The Distributed Flight Array: Summary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2013
- The Distributed Flight Array is a modular robotic vehicle consisting of multiple autonomous single-rotor units that are able to drive, dock with its peers, and coordinate with one another in order to drive and fly together. For more information, visit:
robohub.org/the-distributed-fl....
Researchers:
Raymond Oung and Raffaello D'Andrea
Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control (IDSC), ETH Zurich, Switzerland -- www.idsc.ethz.ch
Location:
ETH Zurich
Acknowledgments:
This research was funded in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
FAQ:
* How many are needed to fly? -- At least 4.
* Song? -- 'Tenderness' by Dan Phillipson.
* What about in-flight reconfiguration? -- Subject of future work. - Наука та технологія
Scaled appropriately, this type of design would be valuable during disaster events for imagery, search and rescue and many other applications. The one drawback is its fuel source - electricity, which is always at a premium during a crisis. But it's also it's key strength, given that recharging options are (by far) easier to find than petroleum would be. I hope the R&D continues and would be a strong supporter of this program.
I think it's makes for a beautiful visual analogy of how we humans can survive alone, but to fly, we need at least two more - and to soar, we need many.
this is the future. I can't believe the long way that this project has come through. I remember seeing this 2 years back only as a concept.
Very impressive Raymond. I can imagine a device such as this to split whenever nessesary and perform tasks in the fraction of a time than a rover or another flying multirotor could have achieved. Well done.
Great work guys!
Always makes me smile when I see such wonderful creations like these! Pioneers of a new age!
I'm dying of laughter with the little guy trying to fly alone. Keep up the good work!
It is capable of flying in any flight-feasible form (e.g. it cannot fly in a line because it has no way of controlling all degrees of freedom). It does not need to be reprogrammed for every different configuration, it figures out the appropriate controller automatically.
The name of the track is 'Tenderness' by Dan Phillipson.
Those modules are AWESOME!!!
Also the video itself is really great. Music and cut and stuff. I like it.
Interesting seeing the various vibration modes that develop..
The name of the track is 'Tenderness' by Dan Phillipson
That is absolutely AMAZING.
On second thoughts, the single prop there is generating quite a moment. You will need something to balance it, like a counter rotating prop. Achieving stability on the single unit is actually quite hard.
In-flight reconfiguration is future work -- and yes, that would be epic.
It would definitely be cool to see them assemble and disassemble in flight -- maybe that's future work. You'll see in the video that they're weakly connected with magnets. On the ground, depending on the configuration, they can detach by driving away from one another. In the air, they could potentially detach by spinning up/down their rotors and using the help of gravity to break robots off.
1. In theory, there's no limit to the number of units.
2. They could be programmed to seek a certain pattern, but currently they are not.
3. We have not tried other geometric shapes for units. Choosing hexagons was an aesthetic decision, more than anything else.
...and this is the born of the replicators!
Ten honeycomb drones flying around to dramatic music in a two minute UA-cam video? Ten honeycomb drones flying around to dramatic music in a three minute UA-cam video? Twelve honeycomb drones flying around to dramatic music in a three minute UA-cam video? The possibilities are endless!
It is beautiful.
Awesome!
Changing the polarity of the magnets would require some sort of actuation mechanism on the magnets, increasing the complexity (and weight).
Yes, reconfiguration would happen in sets of four or more.
awesome!
Nice idea bro
love it!
duly noted. Thanks for the explanation=]
Woow, this is great. I love this kind of stuff :)
Thanks for the clarification :)
It's. The track is Tenderness by Dan Philipson.
I hope I will be able to build cool things like this in the future. :)
First of all, kudos, absolutely amazing and brilliant. Secondly I see this as a metaphor for a new socio-economic paradigm. .
You need at least four in this case to counter-act the aerodynamic torques in flight. Otherwise with three, the vehicle would just spin around in flight.
Yes, tri-copters exist and are stable. That's because their propellers can generate enough torque to counter-act the torque of two propellers (by means of a larger propeller or a faster motor).
Pretty awesome stuff. What song was used for this video?
I agree. Impressive though still.
If the magnets were solenoids (ignore weight factor for the moment), then you could have switchable configurations in flight! Neat.
They don't decide on their position. The robots don't necessarily need to assemble into a pre-arranged configuration -- they assemble at random. That means, however, that not all configurations will fly. Each robot knows the handedness of its rotor, so it'll adjust its flight controller appropriately.
What do you mean? On 1:49 they went crazy because they were not attached, not working together.
Reality is they work very well when doing what they are designed to do, which is working together.
And if you join two, that spin around the center quickly? Also can you stack them to gain better lifting capacity?
Could you use a set of Contra-rotating blades on each hexagon so they are stable on their own?
Nice job!
What is the in flight autonomy of the modules?
super
Very interesting concept. Does it fly streight in any form or you need to reprogram it for every different formation? Also what is the name of the track used?
Experiments are rarely applicable to the real world at all. It's not the flight that is interesting here, it's the automated intermodule communication to achieve the goal of the larger unit. The hivemind, almost. The same AI principals function on one unit, 5 units, or 500 units. Apply that concept to things other than just an RC copter and it starts to get really interesting.
Science.
So are you saying reconfiguration would happen in sets of four? I actually started to wondered if you could change the polarity of the magnets, so you could sorta roll it along the arrangement
The magnets actually do just fine, and adding another mechanism would just increase complexity. The flight controller actually minimizes the amount of shear forces between modules. In a perfect world, there would be none. To improve flight performance, the chassis should be made more rigid.
Has any attempt been made for in-flight attaching / detaching ? That would be epic.
It's funny that someone said the music doesn't suit...I love the music so much that I want to know he composer. the robot is very cool, too.
One could design more stable individual units -- like a co-axial helicopter. However, the DFA was intentionally designed this way in order to demonstrate units achieving a joint task that would be impossible to achieve otherwise.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Gotta love Vsauce.. Showing me super cool stuff like this!!! I can see alot of potential in this concept!
Why didn't you opt for a more stable individual unit? It seems that mid air reconfigurations would require moving in threes or pairs.
I assume the 3D Position system could effectively be replicated with GEO Location?
There are two direction of prop, how do they decide the positioning?
What is the minimun number of units needed to achieve stable flight?
Two, maybe three?
Awesome work BTW!
can you buy those when yes than were it´s super awesome and i really have to try it :D
I don't believe contra-rotating blades on their own result in stable flight. You need vanes or something else to counter-act any disturbance in roll/pitch. In any case, we intentionally designed the vehicle such that each unit (or hexagon) is unstable. This was done in order to demonstrate that units need to cooperate in order to fly.
By your calculations, what's the maximum number of connected modules that can fly?
In order for in-flight reconfiguration to occur, wouldn't a single unit need to be able to fly alone?
Couldn't you use the magnets to align and then have them interlock with another mechanism for better stability?
So how long until we can turn this into hoverboards?
I would have guessed three similar to how stools need a minimum of three legs. Is there a simple explanation for why it's four?
Ah, I see, thanks!
Ah, So two together would act as flying left and right, one per direction?
Vibrations -- the control gains are too aggressive, and the system is modeled as a rigid body, which in reality it is not (the chassis is flexible).
Robots can only communicate with its immediate neighbours and must route information to other robots via its neighbours. There is no master. The system is completely distributed/decentralized.
Go to robohub.org and search "Distributed Flight Array"
One cannot fly on its own -- it was intentionally designed that way to demonstrate cooperative flight. It can fly side to side just like any quadrotor -- differential thrust. To be clear, the vehicle needs to tilt in order to move side to side.
i was just explaining that this video brings a tear to my eye then the last clip came up then i just died
this is like the aliens in the movie battle: los angeles. were you connected to that movie? Are the designs related?
Certainly.
This is really cool. Of course, it also probably means that we're doomed...
or a dozen!
Hi Raymond,
I'm a university student trying to build your project in ROS2 for my dissertation.
Would it be possible to contact you with some questions?
all of my want
Four.
application?
Completely off topic - what's that background music?
how many kg can that hold ? could you stand on it ?:) @raymord oung
I thought it was pretty absurd how the Iron Man suit's parts flew off and assembled at once in Iron Man 3. Guess I was wrong.
Actually, I want at least three, the minimum number required for stable flight if I understand it right :)
I think you need three or more to fly them ;)
You'd need more than one to fly though?
I want 3 :)
How are they able to fly side to side as I don't see any form of navigation? Plus judging by the start of the video they cant fly stand alone lol. Some amazing work nonetheless.
What about 1000?
柔軟って奴だね。
hahahhaha, that last 2 sec of the video....
More specifically I think we are all saying "I WANT A DOZEN!"
I dunno... maybe more than one.
This video is 10x more moving because of the music
This video looks actually like an Apple advertisement :)
Now teach them to assemble themselves! :)
any one here play diep.io if so use this technology and computer coding to were you can shoot other people and you start out with one of them robots but there are many around the area that don't move Intel you shoot it or run in to it then it attaches to your drone and adds another gun and drone to it like or comment if you think this idea is cool
I wounder what 100 would look like
you know what i mean
Why? Just reconfigure in such a way that every unit is part of a group of four at all times.
Shouldn't three be enough? Tri-copters exist and are stable.
Aww, one of those -_-
I was like that when I was 19
I'll take eight!
Not for this vehicle. You need a minimum of 4 to sufficiently cancel out the aerodynamic torques in flight.
I want 6
Well.. if I understand the concept correctly, you'll want more than one.
Flying text advertisements -> Research capital
i think i speak for every one when i say "I WANT ONE"
This is my first thought....I fail to understand whats revolutionary about an RC copter...