Altitude limit: how can I do this?

[huntjock]

I was unaware, until now, that there is also a 200m below takeoff limitation! Thank you for that clarification. So much for solving the 500m ascent limitation by flying from the top of the mountain down! That's even more restrictive than the 500m ascent limitation from the base. I am lucky that, so far, I have run into neither of them, but I soon would have, on flights I had already planned. Now I will have to restrategize to try and work around them. Not happy about this revelation. The best location for clear LOS flight is from the peak down. Now, I'll have to get out my altimeter and launch from no higher than 200m above sea level from the each side of the peak to be able to reach sea level, as now the mountain behind me blocks the LOS! I can't just turn around and have control in every direction beyond 200m below the peak! Bummer!

Yep. Does not make sense at all. See my recent post demonstrating the utter absurdity of it: Phantom 3 Flight Capability Quiz | DJI Phantom Forum

 

[huntjock]

I find it hard to believe there isn't a sensible hack to work around a lousy 500m firmware coded height limit? Someone isn't trying hard enough

PS: less than firmware version 1.5 has no limit for Litchi? I haven't updated to v1.5 yet, please tell me it's true!

Not sure where I saw it - but someone stated that the P2+ height limit was 2000m, the P3 started out @ 1000m but was dropped to 500m in a firmware update, Sept update I think, so pre-1.5

I for one would love to get my hands on the source code for the P3 firmware.

However, even if the source code were available and could be modified and recompiled, I doubt that it could be successfully loaded it into the P3 without also hacking the RC code. Instead of going into why, I will just say that I think DJI is now "signing" their code in a way that makes it virtually impossible to load anything into the P3 other than the signed binary updates that they have released.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I for one would love to get my hands on the source code for the P3 firmware.

However, even if the source code were available and could be modified and recompiled, I doubt that it could be successfully loaded it into the P3 without also hacking the RC code. Instead of going into why, I will just say that I think DJI is now "signing" their code in a way that makes it virtually impossible to load anything into the P3 other than the signed binary updates that they have released.

I have no doubt that they are. Nothing will load that isn't based upon their SDK, which now gives them full control after 1.5. This has also crippled the Litchi app to the same DJI limitations of 500m above the launch elevation. I can't blame them, but I don't have to like it, even though we are stuck with it. The inability to descend more than 200m below the launch point isn't new, but I never knew it existed until tonight! That's even worse. Can't launch from a mountain top and fly more than 200 meters below yourself, even if you have clear 360° LOS! Bummer!

 

[tcope]

@tcopeperhaps you have noticed that i have argued for "smarter" limits to replace the one size fits all "hardcoded" limits. i am not sure who the "powers that be" are, but the current magic numbers for the P3 are 500m ABOVE and 200m BELOW the take off point. rationale for these values is yet to be explained with any certainty. so, until we know, we can only agree that they are somewhat arbitrary and arcane. i'm sure they made some people feel good, though. i can shoot down the "safety" argument with some simple examples. i argue that a "smart" implementation was too complicated for what some developers could pull off in the short time that some attorneys wanted, so the compromise was a simple hardcoded implementation with some "reasonable" values.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with a 500m limit. I also think some people,such as you mentioned, have a valid reason for not having that limit. I'm only mentioning why I think it came about. Without a limit someone is eventually either going to get into trouble at that height or the news is simply going to put out an article that there is no good reason for a Phantom to fly at "3000'.... in regulated airspace where commercial flights are located". If there was liability involved in the flight, DJI might be brought into the case or even if no liability, either DJI would face some tough questions or the government would arbitrarily put more strict limits in place.

To avoid all of this, DJI was proactive and came up with the 500m limit.

Yes, there are going to be very rare cases where that 500m is going to affect someone who should not be affected. It's 1,000,000 situations vs 1. Same with a more appropriate solution... it's the the expense vs that 1 in a million situation.

I'm only giving a probably answer to the question of _why_ it's "500m". At the end of the day... it's 500m.

 

[aka1ceman]

There were too many idiots flying way above the clouds and can interfere with commerical aircrafts. That would be really ugly. DJI didnt want to take blame for that so this was a smart move by them. When I had my P2 I was all about range and max altitude, I took mine up so far I even see passenger planes and it would scare the crap out of me. THose days are over and I even regret my past.

If you wanna break the rules you can do so, just build your own quadcopter.

Rules? What rules are being broken. Just because you have rules in your area, does Not mean those "rules" apply to the rest of the world. Meanwhile don't try to force Your rules on everyone else.
When 1 country creates a law does all the other countries have to abide by it?? NO

 

[aka1ceman]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with a 500m limit. I also think some people,such as you mentioned, have a valid reason for not having that limit. I'm only mentioning why I think it came about. Without a limit someone is eventually either going to get into trouble at that height or the news is simply going to put out an article that there is no good reason for a Phantom to fly at "3000'.... in regulated airspace where commercial flights are located". If there was liability involved in the flight, DJI might be brought into the case or even if no liability, either DJI would face some tough questions or the government would arbitrarily put more strict limits in place.

To avoid all of this, DJI was proactive and came up with the 500m limit.

Yes, there are going to be very rare cases where that 500m is going to affect someone who should not be affected. It's 1,000,000 situations vs 1. Same with a more appropriate solution... it's the the expense vs that 1 in a million situation.

I'm only giving a probably answer to the question of _why_ it's "500m". At the end of the day... it's 500m.

This is the wrong thought process to go about fixing the problem. If one clown goes in FAA air space that is not supposed to, then punish him. If he abuses the product then he needs to be punished based on laws in his area. But you cannot blanket everybody. Do you get banned for driving your car because Joe Smith was drinking and driving and abusing its use?

 

[N017RW]

Rules? What rules are being broken. Just because you have rules in your area, does Not mean those "rules" apply to the rest of the world. Meanwhile don't try to force Your rules on everyone else.
When 1 country creates a law does all the other countries have to abide by it?? NO

The FAA rules, etc. are the basis of the world standard. In order for commercial US aircraft to be allowed to fly into 'your' country certain minimums must be met.

It is not a stretch to expect than many of the FAA requirements exist in other countries as well.

Mr. Mann can help with that.

 

[aka1ceman]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with a 500m limit. I also think some people,such as you mentioned, have a valid reason for not having that limit. I'm only mentioning why I think it came about. Without a limit someone is eventually either going to get into trouble at that height or the news is simply going to put out an article that there is no good reason for a Phantom to fly at "3000'.... in regulated airspace where commercial flights are located". If there was liability involved in the flight, DJI might be brought into the case or even if no liability, either DJI would face some tough questions or the government would arbitrarily put more strict limits in place.

To avoid all of this, DJI was proactive and came up with the 500m limit.

Yes, there are going to be very rare cases where that 500m is going to affect someone who should not be affected. It's 1,000,000 situations vs 1. Same with a more appropriate solution... it's the the expense vs that 1 in a million situation.

I'm only giving a probably answer to the question of _why_ it's "500m". At the end of the day... it's 500m.

The FAA rules, etc. are the basis of the world standard. In order for commercial US aircraft to be allowed to fly into 'your' country certain minimums must be met.

It is not a stretch to expect than many of the FAA requirements exist in other countries as well.

Mr. Mann can help with that.

So your saying that we have to follow FAA rules worldwide?? Bull. They do Not have jurisdiction world wide. Yes some countries follow their guidelines. Not all. There are 3rd world countries that dont. And for those who want to argue that DJI did it only to keep clowns out of FAA airspace.....Bull $*!× again. If that was so then DJI would limit 400 ft PERIOD. Not 500 meters! Not that he's an FAA employee but I spoke to a friend of mine about the 400ft vs 500m vs ? and as he stated, there's NO reason that DJI has to impliment that restriction. This was the opinion of a pilot who's flown around the world for many years and flew Air Force 1. I'm in the process of trying to track down an old friend who was instructing at Miramar / Top Gun to pick his brain on this. (Even though it won't convince DJI of being Dictators)

 

[N017RW]

No, you have to live with what DJI does or buy something else.
Your friend may not have any reason in mind but DJI seems to.

If you going to implement safety restrictions into your Chinese toy flying camera the FAA's are the best place to start.

 

[aka1ceman]

No, you have to live with what DJI does or buy something else.
Your friend may not have any reason in mind but DJI seems to.

If you going to implement safety restrictions into your Chinese toy flying camera the FAA's are the best place to start.

Toy? Why not check with Hasbro? Don't they know toys? So can you point to me where FAA states Anything in regards to 500 meters altitude limit ??? Once again no.
Bottom line is DJI ONLY set this limit to TRY to prevent from being sued. Which doesn't prevent Anything. Only Pisses off their few loyal customers. And I'm Not loyal to them. I Only use their product because of lightbridge. It's not like they dont suck for cracks, and customer support.

Once again the answer many blind mention.....go build your own.
OK
So based off of that theory, and anyone can build their own without restriction, then so can a clown with bad ideas. How in the heck is DJIs restriction stopping an accident from happening? Is this not their reasoning?

 

[aka1ceman]

Your friend may not have any reason in mind but DJI seems to.

As for a pilot he's got much more to "reason" about when a UAV goes into 1 of his engines. DJIs only "reason" is lawyers and bottom dollar.

 

[bbfpv]

 

[N017RW]

'Few' loyal customers???

They have overwhelming market share.

You're a little loose with the facts which may be affecting your objectivity.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[N017RW]

Thanks BB.... In the words of Mark Cuban...'I'm out!'

 

[tcope]

This is the wrong thought process to go about fixing the problem. If one clown goes in FAA air space that is not supposed to, then punish him. If he abuses the product then he needs to be punished based on laws in his area. But you cannot blanket everybody. Do you get banned for driving your car because Joe Smith was drinking and driving and abusing its use?

To answer your question, yes.

There is no law against drinking and driving in the US. There is a law against being overly intoxicated. I've never hit anyone while being overly intoxicated. Yet, I'm subject to a law against it. Truth is, there are thousands of laws and situations where we are limited by something because the _inherent_ danger is so great. That is, in some cases it's better to be proactive rather then reactive.

What you actually appear to argue against is the 500m number. If so, go back to my opening statement of my prior post.

 

[tcope]

Bottom line is DJI ONLY set this limit to TRY to prevent from being sued. Which doesn't prevent Anything.

I'm not sure why you even state this. It provides DJI a very good defense, in the least. It also may prevent further restrictions on their drones. If you have something to show this is not the case, please share.

 

[aka1ceman]

To answer your question, yes.

There is no law against drinking and driving in the US. There is a law against being overly intoxicated. I've never hit anyone while being overly intoxicated.

Nice way to twist truth.
In the US it is against the law to drive while intoxicated "over a certain defined limit" as FAA has a "defined limit" that with permission can be overcome. Show a permit allowing you to drive over a .8?
And there is NO law stating any and ALL UAVS are to be restricted below 500 meters. And FAA set the 400 ft as a guideline that with permission from them, can be exceed in the US. So why is DJI playing God ? LAWYERS

 

[aka1ceman]

I'm not sure why you even state this. It provides DJI a very good defense, in the least. It also may prevent further restrictions on their drones. If you have something to show this is not the case, please share.

How does this prevent more restrictions? So why 500 meters? Set it at 2000 meters like allowed before. It's still a restriction. I think 2000m may be enough to cover most in mountains.
My argument is yesterday it was 2000 m, today 500m, tomorrow 400ft, next yr, 50ft over your own back yard.

 

[aka1ceman]

I want to film the almost vertical side of a mountain. My starting point near the base is 1250m. The summit is at 1980m.... So theoretically the 500m limit will quick in way below the summit. Is there a way to bypass this and make the drone ascend another 200m?

Another option (that I am not too keen about because I'd have to carry the Phantom up but there is a route that's walkable) would be to start the copter from the summit, descend 700m and reascend. Will I have a problem with the software doing this?

Easiest way to accomplish this is promote Another company with equal to or better than lightbridge without restrictions or build your own. At least you won't have cracks, possibly no firmware issues, and poor customer service.
....at least until DJI gets a disgruntled employee, or someone gets upset enough to hack the software. (Which can be done, ask Sony, and some of these other companies who have better security and have been hacked)

 

[alokbhargava]

This discussion is not leading us to any conclusion. Let's stop arguing further.

We all want to live in a safe world with our families and friends and enjoy life. Let's work together to build a better place to live.