I didn't t read the article (of course), but I hope flying cars aren't anywhere near to be available to consumers. Many drivers are barely able to drive correctly withouth killing themselves (and/or anybody else) on a 1D path drawn on a 2D surface. IMHO, giving anyone the possibility to "drive" in a 3D space is a recipe for disaster.
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
-26 points (24.0% liked)
Technology
59454 readers
4427 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The ones I've seen have usually been predicated on being fully autopilot. Which is why I doubt it'll take off, given how skiddish the FAA is about not having pilots.
Every time someone mentions flying cars this is the only thought that matters to me.
"yes let's add a THIRD dimension for people to be idiots in"
There's no way you could get me into a flying car until they've been around for decades, and automated with a safety record better than commercial airlines.
Standing ovation
The thing is, driving a flying car isn't going to be like driving a ground car. It'll be like flying an autonomous drone, like a DJI drone, which is easy and has lots of safety features. You tell it to take off, and it takes off and hovers. You tell it to go up, and it goes up, and then stays at the height it stopped at. You try to go somewhere you're not allowed, like another "lane", and it will be like hitting an invisible pillow. (This happens with DJI drones at restricted airspace boundaries.) There is an auto-land feature, and an auto "Return To Home" feature. The driver (pilot) doesn't have to balance the vehicle, or deal with complex controls, or compensate for wind, because those are all handled by software that interfaces with the flight controller, GPS, and other hardware. It's similar to using an Xbox controller, and it's way, way easier than autonomous ground cars.
I'm not saying there aren't significant risks, but piloting the vehicle is probably one of the least concerning problems.
I worked at a self driving car startup for three years and we all thought flying cars would be easier.
Imagine having to work out self driving in 3D traffic though. I guess at least you won't have pedestrians, mostly.
Obstacle identification and avoidance, and route planning in a dynamic environment are some of the biggest challenges with autonomous ground cars. In the sky, you don't have bicyclists and delivery truck drivers stopped in the lane, and stuff like that. Even DJI drones can fly around trees and buildings. Again though, it's not that there's no risk, but the problems aren't nearly as difficult to solve.
In cars, you perform SLAM, simultaneous localization and mapping. In the sky, SLAM is way easier.
Aren't other flying cars going to be the dynamic part of the environment? Is what I'm asking
Sure, but we can expect that they will be communicating with each other in a RemoteID kind of way, but with additional information like up to date location and intended motion vector. Also, air traffic is already divided up into different heights for different directions.
but we can expect that they will be communicating with each other in a RemoteID kind of way
Sure, with 10 competing standards from 10 different companies that don't communicate with each other.
with 10 competing standards
FAA has authority over every outdoor flying vehicle above ground level. I doubt there will be competing standards. RemoteID has been an awful rollout with a lot of miscommunication, but afaik there was never problems with incompatibility. (I'd actually love to see the standard spec) Airplanes already send out their location, been doing it for years. You can use an SDR to listen in on existing airplane beacons and map them on your computer.
Yeah true, I guess if you can enforce that as a standard there's already tons of research on swarming behaviour with drones to work with.
There is absolutely no way we're anywhere close to fully autonomous self flying cars. So far there hasn't been a real successful self driving car either, just buggy demos that corporations claimed worked. Flying cars would have to have special training and much much much much much (x20 more) regulation. I don't trust over half the dumb shits in a 4 wheeled car. And my job requires me to drive all over the state. I have to avoid dying in a wreck at least 2-3 times a week from cars, trucks, SUVs, and semis. I DO NOT want those idiots flying anywhere near me or around me because they will cause deaths due to their indifference. I can't just slam on the brakes and stop due to an impatient retard in the air. I don't want 20 year old zoomers looking at tiktok while sharing airspace with me. Flying cars are a pipe dream and it's mostly because people are stupid and can't control themselves and believe they'll die if they don't beat that car by 0.002 seconds.
That's actually an interesting take.
How about fast trains?
Please?
Looks like a helicopter to me
Looks more like a battle bots machine to me, but built at human scale. Seriously, those low blades are very low and positioned at the perimeter. Forget the risks of flying; This looks extremely dangerous at ground level.
"Flying cars" are pretty much always shitty helicopters.
Looks more like people sized drones, and I doubt the FAA will like them.
Not until they come up with a better solution for emergency landings than "pop out a parachute and fall uncontrolled on traffic and people below". Even normal helis can autorotate to the ground.
The EH216-S boasts a range of only 22 miles
Oh yes, flying cars are finally here.
Even a really low end ebike can do better than that, and compared to the 300k price tag of this flying car, the cost of said ebike would literally be a rounding error.
Speaking of price tag, you could buy a REAL plane, a cessna 310, with a 1000 mile range (870 nautical) for less than the cost of this!
But if I had an ebike, I'd have to share the roadway with plebeians.
And in a city like Los Angeles, it is an honest debate as to whether a flying car is safer than biking.
No.
Just what we need, flying garbage.
...and more noise.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The EHang is certainly quieter and greener, and may prove to be safer (not that the notoriously accident-prone Robinson sets a high bar), but we’re a long way from phasing out ordinary helicopters, let alone seeing cars get replaced with little drone copters.
Still, I’m happy to see the little guy flying around Guangzhou — and while EHang specifically has been the subject of some financial controversy, I’m excited to see rivals like Joby, Wisk Aero, and LIFT’s Hexa also making progress.
The aviation pioneers Juan de la Cierva and Harold Pitcairn developed an aircraft called the “autogyro” (also spelled “autogiro”).
Pitcairn received a reward from President Herbert Hoover for his work, and an autogyro landed on the south lawn of the White House to mark the occasion.
The problem, Hall writes, is that “cultural reaction and regulatory ossification have combined to dam up the normal flow of experimentation in high-power technology.” People have developed an “idiotic fear of energy” that keeps them from pursuing the future of our dreams.
Market bears betting against the company and other electric vertical takeoff/landing (eVTOL) firms argue that electric copters’ short ranges mean they can’t replace military or search-and-rescue helicopters, and that they will never be cost-competitive in the small market of urban transport helicopters: With heliports in New York charging usage fees in the range of $200 per flight, it’s never going to be cheaper to take a chopper than a cab to, say, LaGuardia Airport.
The original article contains 1,257 words, the summary contains 244 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!