Drone inspections definitely have their limitations. They're great for a quick overview or to spot obvious damage, but subtle issues like cracked sealant or loose flashing often go unnoticed. I've seen drone reports miss minor hail damage entirely because the lighting wasn't right or the angle was off. They're a useful tool, don't get me wrong, but nothing replaces physically checking the roof—especially if you're dealing with older buildings or complex rooflines.
Yeah, drones are handy, but they're definitely not foolproof. Last summer, I had a client who showed me a drone inspection report—looked super high-tech, fancy graphics and all—but when we climbed up there ourselves, we found a bunch of loose shingles and some flashing that was barely hanging on. The drone missed it completely because of the angle and shadows. They're great for initial checks, but nothing beats getting boots on the roof and seeing things firsthand.
Yeah, that's been my experience too. Had a drone inspection done last spring—report looked amazing, felt like I was in a sci-fi movie—but when I got up there myself later, found some cracked tiles the drone totally missed. Shadows and angles definitely play tricks on cameras. Makes me wonder...are there specific drones or camera setups that handle tricky lighting better, or is this just a limitation we're stuck with for now?
I've run into similar issues myself. Last year, I tested a drone with a high-end thermal camera setup—great for moisture detection, but still struggled with shadows and glare. Seems like no matter the tech, nothing beats a hands-on look sometimes...
Yeah, drones are handy but definitely not foolproof. I've had times where glare made a perfectly good roof look suspiciously damp. Still, they're great for spotting issues in tricky spots...just gotta double-check the old-fashioned way sometimes.
