Yeah, binoculars can be deceiving sometimes. Reminds me of a job I had last spring—homeowner said everything looked fine from the ground, just a few loose shingles. I climbed up expecting a quick fix, but once I started pulling shingles, the plywood underneath was practically mush. Turns out they'd had a slow leak for months, and it was impossible to spot without getting hands-on.
Drones are definitely a step up from binoculars, especially for steep or tricky roofs. But even then, nothing beats physically checking suspect areas. I've had drones miss subtle signs like soft spots or tiny nail pops that you only notice by touch or close visual inspection. Tech is great, but old-school methods still have their place... especially when water damage is involved.
"Tech is great, but old-school methods still have their place... especially when water damage is involved."
Totally get what you're saying, but honestly, drones have saved my sanity more than once. Had a roof inspection last year and the inspector used one of those thermal-imaging drones—looked like something from Star Trek, lol. It picked up hidden moisture spots that weren't even visible from inside the attic. Sure, nothing beats hands-on for subtle stuff, but don't underestimate how sci-fi these gadgets have gotten lately... they're catching up fast.
"Sure, nothing beats hands-on for subtle stuff, but don't underestimate how sci-fi these gadgets have gotten lately... they're catching up fast."
Yeah, drones are definitely impressive—especially thermal imaging. But I've noticed they can sometimes miss smaller details like cracked flashing or loose shingles that you'd catch easily up close. Last month, we had a drone inspection at a client's place after a storm. The drone caught some hidden moisture spots perfectly (saved us a ton of guesswork), but when we climbed up later, we found minor damage around the chimney that didn't show clearly on the drone footage. So I think it's best to combine both methods: drones for the big-picture stuff and moisture detection, and old-school eyes-on-the-roof for those sneaky little issues. Still, gotta admit... seeing those thermal images pop up on screen does feel pretty futuristic.
Yeah, drones are cool and all, but I wouldn't fully trust them alone yet either. Last summer, we had a drone inspection done after some hail damage. The images looked amazing—like something out of a movie—but when I climbed up later to patch things up myself, I found a couple cracked shingles the drone totally missed. Tech's great for spotting moisture and hidden leaks, but for now, nothing beats getting up there yourself and poking around a bit... at least until drones get even better.
Fair points about drones missing some details, but to be fair, I've seen plenty of human inspectors overlook cracked shingles too. It's not always tech vs. human—sometimes it's about using both effectively. For instance, drones equipped with thermal imaging can detect subtle temperature differences indicating moisture intrusion or insulation issues that might not be visible to the naked eye. On the other hand, direct physical inspection lets you feel the shingles' flexibility and notice tiny cracks or lifted edges that cameras might miss.
Maybe the ideal approach isn't waiting for drones to get better, but rather combining drone tech with targeted physical inspections. You could use the drone images to pinpoint suspicious areas first, then climb up for a closer look at those specific spots. Seems like a more efficient way to leverage both methods, doesn't it? Curious if anyone's tried integrating both approaches systematically yet...
