neglecting... the camera stabilization. Mainly at the roll axis I think it's indispensable for a good result.
It's painful when you have a "zigzag" picture set along the path. The mapping software does care about matching the images for extracting a point cloud. However the resulting texture is hampered by the blurring of trapezoidal corrections which is really not good.
I loved all the minimum details of it. From the comparison between full airplanes and small UAV to the calculations as well as the UAV vs Sats... incredible well compiled.
Thanks for sharing and congratulations by the exceptional work.
Comments
@Sandro: Yes TBM is our US distributor. But most importantly 80% of the document applies to any UAV, just the numbers presented are always recalculated so and example is always illustrating Pteryx UAV among other things.
I believe is this one: http://www.troybuiltmodels.com/items/PTERYX-UAV.html
Is there an online website for the airframe and setup that is used in this document?
I think almost everybody is neglecting roll stabilisation because that leads to airframes that are more demanding and much harder to sell to newcomers. The whole market is biased by this. The 'workaround logic' UAV mfg use is that they claim to have so stiff aileron control that the deviation is small - but it is so only with no windspeed changes - hence they pick a special data. Also such stiff airframe roll control is generating low amplitude oscillations and increases blur, thus forcing shorter exposures and higher noise ratio - but this comes out only after experimenting - what is never published.
Still, you can have very good results without roll head stabilisation - yet you must do a lot of tricks to adjust for it, all coming down to smaller average surface per flight and shorter acceptable weather+lighting window.
You've covered a thing that people have been neglecting... the camera stabilization. Mainly at the roll axis I think it's indispensable for a good result.
It's painful when you have a "zigzag" picture set along the path. The mapping software does care about matching the images for extracting a point cloud. However the resulting texture is hampered by the blurring of trapezoidal corrections which is really not good.
Thank you Krzysztof, That's a very professional work.
Thanks a lot for sharing.
That's awesome!
I loved all the minimum details of it. From the comparison between full airplanes and small UAV to the calculations as well as the UAV vs Sats... incredible well compiled.
Thanks for sharing and congratulations by the exceptional work.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next