Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

DO NOT READ THIS !

Discussion in 'Phantom 2 Vision + Discussion' started by AstralPlane, Jul 13, 2014.

  1. AstralPlane

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can the Vision 2+ fly via gps programming outside of its video link range? Say can I program it to fly 2 miles one way, and then come back? Or must it maintain the Video link all the time and if it loses the video link It will fly back home I understand.

    Thank you
     
  2. DronePilot

    Joined:
    May 9, 2014
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    The P2V+ does not need to maintain a FPV and/or control link to complete a waypoint mission once it is started. That being said, the DJI vision GS app restricts the waypoint configuration to 500m from home and a total mission distance to, I think, 3.5km.
     
  3. ToThePoint

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
    Max mission distance is 5km.
    FPV doesn't controle anything, is the remote controler.
    So to get it 2km out is either by radio controler or with the data link kit, but that kit gives interference with the fpv.
    The pilot on this board that installed the kit has a theaters about it and is selling that kit due to that reason.
     
  4. AstralPlane

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do they restrict the distance, if it can be done by GPS?

    Where can I learn about the kit that lets it go farther?
     
  5. ToThePoint

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
  6. CRankin

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    17
    One has to wonder if it would be possible for some enterprising folks to come up with a way of removing DJI's unnecessary (and unwanted) restrictions. I'd pay for a mod that removed the "Fly Safe" junk while simultaneously increasing the waypoint range. In most circumstances neither is particularly necessary for me; I just dislike artificial, capricious, and unnecessary restrictions placed on the usage of equipment that I own.
     
  7. D_Tshudy

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2014
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly

    Agreed. It's just a matter of time until someone hacks the app to remove the range limitations on waypoints.
     
  8. cahutch

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sonoma County, CA
    Unfortunately it's only going to get more restrictive in the future.
    The Flysafe "junk" is necessary to prevent idiots from getting their phantom sucked into a jet engine and possibly killing hundreds of people. I'm all for it.

    As for the ground station limitations, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the FAA will completely outlaw fully autonomous flights as soon as they can. At least by uncertified or unlicensed systems and operators.
    Flying BVR uncontrolled on a completely automated flight path is dangerous and irresponsible. The Phantom has no way to avoid obstacles like trees, power lines, communications towers or anything else that might be in the way. It's an accident waiting to happen.

    BVR using FPV under human control is fine by me but sending it off with no way to know what it's doing or if it will ever come back is worth some debate. It could hit a cell tower and cause thousands of dollars in damage, it could have a malfunction and land suddenly on someone's house or car. Are you insured for that?

    As it is now, DJI is complying with FAA guidelines that limit operation to within visual range. I would expect the same limitations to be added to the full ground station software in the future.

    The more of them there are in the air, the greater the need for some regulation. Most are hacked together with untested software that's prone to malfunction.
    It's only a matter of time before some poor slob on the ground get's his head caved in by a crashing UAV and we're all in for a shi*-storm the day that happens.
     
  9. Double-D

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2014
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Land Down Under
    +1
     
  10. CRankin

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    17
    This is where you and I obviously differ. I don't see the FlyGimp system as being either necessary or useful. I'd be willing to pay money to see it hacked out of new firmware as it's released. At present I'm debating whether or not the ground station functionality is worth having arbitrary and capricious limitations randomly placed on how I can use something I bought.

    People should have the right to fly their craft without artificial limitations placed upon them, whether those limitations come from the manufacturer or the government. If it's such a problem (which it isn't), make laws around safe use and then punish those who ignore those laws.

    Would you accept delivery of a car that was designed to automatically limit the speed you could drive on roads to the posted speed limit? Would you accept delivery of a car that automatically shut down to prevent you from driving into "restricted areas" using some arbitrary made-up algorithm? I know I wouldn't. And I feel the exact same way about the equipment I purchase.

    I bought my P2V+ knowing about the restrictions, and only purchased it because there was no reasonably close competing product with all its features at the time. Had there been a competitor that didn't force this crap down my throat, my business would have gone to them. (And it will in the future as this market expands.) Those who choose to treat their customers as adults instead of children who must be supervised by some sky nanny are the companies who deserve business.

    You're assuming that I (and many others) actually care about the FAA says. That assumption about me would, in some ways, be incorrect. I prefer to believe that those who actually fly UAVs know a lot more about safe operation than some retired-in-position government workers. By not getting its act together enough already to address UAV issues, the FAA has proven itself incompetent in this area and incapable of addressing it appropriately. As far as I'm concerned, they've lost all credibility around stating what's "safe" and what supposedly isn't. I'll let my best judgment be my guide, as there are few scenarios where it wouldn't be a better guide in the first place.

    You're making several assumptions here. This UAV is capable of flying higher than any of the obstacles you've listed. And there are ways to fly this BVR in a perfectly responsible manner. If one starts with a proper survey of the area, noting approximate heights of potential obstacles and plotting a course to avoid them, then it is possible to fly BVR in a fully automated mode safely.

    Well, if one isn't flying the mission as part of a business, then the answer for many could be "yes". Some homeowners insurance policies will cover this. An umbrella policy should definitely cover this. I don't know if any business insurance will, at this point. The last time I checked with an agent they were unsure that it would be a covered activity because of the way that the FAA is mistreating small business owners, lying about how flying UAVs for business purposes is not allowed. This, of course, is just one of the ways that the FAA is engaged in unfairly picking the "winners" and "losers" in the UAV business battle. Larger operations (such as film studios, who violate this so-called "rule" all the time) don't need to worry about this so much, because they can afford the loss if something crashes.

    Which is rather dumb of them, considering that there is no law requiring that their software or aircraft be equipped with any limitations whatsoever. Anyway, it's only a guideline... and it's not the FAA has much in the way of enforcement powers around it. They can't even determine if it's happening in the first place, after all. Basically all we really have with the FAA is a whiny little b*tch of an agency that's antiquated, blind, and stupid. (Yeah, I don't have much respect for them and the way they're intentionally trying to destroy small business opportunities.)

    Again, I'll mention that whole DJI competitor thing. I'd imagine that many people would switch over to a company that didn't include arbitrary and capricious limitations on their wares. And even if such stupidity becomes law here in the US, there will always be an option of purchasing some non-gimped version of the software or hardware from abroad. And there could also be a black market of sorts opening up for people to get those limitations removed from their equipment... the hacking community is wonderful about doing these types of things at times. I'd actually welcome that sort of activity.

    I might agree with that, depending upon the type of regulations you'd advocate for. I'm not a fan of regulating anything before the necessity of it is clearly demonstrated. And even then, I'm a fan of minimal regulation. Government only tends to muck things up when it gets involved.

    And there are already laws to cover appropriate compensation for this on the books for civil action, around liability for property damage and injury. There's no need for a government agency to come in and place restrictions just because someone wants to play Henny Penny and worry about the stuff that might happen. It's not government's job to protect us from the Boogey Man, after all.
     
  11. ___

    ___

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read it. Oops. :)
     
  12. cahutch

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sonoma County, CA
    @CRankin
    I tend to agree with you on most of your points. I believe people should be free to do what they want and be held accountable for their actions if they do something wrong.

    Unfortunately our society has things backwards. They do everything they can to prevent you from doing bad or stupid things and then they hold you blameless for your actions but sue the manufacturer for making a dangerous product.
    If the car had been invented last week, I have no doubt the manufacturers would limit the speed and acceleration to "safe" levels and lock the hood shut so you couldn't service it yourself.

    Unfortunately there are stupid people who are going to do stupid things. When an airplane is crashed or someone is hurt by a Phantom drone, DJI will get sued for making a dangerous product. You can bet on that. So they are trying to protect themselves by adding these limits to keep dumb guys and bad guys from misusing it.

    Personally, I have no desire to fly anywhere near an airport, I'd rather not risk the arrest or lawsuit for public endangerment.
    So the fact that the software prevents it has no effect on me or my plans for using it.

    I have to ask though. Why would you want to fly it near an airport?
    Just because they say you can't. ?
     
  13. rrhansen

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    CRankin - let me ask you, respectfully, **why** you're so incensed that you can't fly further autonomously?? Personally, I think it's a legitimate limitation.
    Consider for a moment, the nefarious potential of long range autonomous...delivery of an explosive, radiological, or biological agent via drone...enabled by a long-range autonomous delivery system? (could it be done from the parking lot across the street...certainly...but why enhance the opportunity?).
    Just say'n... don't get so incensed at certain rules or regulations that you may not understand - no one's trying to steal your tie-die t-shirt or collection of Occupy Wall-Street protest signs.
     
  14. cahutch

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sonoma County, CA
    I actually live close to an airport. 7.08 miles as the crow flies so I'm outside the 5 mile flight limitation zone.
    Even so, we have flights overhead a few times a week at less than 1,000 ft, so you can bet I'll be keeping her under the 400ft ceiling.

    There aren't a lot of people living within the 1.5 mile no fly zone around our Airport, it's mostly farms and orchards but there are probably a few thousand people within the 5 mile limit zone. They may not be able to fly in their own backyard or use their UAV to survey their crops. If I lived there, I'm sure I'd have a problem with the limitation and would work on a way to get around it.

    When I first read about the ground station feature my first thought was that I could send it over to my friends house about 1.5km away, have it circle his house and come back with some pictures.
    But a quick survey of Youtube videos of flyaways or ground station user mishaps and I decided I'd rather not risk losing something this expensive.
    I'm sure in the future if I get comfortable with the idea and trust the software I'll probably want to do that or something like that.
    I can see farmers wanting to program a flight path to survey crops so it could repeat the same flight path every day and return with pictures. Some of the vineyards around here are hundreds of acres so any useful flight survey would need to exceed the 500 meter limitation.
     
  15. slothead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2014
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Frederick, MD, USA
    If the Controller controls the flight (waypoints and movement), how does the controller get the waypoints from the app? And if the waypoints are transmitted to the controller, are they also transmitted to some memory location in the Phantom?

    Any info appreciated.
     
  16. ToThePoint

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
    Your mixing several things together. Either you use the remote control to get 2km or the data link kit.
    If you decide to use the app the restriction is 500m.
    That was the initial q/a.

    If you use the GS then the remote controler can be set off. Its only a transmiter there is no bi-directional communicatie on it.
    It transmits on 5,4ghz.
    All the other stuff happens on 2,4ghz. Simplex or duplex.

    Also i never stated that the remote control does the waypoints, it controls only the bird manually.
    The app sends waypoints to the bird true wifi. The bird put it into its memory.
     
  17. cahutch

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sonoma County, CA
    The controller is the on board flight controller, not the handheld transmitter.
    The ground station app uploads the flight plan to the on board flight controller and the phantom executes the flight plan with no external input.
    After you press start and it takes off, you can turn off your transmitter and the ground station transmitter if you want and the Phantom will still complete the flight plan.
    Or at least that's how it's supposed to work.
     
  18. phantomguy

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    2
    there is a lot of worry about what the FAA may come up with, law wise.

    I suspect similiar concerns were raised back when 55mph speed limits were commonplace. And we all know how we all adhere to those limits..