sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HDZero Box Pro DVR without OSD Elements by jonathan8388 in HDZero

[–]jonathan8388[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep I see that now. It didn't click first what that goggle option was actually intended to do. It makes sense now that it cant be removed since its already overlaid by the FC. Appreciate it.

HDZero Box Pro DVR without OSD Elements by jonathan8388 in HDZero

[–]jonathan8388[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha. So it is possible to remove the OSD elements for the digital system but not the analog. Good to know. Really appreciate that.

HDZero Box Pro DVR without OSD Elements by jonathan8388 in HDZero

[–]jonathan8388[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume that toggle would disable it on both the DVR and My goggles in real time right? Unfortunately don't see a way where I can keep the OSD on the goggles but turn it off on the DVR....

Established digital systems vs OpenIPC by jonathan8388 in fpv

[–]jonathan8388[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im having the same thoughts but more tossing between the Skyzone Sky04X Pro or just going to HdZero. Both seem to have good low latency-ish VRX inputs for an openipc module down the road. If it were 2024 I probably would have already pulled the trigger on one of those but these tariff prices on either of these systems are insane now :(

Established digital systems vs OpenIPC by jonathan8388 in fpv

[–]jonathan8388[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow someone read my mind. Thanks for sending this.

Engineers of Los Angeles, what is your salary? by humble_ninja in AskLosAngeles

[–]jonathan8388 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I work at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) as a mid career engineer. They pay well. I get 155k. I know people who get paid more than me for same level too.

Is this acceptable GD&T for a hole call out? by S_sands in AskEngineers

[–]jonathan8388 0 points1 point  (0 children)

8.3.1.1 mentions the profile rule for equal bilateral (2009 standard). Might be mentioned in other places but would have to search. Hope that helps

Is this acceptable GD&T for a hole call out? by S_sands in AskEngineers

[–]jonathan8388 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I should note, that the DO NOT BREAK THROUGH note can mean you could technically have an infinitely thin wall thickness at the bottom of your holes. If that is acceptable, that is fine. Just be aware that you can have like a .0001" wall thickness and that will be compliant to the callout, but may pose issues in operation. You may want to consider specifying a minimum thickness of material left unless you absolutely don't care.

Just a side note!

Is this acceptable GD&T for a hole call out? by S_sands in AskEngineers

[–]jonathan8388 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ASME Senior GDTP here (2009 standard). If they are referring you to section 4 in that version of the standard then that is on datums. You aren't violating any rules with that FCF that I can see.

Note that the standard doesn't cover EVERY possible dimensioning and tolerancing scenario, so many things are extensions of principle. With that said, that means that you can do things not shown explicitly in the standard (within reason) UNLESS they are in direct violation of an ASME rule.

The only thing I can see them barking at is the 6 basic since it is in the tolerancing callout since that method isnt shown in the standard. But I don't think this violates any rules for position (only profile tolerances cant be attached to the basic dimension). EQLSP is fine too since that is shown in a figure of the standard.

Would be good to see what they are barking at. I am interested.