paul
lvl.3
United States
Offline
|
One of the things I dislike about the P2V+ (and I'm pretty sure the P3 also) is the flimsiness of the gimbal. I was pondering ways it could have been designed to be more durable.
Well, it seems to me the yaw axis isn't doing much. If it were replaced with solid structure, we would have a more durable gimbal with less weight. (Replacing windings, magnet, and a bit of steel with aluminum.) But how would it affect our photography? Consider...
* If you move your drone forward or back, the pitch axis keeps the camera level because the pitch of the drone is affected.
* If you move to port or starboard, the roll axis helps similarly.
* BUT... If you rotate about the yaw axis, the camera would remain level anyway. The gimbal might "lag behind" the yaw of the drone a little, starting slowly and landing at its finishing point smoothly, but this could just as easily have been accomplished with the firmware that controls flight.
To my knowledge, and I may be mistaken, if a drone is stationary, wind can affect pitch and roll quite easily, as it fights to remain in one place per GPS lock. Of course the gimbal compensates. But wind very rarely "rotates" a quadcopter uless it catches a gust on only one side. (And how often does that actually happen?)
Unlike the Inspire, the intended "front" of the drone is always where we intend to point the camera. So, I'm wondering if the yaw axis of the gimbal even helps much, and if it's even worth the extra mechanical vulnerabilities brought about by its existence. I'm inclined to say no. And I think any "smoothing out" of the yaw axis could have been handled with flight firmware.
Opinions? (Whether you're educated on the topic or pure guesswork, all are welcome.)
|
|