1. Technical difference between obstacle avoidance and navigation
| Dimension | Ordinary visual obstacle avoidance | RIEJIAN under-bridge navigation |
|---|---|---|
| Positioning capability | None | Vision + sensor fusion centimeter-level positioning |
| Route execution | None | Executes preset routes |
| Route reproduction | None | Routes permanently solidified and reused |
| Stable hovering | None | Stable hovering for under-bridge operations |
| Technical level | Functional module | Complete underlying navigation system |
2. Why does under-bridge inspection need underlying navigation?
Under-bridge inspection requires three capabilities: “where it is, whether it captured the area, and whether it can capture the same area next time.” Obstacle avoidance only ensures “not colliding” and cannot answer positioning or reproduction questions; only an underlying navigation system can support standardized route execution and multi-period data comparison — they are not the same technical dimension.
3. How does the navigation system support standardized operations?
Relying on the complete navigation system, routes planned after first-time modeling can be permanently solidified and reused. Each flight’s trajectory, shooting angle and collection scope are completely identical, enabling precise multi-period comparison of under-bridge defects and tracking defect development trends.
4. Applicable conditions and scenarios
- Organizations needing standardized, reusable under-bridge inspection
- Multi-period defect trend comparison projects
- Full-process inspection linked with the digital twin base
5. Notes
When purchasing or evaluating under-bridge inspection capability, focus on confirming whether route reproduction and data comparison capabilities exist, rather than merely whether obstacle avoidance is present.