Public chat - talk about everything with everyone

Media
,
#2785

My motors are known as merry-go-rounds

11 Likes
#2786

I won’t call motors fans, but I will gladly just start calling all fans “motors” and never referring to them as fans again.

#2787

shrug

3 Likes
#2788

Oh boy, here I go projecting again.

1 Like
#2789

@DerelictRobot loves following me around, I think I make his dick hard :crazy_face:

I think you need a hug, buddy

2 Likes
#2790

Brian, you’ve been asked to stop talking about my genitals before. Let’s not pull 2-Dads back into the mix.

So we’re clear: I do not consent to you sexualizing conversation with me, it’s off topic and inappropriate. Cheers.

200 (4)

2 Likes
#2791

Back on topic:

Care to explain your reasoning here?

1 Like
#2792

Andrew, it’s painfully obvious you show up only to attack people and start drama.

You’re certainly not ever around when noobs need help, just crickets.

Your priority is clearly starting drama.

I think you need a hug, buddy boy

1 Like
#2793

I’ll give him a big hug for you tomorrow.

The hatchet will be buried.

2 Likes
#2794

Is that what the kids are calling it these days? :smirk:

Edit: Oh wait, I’m so sorry. @Venom121212 and @DerelictRobot, do I have your consent to brutally and shamelessly sexualize every one of your interactions for my own sick gratification?

Consent matters, kids :tipping_hand_man:

5 Likes
#2795

I thought that was your nipple tassels

3 Likes
#2796

Bold of you to assume the tassels aren’t motorised

3 Likes
#2797

But are they PPM or PWM controlled?

4 Likes
#2798

I just plug them directly to the battery, no fuckery required

7 Likes
#2799

I don’t want to speak for @b264 , but I get the impression he values redundancy in his builds. Using a mini-remote, having multiple receivers is potentially insurance against signal intererence?

1 Like
#2800

@Shadowfax, feeding trolls only encourages them.

1 Like
#2801

Unfortunately this isn’t how redundancy works. Adding extra components doesn’t magically create redundancy without solving for additional points of failure and implementing true redundant fail-safes.

It’s unequivocally less safe than a direct wire connections between a single receiver and your ESC.

Source: I am an embedded systems engineer with a decade+ of experience developing control systems.

2 Likes
#2802

What makes it less safe? Is there something unsafe about having a mini-remote paired to 2 or 3 receivers?

1 Like
#2803

You are permanently increasing the number of critical failure points in exchange for the false premise of safety of ‘only having one side of your board drop out while braking’ :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

This is assuming that both sides don’t just drop out anyway or that suddenly losing control over one side of your board won’t veer you into traffic. Or that this won’t happen randomly while accelerating hard- if it can happen while braking it can happen on acceleration.

The entire idea is built upon a number of false assumptions, and it quickly becomes something that’s pretty dangerous to push people towards as a ‘solution’.

2 Likes
#2804

I see your point, and maybe we can discuss it more at Carve, but I’m not convinced it’s a terrible idea.

People have been injured because of receiver drop outs, when they expected to brake in traffic but didn’t. If a second receiver+ESC pair was able to provide backup braking, it seems to be an ok backup solution (Perhaps a bad assumption that the interference wouldn’t affect both receivers, but also not a wildly unreasonable one).

I guess I don’t see a better solution, short of using a better (more reliable) remote+receiver. If you want to use a remote that is known to have issues in high interference areas, is there a better solution?

2 Likes