Slashdot Mirror


U. Penn Super Quadcopter Learns New Tricks

Freddybear writes "University of Pennsylvania's GRASP lab posted new video of their scary fast maneuverable quad-rotor drone. It can now fly through openings (hoops) which are themselves moving." The entire list of GRASP projects is worth crawling through.

124 comments

  1. Killing me in my sleep? by 5pp000 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't think so. That sucker is NOISY.

    Cool aerobatics though.

    --
    Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
    1. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does make a distinct sound and sounds like that in a war-zone can have a terrifying effect, psychologically on enemy troops.

    2. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They could use it to track autonomous Audis, better than crashing helicopters.

    3. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they put the sound dampening tips on the blades if it would be less noisy. Or is that the sound of the engines/motors?

      Once they figure out how to make it silent or near silent, then you might be able to hear me crap my pants in fear.

    4. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also: did you see what it needs for navigation? Bright red lights as landmarks, brightly colored hoops.

      It would need much more sophisticated navigation in order to operate outside its little custom-made "cage".

    5. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Can't wait for a version with two swiveling turbines at the tips of small wing, eh?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It does make a distinct sound and sounds like that in a war-zone can have a terrifying effect, psychologically on enemy troops."

      Until they learn to range it by sound and take countermeasures...

      "Frightfulness" gets the low-hanging fruit, but disciplined men have stood incredible barrages (WWI being the best example) and stood fast despite losing tens of thousands killed in a single day.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can't wait for a version with two swiveling turbines at the tips of small wing, eh?

      Something similar was : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_Hornet

    8. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Its not meant to be a fully capable killbot at this stage in its life cycle I'd imagine. Give it a few years and the military will have a suitcase-carried remote piloted scout for urban areas, probably a lot quieter than this one, and larger models for ground support or duties currently filled by the A-10 or Spectre gunship. Is there a theoretical maximum size it can be? Even with some sort of sonic sensor kit I could see a few hundred of these being dropped out the back of a plane at high altitude, armed with longer range rifles, for area supression.

    9. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a motion capture system.
      see this (somewhat similar) system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDj5jtDUD8k

    10. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, imagine being killed by a flying army of vuvuzelas. Yech.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by rcamans · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it does not need to be a killer. With a camera, gps, and a targeting laser, it can zoom in, acquire a target, zoom up out of range, and let a remote site fire a missile up to kill targeted item.

      Scary.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    12. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keystone Ice all over my keyboard. Hope you're happy

    13. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by kmahan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm ok with using it to kill clowns. That seems like a public service.

      --
      Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
    14. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by ComfortablyAmbiguous · · Score: 1

      The bright red lights at least are warnings to other humans that the helicopter is operating. Safety first you know.

    15. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Gen.+Malaise · · Score: 1

      Screw the copter... thanks for introducing me to Trent. peeeow! peeeow!

    16. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      We at Cyberdyne Systems consider this all amusing. Our early, now-obsolete flying killbots could eat these for breakfast and spit out bolts in all directions. Our patented "Headshot" tm techology supports a 100 kpm strike rate, For more information query our website, indicating your security clearance level and service rating. We are unable to respond below 3 stars, sorry.

    17. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Although the sound of 3 or so technicians mounting 20 mocap cameras around a war zone, followed by a technician waving his magic wand around the soldiers to calibrate the cameras, before finally wheeling in the various servers needed to interpret and analyse motion capture data may ruin the element of surprise somewhat......

    18. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Although the sound of 3 technicians positioning the 20 mocap cameras around the soldiers in a warzone, followed by the man in black lycra waving the camera calibration wand over the heads of the enemy, followed by the wheeling in of the servers and computer equipment required to capture and analyse the gigs of data generated by the mocap suite may ruin the element of surprise somewhat......

    19. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by tibit · · Score: 1

      This should be modded insightful. The aircraft have no inertial references AFAIK. All they are is four remotely controlled motors. All of the real-time processing for the control is done elsewhere in the room. The aircraft have retro-reflective markers and external motion capture is used to get feedback for the control system. If you were to try and reproduce their results, the stumbling block would be the price of the Vicon motion capture system with 1000Hz sampling rate cameras. Those aren't cheap.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    20. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Nope. The "bright red lights" are infrared light sources of the motion tracking system, mounted on the walls. Most likely a Vicon system with 1000Hz cameras. The IR illuminators show up on color CMOS-sensor cameras as red.

      The hoops don't have to be colored at all -- they have retro-reflective markers for the motion capture system, IIRC.

      There's nothing on the aircraft that would "see" anything, it's merely an airframe, battery, motor controller, and a radio receiver. All of the control is done elsewhere in the room.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    21. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we'll be able to tell what's chasing us!

    22. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. That sucker is NOISY.

      Cool aerobatics though.

      First: make it work
      Second: make it quiet.
      Works for me. If these people don't have a military contract, the they're doing it wrong...or...they have the intestinal fortitude to tell them to FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU!

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    23. Re:Killing me in my sleep? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Fairey Rotodyne was probably a more sucesfull example of those ideas. But...no, not really similar at all.

      Similar would be Bell/Agusta BA609, V-22 Osprey, perhaps NASA Puffin. This one pretty damn close, ze Germans had something even closer, and here is almost the real deal, just not with turbines or ducted fans ("cancelled", riiight ;) )

      Pretty close to proper aerial HK

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  2. Way cool by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Funny

    I dunno what all the practical applications of this tech are but all I can say is, I want one.

    1. Re:Way cool by Laxori666 · · Score: 1

      Really? What about if you put a gun on it and send a few of them into a building?

    2. Re:Way cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prefer lasers instead -- fired bullets generate quite a bit of recoil.

    3. Re:Way cool by mSparks43 · · Score: 2, Funny

      still no match for airsoft i suspect:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HGmoxotBi8

    4. Re:Way cool by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      I dunno what all the practical applications of this tech are but all I can say is, I want one.

      If you can shrink the vehicle down to fly size and make it as quite as a fly with the addition of a microphone or a mic w/ a camera it certainly would give new meaning to the expression "fly on the wall". I think the flight path control and anticipating the location of a moving object real time is the impressive part more so than the vehicle.

    5. Re:Way cool by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      I would prefer lasers instead -- fired bullets generate quite a bit of recoil.

      Yeah, it obviously has difficulty dealing with erratically changed flight patterns, so I'm sure the known force of the recoil would be a huge problem. I doubt this thing could carry much more than a laser pointer anyhow. Leave the freakin laser beams where they belong, on sharks heads.

    6. Re:Way cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could probably use this in many ways, so long as you don't try and track an autonomous Audi with it.

    7. Re:Way cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With DoD's budget, you could swarm the target location with a million of these things. Even if they had a low strike rate the sheer number would make them almost impossible to stop.

  3. Scary fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCARY FAST, guys. Just so SCARY.

  4. Manhack by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reminds me of the Manhacks from Half Life.
    http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Manhack

    1. Re:Manhack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Closer to the MQ38 drone in Fuel of War.

      Still not too close though.

    2. Re:Manhack by PiAndWhippedCream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the most terrifying things I've seen in a video game. Whenever I hear something that even vaguely sounds like a manhack, I instinctively spin to face it, and attempt to take out the Crowbar/GravGun.

  5. Weaponize! by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    So when can we mount some freaking laser on it?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Weaponize! by andoman2000 · · Score: 1, Funny

      as soon as we can figure out how to mount the sharks to it.

    2. Re:Weaponize! by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      No lasers. The value of a tool like this would be close in air support. Think cluster bombs on a smaller scale. If they could solve the buzzing sound this would make great close in surveilance drones. Perfect example: I'm a squad leader tasked with taking and holding a small town but I want to know if the enemy is already there. I take one of these guys out of my backpack and within minutes I have a complete surveilance profile of the town. Yeah I play too many first person shooters.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    3. Re:Weaponize! by andoman2000 · · Score: 0

      I think carpet bombing your enemy with sharks with freaking lasers on their heads would be more effective.

    4. Re:Weaponize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget lasers. Think hunter-killer mines. That's right, pack em with explosives!

  6. Nothing new to see here by Khyber · · Score: 0

    We've already got quadricopters. And you can control them with an iPhone. And they could already do this sort of maneuvering.

    It's called the Parrot AR.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Nothing new to see here by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We've already got quadricopters. And you can control them with an iPhone. And they could already do this sort of maneuvering."

      (A) Yes we do. (B) So what? An iPhone is hardly an optimized flight controller. It's a toy. (C) No, they can't. If you can maneuver your quadricopter with your iPhone anywhere near the way this thing can move, I'll eat your shorts.

      I am pretty sure that my digestion is safe for the time being.

    2. Re:Nothing new to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, are you familiar with the word "autonomous"?

    3. Re:Nothing new to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh, he is safe for the time being seeing as you need a $500k VICON system to pull off the sorts of maneuvers the quad rotors are pulling off in the video. You seriously think this is controlled solely by on board cameras or even one external camera? Why do you think in all these videos you see these glaring red lights? They are the locational cameras (GRASP Lab has 16 I think) identifying where in space the quad rotor is and it's orientation. There is a huge external computation component that you don't see doing most of the heavy lifting required to control this quad rotor.

      I'm fairly certain this can't be replicated by a quad rotor with merely and iPhone. That's kinda laughable.

    4. Re:Nothing new to see here by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      No way your average quadcopter controlled by an iPhone is going to be as maneuverable as the one in the video. The ones controlled by an iPhone use stability control and the pilot is simple telling it to move in a certain direction. It's very different to what you can do once you learn to fly manually, or in this case, an advanced auto pilot system.

    5. Re:Nothing new to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      no it isnt. the source code is proprietary. only the SDK is available and it is highly crippled. please show me how you can EASILY make this work with anything. idiot.

    6. Re:Nothing new to see here by ndogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because those things fly so blindingly fast, and autonomously. Right...

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    7. Re:Nothing new to see here by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes, I have seen the AR Drone videos. I saw the originals the first day they were released. As for ketchup, I won't be needing it. And have you by any chance seen some of the other replies? I don't know why they were meta-modded down, since they're in fact knowledgeable answers.

      "no it isnt. the source code is proprietary. only the SDK is available and it is highly crippled. please show me how you can EASILY make this work with anything. idiot."

      And so it is. The page you linked me to clearly states that it is an SDK, not source code.

      Uh, he is safe for the time being seeing as you need a $500k VICON system to pull off the sorts of maneuvers the quad rotors are pulling off in the video. You seriously think this is controlled solely by on board cameras or even one external camera? Why do you think in all these videos you see these glaring red lights? They are the locational cameras (GRASP Lab has 16 I think) identifying where in space the quad rotor is and it's orientation. There is a huge external computation component that you don't see doing most of the heavy lifting required to control this quad rotor.

      I'm fairly certain this can't be replicated by a quad rotor with merely an iPhone. That's kinda laughable.

      I repeat: if you can maneuver a Parrot AR Drone with your iPhone anywhere near the way this thing can move, I'll eat your shorts. (I think it's obvious that would include flying through both stationary and moving hoops of comparable size.)

      And I repeat: "I am pretty sure that my digestion is safe for the time being."

      Don't misunderstand: I think the AR Drone is very cool in its own way. It's a great toy. And it might even be useful for a few semi-practical things. But comparable to the device in the video OP linked to? Not.

    8. Re:Nothing new to see here by nategasser · · Score: 1

      I repeat: if you can maneuver a Parrot AR Drone with your iPhone anywhere near the way this thing can move, I'll eat your shorts. (I think it's obvious that would include flying through both stationary and moving hoops of comparable size.)

      It doesn't matter if dude can replicate these maneuvers with a Parrot -- after hours and hours of practice and maybe nail it once in twenty tries. The computers performing the Penn maneuvers can reliably repeat them over and over again, and could fly as many quadrotors as whoever's footing the bill cares to buy. That's the difference the "autonomous" part makes.

      And if you think "Bah, that's impractical - you need a big computer somewhere off-board to do the calculations" then you need to reread Moores Law.

    9. Re:Nothing new to see here by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I agree that it doesn't matter. That's not the point. He said that he can, and I was calling BS. Because... it's BS.

      As for the impracticality I agree with you, except that it is in fact impractical today. Tomorrow, maybe not. But tomorrow isn't here yet.

    10. Re:Nothing new to see here by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those modding me down.

      Eat your already-outdated quadcopter.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvH2f-AewX8&feature=related

      with built-in GPS location services, auto-stabilization, call-home function, can carry a camera, and can likely carry a micro-radar for autonomous navigation.

      Keep on dreaming while I've got investments in this stuff.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Nothing new to see here by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      And I repeat: "I am pretty sure that my digestion is safe for the time being."

      It's your taste buds that I'm worried about.

  7. So technically you're awake for a second by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure it's noisy, but did you see how fast that thing moved? You'd be awake for about a second, max, before it was on you.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So technically you're awake for a second by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Not faster than a Phalanx with Lockheed Martin's new laser system mounted on it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

      So, until they're faster than light, I'm not concerned =)

    2. Re:So technically you're awake for a second by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Not faster than a Phalanx

      So you're saying you have a Phalanx in your bedroom?

      Wait, don't answer that - TMI.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:So technically you're awake for a second by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Proper field terminology is CIWS or:

      "See-whiz"

    4. Re:So technically you're awake for a second by x2A · · Score: 1

      Now if we made a cross between that, and this, we'd have the perfect defense :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    5. Re:So technically you're awake for a second by radtea · · Score: 1

      Not faster than a Phalanx with Lockheed Martin's new laser system mounted on it.

      Excellent! So we can build machines to destroy the machines we build to destroy machines!

      I'm finally starting to understand the whole "logic" of this "war" stuff: instead of using this incredible technology to create a world of plenty with nothing much worth fighting over, we will use it to destroy things, thus sapping the economic productive capacity of the world, reducing our opportunities to trade, and cause our enemies to invest in more useless, deadweight loss electro-mechanical junk to stop our deadweight loss electro-mechanical junk.

      That's brilliant! Eventually we could even build automated factories to create the machines we use to destroy the machines they build to destroy our machines that destroy their machines, and the human population could go back to trying to scrape a bare living out of the miserable wasteland we have managed to reduce the Earth to.

      And they say there's no such thing as progress!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  8. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's really cool-

  9. While impressive by oneofthose · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think it is important to note that they use fairly sophisticated (multiple times more expensive than the drone itself) motion capture equipment to locate and control the drone.

  10. Oblig Skynet by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those little buggers are sure going to be hard to shoot down. Y'all better start skeet shooting right away if the human race is to have any chance!

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Oblig Skynet by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

      No, no they won't be hard to shoot. Fight science....with SCIENCE!

    2. Re:Oblig Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually: when reading the specs at the bottom will tell you that they can target about 8 to 16 targets before having to refill. Second: Their target prediction system (they need one to account for the .5 to 4 second delay between firing and destruction) has an algorithm that cannot beat randomness. They only thing that is not mentioned is the spread of bullets at the place of impact so you don't know how much to move (it will have to be small enough to hit the target). Third: the gun is useless above 85 degrees. Take your pick.

    3. Re:Oblig Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no robot is faster than a full load of buckshot from a sawed-off

    4. Re:Oblig Skynet by swb · · Score: 1

      The autocannon! The Centurian, land-based Phalanx model that can fire at ground targets sounds pretty scary, especially if made mobile and well camouflaged.

    5. Re:Oblig Skynet by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I was able to see the Centurion in a live fire operation. It is a formidable opponent.

    6. Re:Oblig Skynet by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Shooting the mocap technicians should be easy though.....

  11. Best. Tie-In. Ever. by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    So, how long will it be before we can buy remote-controlled mini Starfuries?

  12. IR Lamps show weakness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the quad positions itself using IR lamps. That (combined with a computer) is almost the same as a rail system. IR markers and
    lamps are not found in the real world so this device will probably not be flying as agile into houses soon..

    1. Re:IR Lamps show weakness by quibbler · · Score: 1

      Point-Picking systems are old-hat at this point, and walking between picked points is equally easy. I'd agree its a training-wheel approach that keeps the processing load much lower, but this is no great hurdle or limitation.

      Not coincidentally, this is exactly how a human pilot flies, you are specifically taught to NOT trust your inner ear, but rather only instruments and what you see out the windshield (picked reference points). So what you're calling a weakness is strikingly close to regular old flight school.

    2. Re:IR Lamps show weakness by tibit · · Score: 1

      Nope. The only sensors on the quad are motor speed sensors.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  13. Good timing by Lije+Baley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I throw a hoop up at the right time, I can get a rubber-band to fly throught it.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    1. Re:Good timing by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      how much money did u spend on urself to learn that trick?

      --
      warning pointless sig
    2. Re:Good timing by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      If I throw a hoop up at the right time, I can get a rubber-band to fly throught it.

      Cool, now show me how you can also get it to go through three hoops at different heights multiple times in a circular pattern.

    3. Re:Good timing by arielCo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not clear from the narration how much of it was pre-programmed and I'm too lazy to go read the paper, but either the guy waited for the copter to accelerate and threw the hoop in sync (pretty unlikely), or the copter timed its flight to the extrapolated motion of its "window", which is the amazing feat advertised. Hell, even if the UPenn guys cheated, they managed to make the little recover and hover after being thrown like a majorette's baton, zigzag like a hummingbird on meth, zip through hoops, do triple somersaults, and perch on a wall like a fly (check it out if you haven't yet). Neat stuff.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    4. Re:Good timing by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Right, we're still a long way off from matching even a human's ability. For instance look of the sharpshooters that can shoot a .22 through a washer(the kind that go on bolts, not washing machine) that's spinning through the air. Still, this is pretty awesome and I really really want to own one.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    5. Re:Good timing by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      That part WAS impressive, assuming it wasn't a preprogrammed pattern. I'm just not sure what I could assume about the thrown hoop demo that would make it interesting.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    6. Re:Good timing by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought the recovery after being thrown was rather impressive as well.

      I think if they have had several hoops swinging from strings at different speeds and heights as well as off set and it could somehow navigate that, I would be very impressed with is path negotiation abilities. As it is, I agree with you, it was had to tell exactly what they were demonstrating by throwing the hoop.

    7. Re:Good timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, that guy is doing the most fun PhD ever

    8. Re:Good timing by tibit · · Score: 1

      The motion is pre-programmed in the sense that once the hoop is flying, it follows the ballistic trajectory. The control algorithm is set up to depend on that, and it choses an optimal trajectory for the quad to get through the hoop, knowing how the hoop moves in the immediate future. If you added a thruster on the hoop to make it non-ballistic, you could easily get the quad to crash. To make the quad become a universal hoop-jumper, whether the hoops move or not, the control system would need to learn how fast each hoop can maneouver, and use that to calculate a 4D hoop envelope. Then it'd need to get an optimal intersection of the quad's trajectory with the hoop envelope's inner hole. Those problems are, mathematically, not all that trivial.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:Good timing by jowifi · · Score: 1

      From what I could tell from the video, the quad flew a basically horizontal trajectory, and timed it's movement such that it had very little room to spare as it entered and exited the hoop. It also didn't go through at the easiest part of the hoop's trajectory (the top) Presumably, with appropriate programming, it could pass through a hoop that was swinging or moving in any other regular pattern. I bet a spinning hoop would be an interesting challenge. Another challenge would be a hoop that's moving in an irregular manner, but slow compared to the quad. Something like a hoop suspended from a balloon that's being blown around a little.

  14. Navigation by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Avast ye scurvy, this vessel has almost no use! With cameras on every angle she can't go anywhere but Davy Jone's locker without a human skipper. The autonomous flyin' about may look sweet as a maiden but she can't sail her way out of a calm bay at sunset.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Navigation by stms · · Score: 2, Informative

      Happy talk like a pirate day!

    2. Re:Navigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever feel alone?

  15. Air Force knocking by shoehornjob · · Score: 2

    OMG who wouldn't want to sit in an airconditioned trailer and control several of these guys at once. The rotor sound reminds me of the V-1 buzz bombs the Germans dropped in London between 1942-45. Except these things are infinitely more frightening.

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    1. Re:Air Force knocking by bigdaisy · · Score: 1

      OMG ... reminds me of the V-1 buzz bombs the Germans dropped in London between 1942-45.

      Something tells me that you were not actually in London at the time.

    2. Re:Air Force knocking by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      You'd be right but I saw it on TV. I'm glad I was not on the recieving end of one of those. They were pretty effective at terrorizing the general population.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  16. Jedi training by xynopsis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like the lightsaber training ball used by Luke

  17. They zippin' through your window by kg8484 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tryna kill you in your sleep
    So y'all need to
    Hide your kids, hide your wife
    Hide your kids, hide your wife
    And hide your husband
    Cuz they killin' errbody out here

    1. Re:They zippin' through your window by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Hide your kids, hide your wife

      And hide your husband

      Who do you think you're singing to, bud, bi-sexual Mormons??

    2. Re:They zippin' through your window by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hide your kids, hide your wife And hide your husband

      Who do you think you're singing to, bud, bi-sexual Mormons??

      Close but more like...

      Who do you think you're singing to?
      They gone find you, they gone find you!
      So run and tell that, run and tell that,
      homebud, home home home bud...

  18. Twenty cameras. by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

    It's very cool stuff and amazing work. Though, until I install twenty IR cameras around my room and send the information back to the controlling computer, I think I am safe for now.

  19. Too bad the guys filming audi didn't have by oranGoo · · Score: 0

    controler such as this.

  20. Gizmodo. by kuzb · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's trash, stop linking to it. They're just sensationalist writers and the site amounts to little more than the national enquirer of tech blogs. These morons need to be boycotted.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Gizmodo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if you were to start kuzb-dot, you could censor your news feed EXACTLY as you see fit.

    2. Re:Gizmodo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww did the big bad gizmodo pick on your little steve jobs and steal his iphone4? Poor baby!

  21. Forget the sharks by Arancaytar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I want lasers on these things!

  22. Showed video to wife by iamhassi · · Score: 1

    Wife says: I think I just saw what's going to kill me someday.

    Agreed.

    I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR NEW QUADROTOR DRONES OVERLORDS

    and btw, those rotors sound scary, sounds like a giant swarm of angry bees

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  23. No reason it can't be fully mobile by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Very nice. For research purposes, they're using a cheap copter and expensive fixed motion tracking gear. That saves money during debugging crashes. It doesn't have to be that way. With a slightly bigger copter they could carry around 3 axes of fibre-optic gyro, good accelerometers, and a good dynamic GPS. Expect to see that soon, with DoD funding.

    Robots are going to have faster reflexes than humans. Humans are stuck at 200ms or so, while computers get faster.

    1. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by HawaiianToast · · Score: 1

      Any idea what exactly copters they are using then? I wouldn't mind owning one of those. I've only ever seen the tiny little ones available retail.

    2. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      Video end card says "Ascending Technologies" which is here: http://www.asctec.de/ (site is in German)

    3. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Very nice. For research purposes, they're using a cheap copter and expensive fixed motion tracking gear. That saves money during debugging crashes. It doesn't have to be that way. With a slightly bigger copter they could carry around 3 axes of fibre-optic gyro, good accelerometers, and a good dynamic GPS.

      Except that your 'slightly bigger copter' is 'not even fractionally as capable' - it's the motion capture gear (I.E. the environmental sensors) that make the quadrotor capable of performing the tricks it does, and your 'slightly bigger' version completely lacks any knowledge of it's environment. (But does have some nice buzzword gear.)

    4. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      more specifically: http://www.x3d-shop.de/shop/catalog/details?sessid=sLj0f5goZLJPRcsCgtkhjXnEGJRrPR5tbCBSB2XfNGJzT0s1TOFT2Rss5cj1Svaq&shop_param=aid%3D17188182%26

      Not sure I'd want to pay 989 EUR for one though... ouch...

      Also it does seem the team modded it to reduce those really long (compared to the rest of it) antennas....

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    5. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Humans are stuck at 200ms or so, while computers get faster."

      While you are right, that 200ms is great for multipurpose multi-input multi capable Humans. While you can build specialized machines that can do one thing better than a human, machines aren't very good at multipurpose tasks.

      Making a complicated multipurpose machine that can do more than one complex task at any given time, good luck with getting it to 200ms.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Sadly, crawling landmines and autonomous hand grenades need not be multipurpose...

    7. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by Animats · · Score: 1

      Except that your 'slightly bigger copter' is 'not even fractionally as capable'

      It exists. That's what an autonomous helicopter with onboard sensors can do as of a year or two ago.

      Environment sensing is coming along. Check out Advanced Scientific Concepts' flash LIDAR. (Still too expensive, but it's a tenth the size of what it was five years ago. I saw the optical bench prototype in 2003, when it was the size of a desk.) Simultaneous Localization and Mapping finally works.

      All that fixed motion tracking gear is a debug environment.

    8. Re:No reason it can't be fully mobile by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Except that your 'slightly bigger copter' is 'not even fractionally as capable'

      It exists. That's what an autonomous helicopter with onboard sensors can do as of a year or two ago.

      Well, either you didn't actually watch the quadrotor video or you didn't actually watch the autonomous helicopter video. When you do so, you'll note not only the vast differences in performance between the two - you'll also note that the autonomous helicopter did no obstacle avoidance, no coordinated maneuvers with other autonomous helicopters, etc... etc... Nor did it do anything at all requiring onboard sensing of it's environment. (The onboard sensing of attitude, accelerations, and velocity is a different matter, and a long solved problem.) In fact, the autonomous helicopter didn't do anything particularly noteworthy as far as helicopter performance is concerned.
       

      Environment sensing is coming along.

      'Coming along' is an entirely different beast from 'actually existing'. But given your confusion between the performance of the two vehicles above, I can understand why I have to point out the blindingly obvious to you.
       

      Simultaneous Localization and Mapping finally works.

      No shit Sherlock. It's been 'finally working' since the 1970's. (When you actually familiarize yourself with current state of electronics, computing, and robotics, you'll learn the difference between 'working' and 'miniaturized'.)
       

      All that fixed motion tracking gear is a debug environment.

      If you go back and read my message and actually bother to exert the effort to understand it - you'll note I never claimed otherwise.

  24. Countermeasures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the meantime, in Afghanistan... [satellite image of people building a huge flyswatter]

  25. 1:00 by karnal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anyone else catch that at the 1 minute mark, the guy who just caught the hoop looks kinda frightened and drops the hoop, as if the Quadrotor wants to go through the hoop again?

    --
    Karnal
    1. Re:1:00 by Freddybear · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's probably taken a few hits while they were debugging. Ouch!

  26. Not just aggressive, VERY Aggressive by quibbler · · Score: 1

    Skynet's Very-Aggressive Quadrotor Parody; the video that had to be done...

  27. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome our new robot overlords.

  28. Air-dropped drones with man-portable controls by swb · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered if air dropped drones with man-portable field controls would ever be practical.

    I'd see them as disposable, capable of low-level surveillance, and armed with lighter armaments (7.62 machine gun, or RPGs, or maybe a pair of dumb rockets) and have all of them packed with high explosive so they could also be flown kamikaze when their primary armaments were used up or their useful life was completed and detonated in emeny areas as a bomb.

    Control would be via field-portable briefcase type connection to either the drone itself and the plane that dropped it as a backup.

    They'd be loaded onto a B-52 or other heavy bomber capable of loitering at high altitude and would be dropped when requested. You could almost make them modular enough that the primary armament could be selected by the requester; the high explosive would be included by default at least for self-destruction purposes.

    This would provide a kind of on-demand close air support and intelligence at the company or maybe even platoon level that would be difficult to provide on a right now basis to every company.

  29. Countermeasures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously folks, this thing will be used by governments against civilians as every other piece of technology already has been. It's about time people develop efficient countermeasures and push for laws limiting how these drones can be used before their usage is pushed using the same old tactics (terrists, think of the children, etc.) or every home window will have one of those sneaking behind Eyeborgs style.

  30. How about a Hexacopter! It's got 6 rotors by kokyuho · · Score: 1

    If you like this, then you should have a look at the hexacopter. It is available as a kit from a company in Germany. It has on-board GPS and gyros and is controlled with a basic RC controller. The cost is about $1000. Not cheap but not outrageous either. The big one can handle a payload of up to 1 Kg! Think about the uses!! Cameras, terrifying the neighbor's dog, pizza delivery in minutes no matter what the traffic conditions are . . .,
    Link to the YouTube Video here:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvH2f-AewX8

  31. Call me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it can still cut a tomato.

  32. This should do it - optional dog for fetching by littlewink · · Score: 1
  33. Please contribute to the highest density of memes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy freaking quadcopters with lasers on their heads, Batman!

  34. Onboard it by DreamArcher · · Score: 1

    It would be better if all the computation was onboard. Why even use a real quadcopter. Nothing more is being developed there.

  35. Not in MY house, you don't! by squ0zen · · Score: 1

    How about if I just shut the freaking window?