Oh, no Jimmy, I'm tired of your goalposts moving as well. I'm just more or less over the whole argument honestly where everyone wants to cherry pick every part of the discussion they can without actually arguing my actual original point they attacked.
So, you're a professional 'engineer' in 'the drone industry' whose written 'flight control software'. What are we talking about here? Are you programming flight controllers with your own home written code to handle the PID? Are you writing PC software to interface and locate the drones? Or are you programming dronelink or similar to gather ariel footage for customers? I've been at it since we were putting our own code on stm32's and putting crap together out of spare parts. I've programmed my fair share of control systems and balanced countless PID loops.
So anyway, you're a professional engineer in the drone industry whose written flight control software. Let's assume you actually understand vibration and have some form of civil or mechanical engineering degree.
Who has tight connections with two companies of engineers in drone based bridge inspection,
who's arguing with me that drone footage isn't clear enough due to vibration to the point can't be used in bridge inspection to reduce costs
Then you admit that drones are already being used in bridge inspection, but only at very close distances.
So, what, you're arguing that better equipment can't be do it at a distance of 10 ft? Your argument keeps changing and your credentials seem to be far overreaching for a proper appeal to authority on machine vision.
What is your actual argument with me? My original statement that you contested is that bridge inspections by drone should reduce the cost by a hell of a lot more than 30%. Is that patently incorrect? because there appears to be an actual study out there not done a company trying to sell their services showing a reduction of 70%
Just don't respond. I'm over it. Block me, I'll block you, we can move on with our lives.