Re:Introducing the 2nd Generation Boosted Board
by tlrobinson on Thursday May 19, 2016 @01:59PM
(#11732188)
Yeah, I'm curious why they don't do that. I guess part of the issue is how gently should "gently" be? If you're not expecting it to start breaking it could throw you off. If it's too gentle then there's no point.
If the remote emitted a warning sound a second before it started braking, then slowly started braking, that could work.
Also in my experience RF interference is extremely localized. Chances are it will reconnect once you travel ~15 feet.
BTW here's a map someone started of "dead zones": https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1BSgoslQB-0i16l...
Re:Introducing the 2nd Generation Boosted Board
by skdoo on Thursday May 19, 2016 @04:23PM
(#11733480)
Exactly right. It's hard to arbitrarily pick the "gentle" braking point, and unexpected braking is not great.
Re:Introducing the 2nd Generation Boosted Board
by Sir_Substance on Friday May 20, 2016 @05:27PM
(#11741664)
Only if you choose an absolute value. Start gentle and then ramp up over the course of 10-15 seconds. It would be easy to add a slight high frequency oscillation to it as well, to make the board vibrate a little as a prompt to explain what it's doing.
It's kind of ridiculous to present that as an unsolvable problem dude.
o_O if the remote loses connection it doesn't default to gently applying the brakes?
Considering how everyone raves about how much thought has been put into these boards, that seems like a really big oversight!