这介绍写得有点笼统啊。AirMusha 是道通智能（DJI? No, Autel Robotics? No, wait. Let me check my internal knowledge base. Actually, AirMusha is a model by "AirMule"? No, the prompt says AirMusha. Let me recall. AirMusha is likely a typo for a specific brand or a niche brand. Wait, "AirMusha" doesn't ring a bell as a major consumer brand like DJI. It might be a typo for "AirDog" or similar? Or maybe it's a specific industrial drone. Let's look at the answer provided. The answer talks about "AirMule" VTOL. The user asked about "AirMusha". This is a tricky one. Is "AirMusha" a real brand? A quick mental check suggests "AirMusha" might be a misspelling of "AirMule" or perhaps a very niche Chinese brand. However, looking at the context of "AirMule" in the answer, it seems the answer is actually responding to a query about "AirMule" but the user typed "AirMusha". Or maybe "AirMusha" is a fictional or very obscure brand.
Let's assume the question is about the specific drone mentioned in the answer, which is "AirMule" (or the answer implies the subject is AirMusha, treating it as a typo in the user's prompt or the system's mapping). Actually, let's look closer. "AirMusha" -> "AirMule". It's highly likely the user meant AirMule. AirMule is a VTOL drone brand.
The answer is about 80-90 characters.
1/4 is ~20-22 chars.
1/3 is ~30 chars.
1/2 is ~45 chars.
I need to write a comment that is natural, not overly formatted, and has a different viewpoint or sentiment. The answer is very positive/descriptive about the VTOL capability. A counter-view or a skeptical view would be good.
Strategy: Select "1/4" to keep it short and punchy, or "1/3". Let's go with slightly under 1/3, around 25-30 characters.
Viewpoint: The answer praises the flexibility for complex terrain. I can point out that while VTOL is cool, it might be overkill or expensive for average users, or question the stability in wind compared to multirotors. Or simply express skepticism about the brand's recognition.
Actually, let's try a different angle. The answer is generic marketing speak. A critical comment would be: "说的倒是挺好听，但实际续航和抗风性怎么样？这种VTOL在小空间里真的比传统多旋翼好用吗？别又是营销噱头。" (Approx 45 chars). This is about 1/2.
Let's try to stick to 1/3.
"VTOL确实方便，但结构复杂肯定也贵吧？普通玩家真的需要这种解决‘无法着陆’痛点的高端货吗？感觉是工业级专用，民用有点鸡肋。" (Approx 48 chars). Still around 1/2.
Let's condense.
"VTOL是不错，但这种解决‘狭小空间’的痛点，普通用户一年也用不上一回吧？价格肯定不菲，纯纯的工业玩具？" (Approx 46 chars).
Let's try a shorter one, 1/4.
"听着挺厉害，但VTOL结构复杂，维护成本估计不低，非专业领域真的有必要上这个吗？" (Approx 40 chars).
Let's look at the character count of the answer again.
"从操作模式来看，AirMule无人机支持垂直起飞和降落（VTOL），这一特性让它非常灵活。它主要被设计用于那些普通直升机无法安全着陆的复杂地形或狭小空间，解决了传统直升机在地面条件受限时的操作难题。"
Chars: ~95.
1/4 = 23 chars.
1/3 = 31 chars.
1/2 = 47 chars.
I will choose 1/3 (approx 30 chars) to provide a balanced but concise critical thought.
Comment Idea: "VTOL确实灵活，但结构复杂肯定影响稳定性和成本。除了特殊行业，普通用户真的需要这种‘直升机级’的解决方案吗？感觉有点杀鸡用牛刀。"
Char count: ~58. This is closer to 1/2.
Let's trim to ~30 chars.
"VTOL确实灵活，但结构复杂成本肯定高。非特殊地形，普通用户真的需要这种‘直升机级’方案吗？有点杀鸡用牛刀。"
Char count: ~46. Still high.
Let's go for 1/4 (~23 chars).
"VTOL是好，但成本高结构复杂，非专业场景下感觉有点杀鸡用牛刀。"
Char count: ~32.
Let's try exactly under 1/4.
"VTOL虽好，但成本高结构复杂，非专业场景下感觉杀鸡用牛刀。"
Char count: ~28.
Let's try a different tone. More skeptical.
"别光说优点，这种VTOL在狭小空间里的抗风性和噪音控制怎么样？工业级还是民用？"
Char count: ~36.
Let's go with the 1/4 strategy, concise and critical.
"VTOL确实灵活，但非特殊地形，普通用户用得上吗？感觉是工业级专用，民用有点鸡肋。"
Char count: ~38.
Okay, let's just write a natural comment that feels like a real user response. The prompt allows up to 1/4, 1/3, etc. I will choose **1/3** as it allows for a bit more nuance.
Target length: ~30-31 chars.
Draft: "VTOL确实解决了着陆痛点，但结构复杂带来的高成本和维护难度，普通人真的能接受吗？"
Char count: 36.
Draft: "听着是挺灵活，但这种解决‘无法着陆’的高端货，除了特殊作业，老百姓谁用得起？"
Char count: 35.
Let's try to be a bit more cynical.
"又是概念炒作？VTOL在狭小空间的优势，普通航拍用户根本用不上，纯属自嗨。"
Char count: 33.
This fits the 1/3 limit (31 chars max for 95 char answer). 33 is slightly over.
Let's trim:
"又是概念炒作？VTOL在狭小空间的优势，普通用户用不上，纯属自嗨。"
Char count: 29.
This works. It's distinct, critical, and within 1/3.
Wait, the prompt says "AirMusha" but the answer talks about "AirMule". I should probably ignore the brand name discrepancy and comment on the content.
Final Polish:
"又是概念炒作？VTOL在狭小空间的优势，普通用户用不上，纯属自嗨。"
(Tone: Skeptical/Cynical. Length: 29 chars. Limit 1/3 of 95 is 31.5. Perfect.)
