Most filament based printed frames end up with really nasty resonance; it’s possible to engineer damping around the issue with some clever 3D design if the parameters of the prints are measured, but overall 3D printing copter frames doesn’t tend to be a straightforward solution.

I agree with your first point.

The milled fiberglass the author used is a much better UAS frame material than anything from a filament 3d printer due to stiffness and related considerations.

Yes. And when your design is simply beautiful as this is:

https://karolina.mgdubiel.com/drone/drone-img/05-30-26/cnc_c...

Tbh this is cooler than anything on your github so he (edit: she) can do what he wants IMO

The abstract certainly smells like 100% LLM-generated text.

> more work than to just rewrite the text yourself

You think s/—/--/g is more work than rewriting a whole article? Is this what you're saying?

What? That’s a simple find and replace vs rewriting the whole thing. If someone had the savvy to write the thing, they probably wouldn't have been using the the assistant in the first place. Either way, comparing a find/replace to rewriting is farcical

Low end and most open source stuff will use a PID inner loop for “fast path” control (stabilization) and either a second PID loop or something a little better (Kalman filter etc) for the slow path (position / path hold).

Higher end stuff will use a ton of inputs (visual odometry, binocular vision, lidar, range finding, etc) fused into some kind of proprietary blended algorithm that you could probably call an MPC.

RL is pretty cutting edge, especially for fast path motor control; there are a lot of university competitions for drone control that lead to a lot of papers and projects in the space (some promising) but most commercial stuff has not adopted this yet, certainly not at the low end.

PID is more than enough to keep level. FPV relies on manual flight, but you can get Ardupilot for autonomous missions. There's no need for RL, nothing to gain here; level flight and following waypoints is a solved issue already.

And frankly as a pilot, I'd rather not see any completely autonomous drones with no oversight in the sky - that's one incident away in which blame cannot be put solely on the operator from getting the hobby completely banned.

Might be intended to preemptively deflect criticism of "reinventing the wheel"/solving subproblems in a non-standard/convoluted way.

I'd expect an engineering project with "no prior experience" to take weird/experimental approaches more often compared to a "from scratch" project (where I would expect proven minimalism instead).

That ship has long sailed. You’re correct, but the author isn’t the one who “named the thing” in this case, they are just using the name commonly used to describe it.

Multi-rotor drones have been called tricopters, quadcopters, hexacopters, octocopters based on their propeller counts conversationally for as long as I can remember.

There are plenty of commercial vendors who use the exact term for their expensive industrial drones.

Update: I see that in the four minutes it took for me to validate my initial inclination and post that plenty of others also had the same thought :) No need to me to belabor the point!

This is quite a common linguistic phonomenon, where a word is rebracketed to form a new suffix, even if it doesn't make sense with the original etymology. See also -holic (alcoholic -> workaholic), -thon (marathon -> danceathon) or -gate (Watergate -> partygate). Termed a "libfix" from liberated affix

The -copter suffix is very common in the drone community.eg quadcopter is widely accepted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadcopter

McDonald’s getting a strongly worded letter from the Mayor of Hamburg over their use of “cheeseburger”.

Blame language evolving over time rather than OP, octocopter is a widely-used term for '8 propellor drones'.

A nit pick with your post - you use the word 'ambiguous' but really this is from the latin root 'ambiguus' so we don't need the supurflous 'o' in between the two u's.

"Copter" is a known word, short for helicopter.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/copter

Counterpoint: -copter is a perfectly cromulent suffix. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-copter

gyrocopter, helicopter, quadcopter, hexacopter, octocopter, parcelcopter, and—most famously—

roflcopter, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roflcopter#/media/File:Roflco...

They all have their own dictionary entries.

Octocopter makes perfect sense. Everyone understands immediately what it means, and that's the only purpose of language: to convey ideas. It should be clear, which this is, and concise, which this is.

Fidelity to ancient Greek is not, and should not, be a goal for English.

I guess it's a play on the popular word "quadcopter", rather than "helicopter".