Independent Rotor Movement - Gun Ship

[sotomatic]

Hey guys I recently came across this incredibly cheesy video of a russian arms dealer touting a new future weapons program using quadcopters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU&feature

Aside from the terrible accent and the fact that I would NEVER want to blow up my quad (or have the money to), I was wondering what you guys thought. It seems the rotors are each moving independently. Any idea what kind of system / FC would allow for that? I'm sure it would cost a ton but was just curious what the advantage of a system like that would be. More stability? Or more moving parts to break?

 

[graham_newton]

im pretty sure its a fake... CGI flight control

 

[DennyR]

I think the most obvious advantage is that it does not rely on slowing down motors to obtain a yaw function and it can assume nose down or left /right without moving from it's hover position, I think it is based on an actual military device. Mechanically doable but I would like to have that code first.. I think those props in the film were far to small to lift that weight, it was probably suspended. It is certainly CGI and split screen. He is shot at a different time to the model action, that is why he is so still and the model never crosses behind him. When the gun fires the angle of the rotors is in the wrong direction to fight the recoil.
D.

 

[sotomatic]

I think the most obvious advantage is that it does not rely on slowing down motors to obtain a yaw function and it can assume nose down or left /right without moving from it's hover position, I think it is based on an actual military device. Mechanically doable but I would like to have that code first.. I think those props in the film were far to small to lift that weight, it was probably suspended. It is certainly CGI and split screen. He is shot at a different time to the model action, that is why he is so still and the model never crosses behind him. When the gun fires the angle of the rotors is in the wrong direction to fight the recoil.
D.

Thats a good catch on the recoil and rotor direction. I'm still not so sure that it's CG though. At 1:43 the quad and the fake russian overlap in the video and at 2:31 you can see that the Quad interacts with the smoke.

I'm not saying that it's not CG. I work in CGI and 3D so I know that you can do some pretty awesome stuff but it just seems like a TON of work for a cheap Youtube video. Either way, I'm sure that there is bound to be something of this nature coming soon. For me I'll stick with AP.

 

[ghaynes]

Fake. Ad for a video game.

 

[sotomatic]

Yeah I think you might be right. Still though it would be pretty sweet to have a quad that you could pivot the rotors like that so that the rig could tilt down and still hold a hover.

 

[DennyR]

Thats a good catch on the recoil and rotor direction. I'm still not so sure that it's CG though. At 1:43 the quad and the fake russian overlap in the video and at 2:31 you can see that the Quad interacts with the smoke.

I'm not saying that it's not CG. I work in CGI and 3D so I know that you can do some pretty awesome stuff but it just seems like a TON of work for a cheap Youtube video. Either way, I'm sure that there is bound to be something of this nature coming soon. For me I'll stick with AP.

I think it's mostly split screen with the model tethered out of shot, It certainly looks like it is hanging there and also being pulled. . When it passes through the window that can be done with an optical illusion i.e. a gap for the tether wires. The rest I think is Mocha.