13

Proposal: FPV quadcopters, multirotors, wings, and planes

There are over 100k active betaflight users out there. We get more than 40 new users per week on Facebook. The betaflight user base is unquestionably big enough to justify a stack exchange site specifically for their needs.

The site will be much more useful if we keep a tight focus, and, I think, much more likely to get supported by betaflight users.

  • 1
    Well, on stackexchange tags can be used to filter questions. So as users of the site would could filter out stuff we don't want to see, if we're really against kiss. I suspect we may trying this at a bad time of year, at least from a northern hemisphere perspective. – Kyle K Jul 27 at 2:58
  • 2
    I think that we should have planned it, it was a spur of the moment thing from Vaughan following a discussion with me. I had thought about it a lot and was planning on widely notifying all the various diverse user groups before starting the process. We sort of just jumped in here. – ctzsnooze Jul 27 at 3:23
  • 3
    You need to decide and pick a lane very soon. If the scope of the proposal changes too much down the road, it will render the followers and what they are voting for and supporting moot, forcing us to close the mismatched proposal for a fresh start. – Robert Cartaino Jul 27 at 5:44
  • 1
    This proposal is sticking with Betaflight. We've got some decent support going now, and a focused knowledge base is needed for the Betaflight community. There are a pile of failed drone/fpv/quadcopter/etc. proposals, and I've had no real enthusiasm from the general groups like Teamblacksheep Lounge, Rotor Riot, etc. for an 'FPV Flying' SE. Someone else with more influence in the general community is welcome to start up a new general proposal, but I suspect those influencers are more keen to have people on their youtube channels than a community-driven, unbiased stack exchange. – Vaughn Dickson Jul 29 at 8:17
  • You really want to focus on one fork of a piece of software, excluding all other forks of that software? – DJClayworth Aug 12 at 1:48
4

Happy to change it back. The moderators have already complained the new title is too long, so going general is probably going to fail anyway. Will update when I’m at a PC again and can adjust my Facebook posts too.

  • And for a list of failed attempts search for 'stackexchange' in Rotor Riot Community group on Facebook. – Vaughn Dickson Jul 27 at 7:17
2

Late to the party, seems like you switched to more generic "FPV" and back to niche "Betaflight" again.
While being more "pro-generic-FPV" at first, now I see truth at both sides, so let's stay betaflight-focused, amen.

Just want to point at second best example question here, about prop sizes and motors (voted to close it) -- it's not really a "Betaflight" question, or? Feels like we gonna have more like this if this proposal ever lifts off. Just saying.

Example question: https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/122688/betaflight/122694#122694

0

I support leaving it at Betaflight - another 'all FPV lumped together' site is not what most users want... specific know-how to answer specific questions should be the guiding principle :-)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .