We've taken it out above because it now redirects to a porn site.
That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.
There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.
I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
I've always tried to fly responsibly at all times. I am cognizant of weather, people/pets, surroundings and right-of-way in the sky. Nothing in life is guaranteed 99.9999% of the time. Is it OK for me to levy a 99.9999% guarantee on you, that you drive perfect and responsible (no radio, no food, no phone, no talking, no distractions - period)? No. That's not life in general - we don't live in a bubble. Well at least the general population doesn't.
I am fine with sane safety measures put forth... Certifications, registrations, etc. But this is a hobby like many others. People own many kinds of recreational hobby gear that can endanger the operator or surrounding people - yet, they're accepted because people think they understand them. Most don't, however, understand simple engine operation - yet drive cars.
All mechanical vehicles have the guarantee to fail at some point or another and, yes, someone is 100% guaranteed to get hurt at some point in time. But, please don't ruin my hobby because you choose not to understand it.
DO NOT FLY NEAR PEOPLE.
It's that simple. No functioning machine can ever be inherently safe, safety is the result of continuous exercise of good judgement. When operating a large nitro powered helicopter, featuring 700mm long carbon fibre knives that spin at 2000rpm, controlled by an imperfect operator, through an imperfect electronics system, powered by an unreliable motor I am aware that it is an intrinsically dangerous object, and I only fly it in controlled areas, without bystanders who could get hurt.
And it annoys me to no end when I see some idiot crashing his DJI into a building (no flying within 400m of a built-up area - don't fly near people), or a new guy with a t-rex or raptor helicopter flying near people in a park in the middle of town (Don't fly near people!) Or someone who should know better like a model aero club member flying over the pits or the viewing area or the carpark (don't fly near/over people!)
I actually want something like the machine described in the article, because I want to be able to film myself skiing, without the horribly cliched helmet cam, but unless I can get something small enough that it CANT hurt someone in a collision, or something with very robust collision avoidance, I can't use it. Ideally both, because even with perfect collision avoidance, something else could still break.
I'm not arguing for draconian policy measures. I just want manufacturers to focus on and market reliability and safety features. It's a win-win for users and manufacturers.
Manufacturers are clearly aiming for these drones to be everywhere and for everyone to own one. With many, many people flying for the first time everyday there are going to be accidents. If manufacturers can reduce the harm caused by these accidents then they'll have a much easier path for FAA regulations and public acceptance.
For users, they get the ease of mind that crashes won't be catastrophic for their drone and a reduced chance that they'll inadvertently hurt someone.
Life is inherently dangerous, and almost every technical innovation is first met with objections with how it will cause loss of life. The danger of accidental personal injury from drone is probably an order of magnitude lower than the danger of accidental personal injury from discarded banana peels.
> I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.
Then you want the technology not to exist, which I think is a terrible shame. It's like crying "fire hazard" around a Tesla. If you want a hobby device to rant against, try scooters, those things are much more deadly and rightly deserve to be taxed and regulated. [1]
The Lily drone if it actually performs anything like that video, is pure awesome, and absolutely the future. If it can be made quiet enough and compact enough it replaces everything from the cinematographer at your wedding, to the selfie.
It also probably looks good in black with a nice white pin-stripe, with the letters N-Y-P-D, floating around Times Square, and running no-knock warrants. 10 - 15 generations along actually, this thing is quite terrifying, for completely different reasons than 'OMG it will fall on me'.
[1] - http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/the-most-dangerou...
Maybe drones need to start to incorporate parachutes to slow down the fall in case of problems like these, or maybe even airbags to ease the crash. Not that it would make it 99.9999% reliable, but it should be better than nothing. And also won't completely thrash your drone when it crashes.
edit seems nine_k already commented with a similar idea
But the issue is the effective minimum height for a parachute to be any use.
In order to make flying aerial drones safer, DJI, maker of popular quadcopters like the Phantom 2, is currently developing a parachute system called DropSafe, which can be deployed instantly in a case of emergeny
Unfortunately, currently we probably make do with a few less nines on all these items.
A drone that loses an engine falls out of the sky and lands on top of anything that is below it, and as of right now, there are no evasive maneuvers that can be executed. Especially for drones that are being used to record large public gatherings, things like multiple engines or parachutes should be absolutely mandatory, at least by the organizers of the event.
Needless to say, I'd bet it'll take one or two insurance claims until they are.
I have a fairly cheap drone with a built-in camera and, no doubt, it could cause a scratch or bruise if it hit you at full speed, but luckily it's nothing like they used to be.
The more I think about it, the more I think, the risk of flying these things in populated places just isn't worth it.
I take it you don't drive, or allow yourself to be driven, right?
I just got nervous and called few people and cracked down the drone.
Then decided never play with them in domestic living area.
99.9999%
Things are amazing, and nobody's happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E
But really, working in internet tech, there's no excuse not to get out more often. Internet connections are everywhere and portable computing is absolutely viable.
Lastly, the part in the video where the guy just tosses it into the river was definitely mind-blowing.
It doesn't have obstacle avoidance or it will make a massive deal of it.
Seek A Avoid B
In your case, a ton of Bs in terms of leaves, branches and etc.
I guess it would need a wide scan to detect if there is a path either vertically or horizontally.
African American males could carry it. Then, when police was nearby it could launch itself. Maybe it would be triggered by the sound of sirens or if there is a website that tracks police cars, maybe it could launch every time they are near. Or maybe an apple watch could detect fear from differences in pulse and then launch it. Maybe some other trigger
A future, self launching, slightly smaller version of this could be a great protector of civil rights.
Women could carry it if they run at night and if they don't make it home it could fly to a police station.
Parents could send them out with their kids.
I for one would prefer the aerial robot following me to not be traveling at 60MPH. That's asking for a serious injury.
Obviously gets quite dangerous in populated areas like ski slopes.
I'm a rower so fortunately I won't have the obstacles issue. In fact, these could be great for rowing coaches who can put the controller in the boat then get close up to the rower/crew without needing oversized launches that wash everyone else down.
20 mins might be a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable.
According to the creators v1 doesn't handle obstacles at all due to time and cost. I'm sure a later version can be made to do so; I feel like it should be far easier to do in a 3D space versus a flatted space like ground vehicles.
(As a concept, this is amazing - excited to see how well it works in practice.)
Most areas have a club to keep members under control (irresponsible kiting can be dangerous to people not in the sea, unlike surfing) ... our club is keen on getting Woos, GoPros, webcams, internet enabled wind-o-meters etc... Hope they decide to get one of these!!
It's still hard to part with my money (even at 50% off) when the ship date is next year though. I've been burned by various kickstarter projects that get delayed ad infinitum.
Me too. I've decided that there are no new things that I need so much that I can't wait until the thing is actually shipping. In many cases I've been quite happy waiting until a v2 release when the early bugs and quirks are worked out.
Even with huge savings for being "an early backer" - I've found I get more for my money (and sometimes anything for my money) if I wait until an improved "v2" ships a few months after initial release.
This isn't a slight on this project specifically but there is a risk that any project which isn't yet in production won't get that far...
TLDR; during development of the printer, a number of things have changed (including a noticeable reduction in print volume). Refunds were offered August of last year, and the vast majority of refund requests are still pending (and currently half a month behind their own deadline for the latest update.
Not that I have any knowledge on whether the people behind Lily have better or worse communication and management skills, but just because they're happy to offer refunds doesn't mean they'll offer them promptly.
My main concerned is the 20m battery life/record time - that is pretty limiting. If I were to use this to record myself snowboarding (like the video shows), that would be a problem. Here in Colorado a typical blue rated mountain run is easily 20m from top to bottom, esp. if you aren't gunning it the whole way. When I ride alone I can maybe go top to bottom in slightly under 20m but I'm flying and really pushing it the whole time, I wonder if the drone could even keep up in that situation (speed would be over 25mph almost the entire time).
Pretty cool but I personally think there is much bigger market for a device designed to record kids playing hockey, basketball, soccer etc... imagine a tripod that tracks your kid, that would be way way more killer and useful for most people and probably a ton cheaper as you could use a smartphone as the camera.
Technically it's impressive as hell, I just don't know about how practical is in actual use.
More info here: http://shop.soloshot.com/
Very cool device and it would have a lot of practical uses, but not sure it will ever be that useful for the masses.
Where do you ski? 20 min at 25 mph implies an 8.3 mile long run.
I'm sure they will also sell a Lily branded external battery that can be kept in your backpack and used to recharge it.
It doesn't seem like something they're interested in for the launch.
The airspace is going to be pretty hilarious at Killington on a weekends if half the people with GoPros upgrade to drones.
Status Release Price
----------- --------- ------------
AirDog* Pre-Order Q3 2015 $1,295
HEXO+* Pre-Order Sept 2015 $1,299
IRIS+* Available Now $750
Mind4* Kickstarter Failed $900-$1,489
Lily Pre-Order Feb 2016 $519-$1,019
*Note that all but Lily require a $300 GoPro camera.
EDIT: Found Lily release date...
The price just seems unbelievably low compared to all the other options.
Can it follow you around the corner of a building without clipping it?
Can it avoid bumping into a tree?
Will it climb above the trees to follow you through a wooded area?
Can it avoid getting tangled in an overhead utility line?
Purchaser agrees to stay clear of anything in the range of the UAV, or anything it could possibly collide with such as power lines, buildings, other UAVs etc.
1) 20 minutes is great if your sole purpose is getting video, but not if your sole purpose is surfing (let's say). A surf session might be 2 hours. Taking a break to put your dead flying camera away in the middle of it isn't ideal.
Still there could be work around for this at some point.
2) Air space. The real problem. If you're surfing (again) or skiing you'll annoy everyone with the sound of your drone.
Still for the more adventurous who get to surf or ski alone, this does look pretty awesome, but will never be as ubiquitous as the GoPro.
But yes, 20 minutes is really short, it's its major default. I suppose it was a necessary sacrifice to make this kind of product at this time.
The chances of survival drop severely after 15 minutes of burial.
The only people that can save you in an Avalanche are the people in your group.
Source: Canadian ski patroller.
Avalanche safety is one use case where, as with defibrillators or hospital pagers, I think people will continue for a long time to use simple, rugged, and purpose-built devices with very low probability of failure rather than introducing a million new failure modes by using e.g. a cell phone or flying drone.
That is, let's say I'm going on a walk in the dark and I don't want to use a flashlight or wear a headlamp - I've thought of a drone flying 8-10 feet up, a few feet ahead of me, shining a light to light my way.
Since the Lily people seem to be here answering HN comments, I wonder, how far off is your product from doing that ?
This is actually a fairly compelling reason to do things.
However, if you are walking with one or two other people, their light depends on the direction of your head. And also on your relatively close proximity to them.
I dunno. It has occurred to me several times.
I really want one but I've grown wary of pre-ordering products that haven't been manufactured yet...
Just in case it's not obvious: I'm not complaining or being sarcastic, this is honest praise.
I just text a friend to visit https://lily.camera and he'll never see it, because it doesn't exist.
It is entirely pointless to not redirect. There's no reason the URL posted shouldn't redirect to the www version.
So I was thinking of a drone to film us from the side or above, but our skipper thought that no drone could handle the 15-20 knots with 30knts gusts winds we were sailing in.
Here's a drone that can fly at 100 mph (87 knots):
Last time on Hintertux at 3500m we had also strong winds while snowboarding. I'd give it a test nonetheless!
Maybe due to the fact drones are primarily used for war at the moment...
I suppose the answer is that the owner needs to be responsible with its usage. The example footage seemed fairly reasonable use-cases (no bystanders).
I've been building and flying quads for years now and Anything over the tiny indoor ones commands a LOT of respect from me due to experience.
The idea of these things autonomously following you is cool but a HUGE liability.
Unless they have some major obstacle avoidance on board they you basically could never safely use this around other people and honestly you shouldn't even use it around yourself.
In addition, 'cheap' blades have sharp edges due to the manufacturing process. Some drone owners recommend sanding them to get rid of those, to minimize injuries.
Telling people the blades are harmless is very irresponsible.
I continue to be horrified by what is happening with these multicopters. People fly them outside of controlled environments and with a total lack of consideration towards others or their property.
The vast majority of these things are cheap hobby-grade toys with laughable "safety" features. I own RC helicopters costing in excess of $3,000 and use a radio that costs well over $1,000. I still consider them dangerous toys not to be flown outside of club controlled environments.
What sucks is this morons are going to kill somebody and this will ruin the hobby for those of us who have been responsible flyers for decades.
In other words, even if you are flying total crap the probability of hurting anyone or causing property damage is greately reduced.
To anser the other part of your question. A $3K heli has significantly better electronics and mechanics when compared to something like a DJI quad. And, of course, there's the fact that it has excellent autorotation with full control on the way down.
Yet, again, the point is we don't fly over people, roads or buildings and we have far more experience flying than most drone buyers.
These campaigns are essentially people just asking you to buy them a drone:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1430324424/drone-scouti...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1802912897/drone-build-...
I wasn't aware campaigns of these sorts actually existed. Probably because I have always stuck to the front page of kickstarter.
I thought they are not allowing them completely, but apparently not. Yet in general, Kickstarter has higher quality content than other platforms.
- Real obstacle avoidance so it can work in urban areas so people could do news / tour guide broadcasts like some people are doing on Periscope these days. Rather than holding your phone up in front of you (which gives you a pretty shaky video), you could just tell it to follow you while you talk to it
- A sliding viewfinder that stays on your "face side" so you could see exactly what is being shot at all times.
- The ability to stream the video to another device (like your phone attached to an external HDD) would make it so you could shoot longer form stuff - maybe even complete solo movies, like some of those Assassin's Creed-esque parkour videos.
Especially in the extreme sports selfie video genre, hands-free operation would be a big advantage.
Really cool idea. Now I have a strange urge to break out the ArduCopter.
For example, Google & Siri kind of need to be able to handle anything I throw at them: "What is Ke$ha's new album?" "What year was the Hardy Boys book 'Hunting For Hidden Gold' written?" They may use a language model that favors grammatical language, that is: "What is Ke$ha" is a more likely speech recognition hypothesis than "What hiss kush ball", but they still need a big model to represent that.
For drone control, you have much more constrained language, which helps recognition accuracy significantly. The model can tell the recognizer that if it heard "Go <unsure> 100 feet" that the <unsure> word is most likely to be a direction like forward/back/left/right/up/down, and not "neutrino".
It's a lot like the way that Norvig uses n-grams to illustrate writing a spelling corrector: http://norvig.com/ngrams/ch14.pdf Having a model lets you fix errors in the input.
Having constrained language and a good model is often critical to creating a successful speech interface.
The main job here (which they have done well) is turning it into a mass consumer product, easy to use package. DJI has done a pretty good job for prosumers on it but this is another notch up.
Like the waterproofing!
Video suggests a higher level of autonomy than I think they have right now (obstacle avoidance, automatic landing on your hand) but a year might be enough to cram it in there.
I think we will see many more consumer drones like this.
I have seen multiple promo videos for various drones offering same "follow me" feature.
Here's one I found in few seconds https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris
The 3d mapping on this one is amazing.
Just look at the design of the thing, it's clearly more for play than work.
I wouldn't preorder one at this stage (even if I had a spare $500 lying around), but this is one of the coolest gadgets I've seen in a while, and the marketing is top-notch.
I suspect some sports will allow limited use during practice and scrimmages for training purposes.
> Currently, Lily does not have any obstacle avoidance capabilities. We have found that most outdoor activities do not need obstacle avoidance because Lily can follow the user's path. But again, there are no guarantees that Lily will not hit anything while it is following you.
"no obstacle avoidance" o_O
Basically it's like having your own cameramen, so you can have spectacular camera angles without involving huge crews. This could be cool for TV shows, documentary and indie films.
So long as you stay within recreational use guidelines (e.g., don't upload videos to YouTube), you should be fine.
What happens when the battery is low or when I give it a tad too much spin?
"Whoops, did I just lob my $500 gadget into solid concrete?"
Well, I suppose it probably has safer take-off modes, too. Can't wait until they shrink it down to tennis ball size.
I don't know about battery life, though, and that might be a large disadvantage of those. Also, fitting a GPS unit into one might be tricky.
This is a basic overview, but if you are interested google keywords like "parralax" and "parralax animation"
What if there is another person snowboarding on that slope with Lily? And he/she slides close to you?
So either 1) they expect you to pay more later 2) they are selling the preorders at a loss (woo venture funding! do things that don't scale!) or 3) their markup will be huge (>100%) when they start making regular sales.
It is annoying that everyone started calling Quadcopter a "drone", which is a very generic term. Flippin non-tech marketing peeps. -_-
Also, with a top speed of 40 km/h this isn't able to keep up with anyone who's past the rookie stage skiing/snowboarding. So their marketing is very misleading, either by intention or because these guys don't know shit about skiing.
All the interesting stuff for filming on the slopes happens at relatively low speeds - park, moguls, jumps, butters, etc.
Is it possible to control it manually using standard RC controller and RC modules (i.e. Frsky)?
Also, does it have built-in collision avoidance?
"Come on Lily... power up, POWER UP!"
If my generation was called the "me" generation, how would you describe this generation?