Replies to This Discussion

DeveloperPermalink Reply by Mark Colwell on March 24, 2010 at 8:04am

Make the prize "1 Million dollars !", but have arcane rules that insure no winner?
How does this drive innovation ?
Some teams may find a solution that the contest did not anticipate, maybe it will improve UAV performance??

• ▶ Reply

ModeratorPermalink Reply by Krzysztof Bosak on March 24, 2010 at 8:51am

This is already done since 20yrs in EU.
Millions EUR flying to 'hi-tech' companies under conditions they employ at least 100 persons and growing.
So nothing new.
The universities and lawyers only contribute to the mix - they are government employees that are obligated to promote certain interests. If they are conscientious about their collective action - who cares, they share the responsibility being so numerous they rightfully feel untouchable.
Imagine what would happen if a pack of engineers were allowed to make something better than a national giant. A total reversal of Western World Order as we know it!
I think such contests are just a bait used for channeling the effort of the ppl that like to unite AND compete into something useless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tod Rippin on March 25, 2010 at 12:54pm

So does anyone know why they changed the rules?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Morli_ on March 25, 2010 at 1:45pm

Didn't know that it has changed until now but I guess it is so that no body wins or any one serious would attempt it :).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Dunlop on March 26, 2010 at 4:16am

I can only speculate on what may have triggered the Outback Challenge rule changes. My guess is that the competition organisers are trying to ease up on the 5 second rule, and the staged withdrawal is a mechanism to avoid having to crash planes after 5 seconds of telemetry outage. I do think the organisers are genuinely trying to respond to feedback and make the competition better.

However...

The proposal is a staged withdrawal scheme, where UAVs can return to a staging point and wait for telemetry to be re-established, and if that fails can return to base to attempt manual landing. The net effect of this proposal is that a UAV can potentially stay out of RF and visual contact for over 4 minutes. If the autopilot has lost its mind this could result in a UAV being quite a long way away. This is presumably what has triggered the geofence requirement.

I don't love the added complexity that the new rules bring; I believe systems that call themselves "safety" or "failsafe" should be simple, reliable and testable. This just isn't. I am hopeful that the 5 second rule will continue to be allowed - with a parachute this represents a simple, reliable and non-lethal mission termination system. 10 seconds would be even better, but you can't have everything.

The new rules are not yet approved by CASA, so not having any certainty is also trying.

Andrew.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Dunlop on March 28, 2010 at 8:28pm

Apologies for replying to my own post.

The oracle has spoken...

"Any aircraft that was eligible to fly last year can fly this year..."

The geofence is only required for those that choose to take advantage of the staged withdrawal thing. Apparently version 1.1 of the 2010 rules will be out shortly.

• ▶ Reply

ModeratorPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on March 28, 2010 at 8:34pm

Good news!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page