Phantom 3 - Waypoint Demo

[tcope]

Video I put together running through the waypoint feature and some tips.

There are two issues that I found that DJI need to correct. First one is minor and that is that the altitude is not reported for the first waypoint (at least not on the Android app). The second is that the altitudes showing on the map are very much incorrect. I've seen them off by as much as 75%!

Enjoy!

 

[bbfpv]

Thanks @tcope! but the title of the thread says "Phantom 2"

 

[tcope]

Thanks @tcope! but the title of the thread says "Phantom 2"

Whoops. Fixed. Thanks!

 

[tcope]

Anyone else see this altitude issue with Waypoints? That is, that the altitude at each waypoint is "way" different then the altitude reported at the bottom of the app.

 

[bobmyers]

Anyone else see this altitude issue with Waypoints? That is, that the altitude at each waypoint is "way" different then the altitude reported at the bottom of the app.

+1

 

[MADrone]

Nicely done video on waypoints. I have not tried different altitudes at the points. My first waypoint attempt worked, however, the birds nose did not stay in the orientation that was recorded, which was the default I selected. More testing on my part is required, and your video will help me. Thanks for the effort! (I use iOS on iPad Air 2)

 

[JerEl]

The numbers are way off on the setup screen but it seemed to fly the correct altitude that you were at when you set the waypoints. That's strange and I didn't notice that on the only test I did. IMO 500M distance from controller is really too short and I wish they would change that to at least 1000M because sometimes it isn't easy to physically get that close to some locations. But...I guess they did that for safety reasons and one can always just manually fly the route and aim the camera at the same time which is what the waypoint feature was supposed to make it easier to do OR use a 3rd party app .

 

[Danderse]

The numbers you see are distances between WPs...not altitude, therefore no distance for WP#1.

Thanks for the video.

 

[tcope]

The numbers you see are distances between WPs...not altitude, therefore no distance for WP#1.

Thanks for the video.

Look at waypoint 3 and 4. The number goes down by 5 feet. So it's not distances between waypoints. Also, add the them up and then look at the number of feet in the right side pop up window. They don't match that number either. So regardless of what they record, they are incorrect.

 

[BigAl07]

Those are straight line distances from the last waypoint not altitude at all. No matter how you fly from point to point when you hit APPLY it will fly straight line from point to point to point and that distance is what's being put on the screen at each point.

They won't add up to the distance in the "window" because that's travel distance and distance from your point not from way point to way point.

 

[tcope]

Those are straight line distances from the last waypoint not altitude at all. No matter how you fly from point to point when you hit APPLY it will fly straight line from point to point to point and that distance is what's being put on the screen at each point.

They won't add up to the distance in the "window" because that's travel distance and distance from your point not from way point to way point.

Watch the video... as I fly between waypoints the window distance does not increase. Why would it track flight distance when this would be 100 percent useless information? Why would it not add up as that distance is being flown? I don't think it's flight distance from waypoint to waypoint as the in the last leg I fly much further then prior legs bit UT still shows about the same distance. So far we have several different claims as to what it is.

 

[BigAl07]

I believe the change in altitude is going to make up the difference. The aircraft is going to attempt to fly a straight line to the next point including altitude changes. It's not just horizontal distance but it's factoring in the additional height needed to get to the next point.

I may try and test this theory when I get home this evening weather permitting.

 

[tcope]

I believe the change in altitude is going to make up the difference. The aircraft is going to attempt to fly a straight line to the next point including altitude changes. It's not just horizontal distance but it's factoring in the additional height needed to get to the next point.

I may try and test this theory when I get home this evening weather permitting.

Distance is distance. If the number is distance from one waypoint to another that distance is true no matter the altitude change. The running total still does not add up to what is displayed in the pop up window.

 

[BigAl07]

If you are changing altitude the distance the aircraft has to travel to meet that change is going to be MORE than if the aircraft were on the ground rolling from point #1 to point #2.

Either way I was only offering some possible solutions/answers to your original post.

 

[BigAl07]

The straight line distance (direct as if from a laser) from point #1 to point #2 is 102' when you factor in altitude. I believe the onscreen indicated 100.3 which is pretty close considering the lack of accuracy in our hobby GPS and altimeter systems here.

82' horizontal with 59' vertical comes up to 102' point to point.

 

[tcope]

The straight line distance (direct as if from a laser) from point #1 to point #2 is 102' when you factor in altitude. I believe the onscreen indicated 100.3 which is pretty close considering the lack of accuracy in our hobby GPS and altimeter systems here.

82' horizontal with 59' vertical comes up to 102' point to point.

So why does it go from 108' to 102'? The flight distance or actual distance between those two waypoints is -5'?

I'm open for _any_ input on this as perhaps it is something very simple that is being missed. So please keep those thoughts coming.

 

[BigAl07]

the best I can tell is the distance on the Right Hand Side (in the ap window) is the accumulative of what the aircraft is flying. See below:

Point #1 to Point #2 = 100.3' (with alt figured in)
Point #2 to Point #3 = 131' (with alt figured in)

At 6:17 in your video Point #3 has just been entered into the equation and it is showing a distance of 231.3' which just happens to be what my "calculated" distance from the above #'s come up to be.

I hope that makes sense.