Slashdot Mirror
Quadrocopters Throwing and Catching an Inverted Pendulum
derGoldstein writes "We've seen some very impressive aerobatics performed by quadrocopters before, but this is getting ridiculous. Robohub points to the latest advancement from the Flying Machine Arena, which developed algorithms that allow quadrocopters to juggle an inverted pendulum. One of the researchers working on it said, 'We started off with some back-of-the-envelope calculations, wondering whether it would even be physically possible to throw and catch a pendulum. This told us that achieving this maneuver would really push the dynamic capabilities of the system. As it turned out, it is probably the most challenging task we've had our quadrocopters do. With significantly less than one second to measure the pendulum flight and get the catching vehicle in place, it's the combination of mathematical models with real-time trajectory generation, optimal control, and learning from previous iterations that allowed us to implement this.'"
It don't mean a thing if they don't compute that swing.
rewriting history since 2109
Science. Making ideas possible.
It is now clearly obvious: in the future, the weapon of choice to fight robots will be an aluminium baseball bat.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
A new way to throw a grenade through a tiny window on the 6th floor on the cheap.
Very cool.
Is there anything special to it (besides the two markers on it that are used for tracking) that makes it "not a stick" or does it just sound more sciencey? Even the visualization is just a stick with no markers to be seen.
it's the combination of mathematical models with real-time trajectory generation, optimal control, and learning from previous iterations that allowed us to implement this
And one huge pile of broken robocoptors not seen in the vid.
...why do they have to call it an inverted pendulum instead of a stick?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
This is great, now American will be able to kill arab civilians in a fancy way
What, by using a Kraut stick grenade as the inverted pendulum in question?
Ezekiel 23:20
These are a blast.
I'm impressed.
rehersed/pre programmed or not that is cool.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Warning, blatant hypocrisy on display!
Drones kill arabs in other countries? Hooray!
Drones flying over my head in my own country by my own government?! Succession! Civil war!!! Militias!
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
I'd be more impressed if they could manage a double inverted pendulum, but clearly well executed engineering.
Is it just me or have you just misspeled "secession"?
Ezekiel 23:20
I was so outraged by the thought of drones used against me and not against some foreigner that my trembling rage filled fingers hit the wrong keys.
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
This looks like it was achieved using motion capture equipment, as seen by the usage of retro-reflective balls (see them shine at 1:44). If that's the case, it would imply that the computing was done remotely. Motion capture gear typically works at 120 frames per second, which would give the system enough time resolution to figure this out on the fly with a decent PC on the back-end.
It'll be a while before the quadrucopters can do this in their own but the program figuring out the catching move is impressive nonetheless.
Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius
If I am understanding correctly:
They are observing(how?) the staff, calculating trajectory and directing the second quadcopter(how?) to catch it. Each copter balances the staff. How? is it also optically controlled or is there some form of automated pressure or gyroscopic sensing occurring onboard the quadcopter itself?
At one point in the film there is a cloud of ???. Is this the staff being ground up due to an apparent miss?
Can it be done with a tricopter? Or a bicopter with propellers that pivot?
That is pretty impressive but it also serves to reinforce the fact that without the über power source, it's just a nifty demo. This is what I keep hearing from SWAT teams who either spend a ton of money (e.g. > $25k) buying one or are looking at getting one and then they discover that they can't put a camera up in the air for hours at a time without landing to change batteries.
And did anyone else read "Pole Acrobatics" and have a totally different expectation? ;-)
... I imagine stupid people tricks will remain more popular than smart robot ones.
Is the actual balancing performed based solely on the forces applied to the sending/receiving actors? How necessary are the data markers on the stick? I'm wondering that if the two actors knew where each other were in space, and based on the balancing the sending actor has to perform couldn't the receiving actor make a guess where it needs to be in any case? Could I (as an actor in this scenario) make an educated guess as to the length of the stick based on the corrections I have to perform in order to keep it upright? Of course I may be asking questions that can't be answered because we don't have the full picture from the demonstration.
A few more steps down the road with this kind of development and they should be able to make them fly through an obstacle course with a non-rigid sling load (weight on a string) without hitting anything. (Something right now that takes a human pilot to deal with, and requires plenty of experience as well. Definitely not easy as a lot of helo wrecks are due to people trying this without having enough clue of how to compensate for a freely shifting load.) That would lead to scaled up models having lots of use in many practical applications. But right now, just keep taking some baby steps with a key emphasis on manueverability. I'm guessing that using a rigid object while starting out is a much easier way to deal with a shifting center of gravity because it doesn't change much with harmonics or having its weight offset by air resistance.
Wake me up when they can do that with inverted compound pendulums.
Cirque du Soleil will probably put robots in the show when they can do that.
Or maybe an Aibo balancing on a big dog balancing on a CAM. (Bonus if they can all "sing")
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
They've now got the mopping algorithm locked up; enough with the kitchen use cases get back to the bedroom guys.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
A puff of smoke at 1:33; I think someone lost a bit of propeller to the pendulum.
And I still can't even get my quadcopter for a normal spin without crashing it into the nearest wall or tree!
How the heck can I get mine to hover at least somewhat in one place? I know these use the cameras for real precise tracking, but mine is the exact opposite it seems. Grrrr
Amusement park rides of the future are going to be awesome!
As amazing as this is (and it IS friggin' amazing), remember that the human brain does this throw, catch, reposition, recalculate, and respond stuff effortlessly. Just play catch with a ball and your 5 year old child. Animals with pea-sized brains do it great, too! -- Josh
To be pedantic, "Succession" would be viable as a result of impeachment. Just saying.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Very good. Now let's do it with flaming chainsaws.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Yeah, troll, because quadcopters' only use is to develop military tech. Must have never heard of people studying control engineering. Ultimately, proof is in the pudding. Either you make a device that works using your control scheme, or it doesn't. Now fuck off.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
It's "quadcopter" not "quadrocopter" you Ivory Tower morons. Talk about being out of touch with reality. No one in the hobby calls them quadrocopters; not in any language.
I get the impression from the article that getting this to work involved a lot of detailed calculations. I feel that we should be able to do this instead using a feedback loop where the quadricopters can sense where they need to be and make small adjustments themselves as necessary. Humans and animals do this all the time without using complicated mathematical models.
video sounds like it was narrated by a voice synthesizer