• Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    I still don’t understand how helicopters are not flying cars.

    If you want everyone to have a flying car, we should talk about everyone having a helicopter first so we can quickly come to the conclusion of why that’s a bad idea.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      You are 100% correct that helicopters and their issues are the exact reason why flying cars are a terrible idea for the general population. I even like to point them out as the same thing when people talk about flying cars. There are some technical differences between people’s image of a flying car, which is closer to a drone with the multiple lift producing drives than a singular giant spinning blade, although the little ones would be comparably dangerous in a crash.

      That said, helicopters aren’t flying cars because you can’t drive them around on the ground. Which means this product is a helicopter, not a flying car.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        The problem with a flying car for the general population is that people are already bad at navigating in 2D and that any technical failure in the air means a vehicle drops onto something and the average person is not going to do a proper checklist and rigid maintenance schedule on their private vehicle.

        • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          I would hope that by the time something like this launched to the general public, it would be a service rather than an expected purchase. Like self-driving-flying taxis.

          It doesn’t make sense to have everyone owning their own when they will probably be largely autonomous to avoid issues with individuals driving them (not that everyone owning a car makes sense either, but I digress), so the maintenance shouldn’t be an issue either.

    • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      It’s like hover craft, sure they work, but at what cost? Bicycles, now there’s a design one can roll with. There was an HPV, The Gossamer Alabatross, crossed the English Channel in '79. Is anybody riding them now? Do you see similar HPVs anywhere now? No!

  • alanjaow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Even if the tech was perfect, they’d be far too loud. Drones are already pretty loud, but you wanna make em huge and everywhere? Ugh.

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    The ground level weedwhacker blades could do double-duty clearing out brush (and pesky pedestrians).

  • muusemuuse@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    It’s not that we can’t do this that has kept it from happening yet. It’s that it’s never been practical.

  • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    What kind of a backward ass piece of shit country would allow these things to fly all over the place? This entire industry is ridiculous and doomed to fail from the start.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Jesus F. Christ the BS that gets posted and upvoted in this community is getting more ridiculously Chinese propagandist by the day. Freaking air taxis? Really? Germany has like a dozen of those dumpster fire startups that chew up subsidies like it‘s no tomorrow (because for them there really isn‘t).

  • _druid@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    I’ve always been afraid of being killed by a drunk driver, or dying while at work. Now both of those things can happen at the same time.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      A lot of posts here lately are kind of silly ideas that China tries to sell as the next big thing because it‘s cyberpunk. We should be more cautious about these stories.

    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Special licensing that is on-par with a helicopter license is needed immediately. They also need to establish travel corridors for commercial drones and flying cars. Delivery drones and flying cars without corridors just means debris fields.

      The alternative is autonomous AI trafficked flying cars that is networked with all commercial drone traffic, but that is 5-10 years away from being reliable and possible.

      Regardless, the big issue is safety, a helicopter can land without the engine running. A flying car can also land without power, but not as softly and with less survivability.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        The alternative is autonomous AI trafficked flying cars that is networked with all commercial drone traffic, but that is 5-10 years away from being reliable and possible.

        50-100 years is more likely. The complexity of automated low altitude flight is exponentially more complex than driving on the ground.

        • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          It isn’t that complex. The problem with current autonomous driving is the car can only infer what other cars are doing and what is around it, especially if we are talking about an autonomous car with idiotic vision mapping without lidar.

          With a flying car that is directed by an AI that knows where every other flying object is, what every flying object is going to do, and the locations of every stationary object based on maps and lidar on the vehicle, you can keep collisions far less likely. Taking the human control out of the picture improves the conditions substantially.

          I wouldn’t trust a flying car at all, but I would trust an autonomous one with AI ATC far more than an autonomous car going through a construction zone on a highway in a major city during rush hour.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            28 days ago

            You would have a point if the flying car didn’t have to take into account the wind, updrafts, downdrafts, wind sheer off buildings, and a ton of other flying related stuff that helicopter pilots need to take into account which are barely noticeable to cars the majority of the time.

            Then there is landing, the most dangerous part of flying. Imagine if the emergency braking in a csr needed to stop the car without spilling a liquid from an open cup.

            Being on the ground is far less complex than flying, otherwise getting a pilot’s license would be easier than a driver’s permit.

            With a flying car that is directed by an AI that knows where every other flying object is, what every flying object is going to do, and the locations of every stationary object based on maps and lidar on the vehicle, you can keep collisions far less likely.

            This magically perfect AI would work on the ground too. I mean, it knows what birds are going do, why not people?

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            28 days ago

            The problem with current autonomous driving is the car can only infer what other cars are doing and what is around it

            With a flying car that is directed by an AI that knows where every other flying object is, what every flying object is going to do

            Spoken like someone from a culture where drivers are the only thing around because they have gotten so used to ignoring pedestrians, bicyclists, animals (wild or otherwise),… that might be found on the road and hasn’t considered what else might be in the air at all.

            • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              28 days ago

              And they communicate in real time while individually checking their collision sensors for non swarm obstacles. The technology is 100% there, the flight capabilities do not matter nor the fact it’s a passenger vehicle; we have the algorithm and sensor packages right now to do what you think is a hundred years away.

              • snooggums@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                28 days ago

                You completely glossed over the small, agile part.

                A drone can do a fucking barrel roll with zero impact on its flight capabilities or passengers. Have fun with passengers when an automated passenger drone needs to quickly change thrust direction because of wind shear.

                • superniceperson@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  That’s a matter of changing the PID compensations, it’s not a difficult problem. Do you think all drones can do a barrel roll? There are nonagile drones in operation right now, in swarm configurations. Not as large as a car, but again, that’s a matter of tweaking the PID, nothing more or less.

                  To put it another way you don’t restart learning how to drive a car each time you drive a new car. You tweak your internal pids to that of the new car. The difference is humans are stupid, slow, and have terrible coordination that can’t be immediately transferred over a fleet.

        • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          28 days ago

          There are a whole lot less obstacles and unknowns in the air, as well as more planes (ha!) of separation available than a car.

          When flying, you don’t really need to worry much about random pedestrians, for example.

          If the entire system were completely automated, from the car all the way to ATC, and it’s essentially a taxi that you just tell what location to go to and it handles the rest… well that’s basically air traffic today minus the automated ATC part. (That isn’t to diminish pilots at all; just that I think it’d be a lot easier, in general, to replace a pilot than a taxi driver with automation. They’re both still extremely challenging problems.)

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            28 days ago

            If you ignore take off and landing, birds, weather conditions, and everything else that makes flying more complex and dangerous than driving on the ground, sure.

            • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              28 days ago

              And if you ignore construction sites with high cranes and not documented buildings. Or overland high voltag power cables, wind mills, hobby drones, and local variations of birds.

              It‘s just taking the complex challenges of autonomous drivinf into the third dimension. Making it even more complex.

            • hydrashok@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              28 days ago

              Other than the takeoff and landing, cars have to deal with those obstacles as well.

              A computer running a citywide automated traffic system for cars would have all the same complexity, without the ability to separate traffic in three dimensions.

              • snooggums@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                28 days ago

                So yeah, if you ignore the parts that make it more complicated it seems easier!

                If it is windy, it is far more complicated than driving on the road, especially in cities with taller buildings. Like not crashing into buildings is far harder than applying the brakes when there is ever changing wind shear that you can’t see. This applies to most days in most cities.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        They also need to establish travel corridors for commercial drones and flying cars.

        Wasn’t there something EU <-> UK already?