Drastic speed reduction with new Firmware

[Oso]

Downgrading could be the worse of two evils though. Speed could kill, the bird that is. It's really important to know the absolute ramifications of downgrading in terms of what, if anything sticks from the battery optimization. Do you get speed back but still get some optimization benefits from 1.6? Or do you forfeit the optimization altogether? The speed hit isn't great enough for me to bail out of 1.6. As I continue to fly though, I could change my mind. But answers from dji are needed in regard to what happens if you go back to 1.5.

Again, I agree with you. Since we don't know for sure everything that 1.6 has done and only know the two high level items listed in the release notes, it's tougher than normal to make a call this time.

 

[bighi]

That's it. This explains the sluggishness I've seen over longer distances. Inspire of same flight max speed. I never had an issue on any previous firmware. In spite of sub 35 temperatures. I'm downgrading tomorrow. I don't need a phantom that flies like a Yunnec.

 

[ParsnipHysorter]

Well... I've never owned a LiPo powered electric r/c toy that didn't see a reduction in performance as pack voltage drops.

I owned a LiPo r/c toy that didn't see a reduction in performance as voltage dropped... my P3A prior to the 1.6 firmware upgrade...

 

[ParsnipHysorter]

Downgrading could be the worse of two evils though. Speed could kill, the bird that is. It's really important to know the absolute ramifications of downgrading in terms of what, if anything sticks from the battery optimization. Do you get speed back but still get some optimization benefits from 1.6? Or do you forfeit the optimization altogether? The speed hit isn't great enough for me to bail out of 1.6. As I continue to fly though, I could change my mind. But answers from dji are needed in regard to what happens if you go back to 1.5.

Yeah you're probably right. I guess I am in no great hurry to downgrade. Going to pay attention to the test results reported here and learn more before making that decision.

As someone else mentioned, perhaps this was a knee-jerk reaction on their part. Dare I hope DJI will see this as a bit of an over-correction and optimize in a future firmware version, bringing back some of the performance while keeping safety mechanisms in place?

 

[UnknownCaller]

This is the whole reason I've moved up from the p3 I lost my 1.19 firmware p3p into the drink I tried to buy a new one and found out that they've pre-installed 1.41 on all new p3's. Any firmware after 1.32 is garbage for long range flights. 1.41 this the first firmware where they started to decrease the p3's ability in the speed department. 1.19 with a 10 miles per hour tailwind in PGPS you're looking at 43 to 44 miles an hour. 1.41 that same tailwind would only get you 36 or if you're lucky 37 miles per hour. That's okay if you're flying short range with that big of the speed difference for the long range runs is huge.

 

[N017RW]

I owned a LiPo r/c toy that didn't see a reduction in performance as voltage dropped... my P3A prior to the 1.6 firmware upgrade...

Yea.

All designs incorporate compromise.

There are a lot of 'gaps' in the hardware and they are using firmware to fill these gaps.

The 'battery gap' is demonstrated by it's failure to supply sufficient current in some flight conditions that fall within their published flight guidelines.

So it's either poorly speced or poorly manufactured or both.

If DJI felt it was not systematic they would not issue firmware with the #1 reason to address battery performance in cold conditions.

 

[gppms]

This is the whole reason I've moved up from the p3 I lost my 1.19 firmware p3p into the drink I tried to buy a new one and found out that they've pre-installed 1.41 on all new p3's. Any firmware after 1.32 is garbage for long range flights. 1.41 this the first firmware where they started to decrease the p3's ability in the speed department. 1.19 with a 10 miles per hour tailwind in PGPS you're looking at 43 to 44 miles an hour. 1.41 that same tailwind would only get you 36 or if you're lucky 37 miles per hour. That's okay if you're flying short range with that big of the speed difference for the long range runs is huge.

And not only this i suspect that after 1.19 firmware upgrades they reduce the maximum range of the P3 just reducing the RF power output of the heli and the remote control also.I remember when i bought my P3P on may i took it out of the box and fly 6.2 KM full stock,now with the DBS antenna i can fly only 4 KM maximum.

 

[kphantom]

Ok tested 1 battery today, my results:

Newest firmware installed
Temperature 20 F. Decent wind blowing at 10-15 mph.

Tested vertical ascent speed numerous times. Result: Right off the bat I was still getting 10-11 MPH vertical speed on a few ascents, so my first thought was no performance changes with this latest firmware. But then about midway through the flight, when the battery voltage was around 3.7 V and probably 65% remaining, I noticed the speed suddenly changed to about 5-6 MPH vertical ascent max speed.

Horizontal speed and ability to fly into the wind didn't seem to be terribly affected though this was harder to test.

Will run another battery tomorrow and see.

That sounds interesting. It seems like DJI actively is monitoring battery status and changing acceleration and maximum battery draw current to limit dynamic voltage drop. It seems that going below 12v overall is the goal. I think the "fix" is not really a fix unless they've eliminated the battery shutdown also.

 

[shockwave199]

In spite of sub 35 temperatures. I'm downgrading tomorrow. I don't need a phantom that flies like a Yunnec.

I own a yuneec. The phantom on 1.6 is still quite a bit faster man, lol. It's not that drastic. For me, it's not slow at all and so far I haven't noticed much difference, myself. To each their own.

1.19 with a 10 miles per hour tailwind in PGPS you're looking at 43 to 44 miles an hour. 1.41 that same tailwind would only get you 36 or if you're lucky 37 miles per hour. That's okay if you're flying short range with that big of the speed difference for the long range runs is huge.

So, what can you take away from that? From this ever more pissing about regulation environment, if the bird flies a bit slower and shortens up the range of people flying well beyond LOS (an absolute no-no), you get...conformity. Heck, that's a nice plus for them. But if you start talking 13mph, that's ridiculously hobbled. Even pro-am video needs more than that. I hope I don't hear that one again.

 

[fordruid]

Mine is fast enough for me and how I use it, but I'm old. Heck. my left turn signal on the drone has been stuck on since I got it.

When I just want to play I use a cheaper toy and zip around like a teenager with his first ford pinto.

 

[Specialist]

So what is the overall consensus ? It seems some have seen slowness and others haven't observed much difference. My DJI Pro arrives Thursday so I may hang off upgrading. Wouldn't a slightly slower drone prolong battery life ? Then I suppose a quicker drone helps against head winds.
I suppose it all comes down to needs. I'll be using mine for aerial photography and some movies but won't be sending it out far distances.

 

[Wacker2611]

So what is the overall consensus ? It seems some have seen slowness and others haven't observed much difference. My DJI Pro arrives Thursday so I may hang off upgrading. Wouldn't a slightly slower drone prolong battery life ? Then I suppose a quicker drone helps against head winds.
I suppose it all comes down to needs. I'll be using mine for aerial photography and some movies but won't be sending it out far distances.

Well, there are obviously some that have some real concerns. Personally, I've not noticed much difference but I am a typical hobbyist, not going any further than 2km tops and I've really not noticed much difference at all (based on limited testing) . If I want to chuck a quadcopter about I'll get my 250 racer out. However, if I was a habitual long range flyer the story might be different......

 

[happydays]

Happydays can you confirm if you experienced no changes in speeds/acceleration for the entire flights, especially vertical speed? In my testing, albeit at lower ambient temperatures then yours, I also experience max ascent speed of 5-6 m/s but only during the top 30% of the battery. The remainder of the flight I see a reduced vertical ascent speed of about 3 m/s, which is definite change over prior versions. Looks like Pureblur (post above this) sees similar behavior but in even warmer weather.

Regrettably not. We're in the middle of some terrible storms here at the minute. The testing that I did the other day was in a rare window of calm!

 

[UnknownCaller]

So, what can you take away from that? From this ever more pissing about regulation environment, if the bird flies a bit slower and shortens up the range of people flying well beyond LOS (an absolute no-no), you get...conformity. Heck, that's a nice plus for them. But if you start talking 13mph, that's ridiculously hobbled. Even pro-am video needs more than that. I hope I don't hear that one again.[/QUOTE]
LOS is not A law yet bro its a guideline. I have 10 million flight feet in under 300 flights 66 hrs on the P3 with no incidence 8.6 miles out and back over the gulf of mexico under 200 ft. Altitude you tell me who I'm hurting at that altitude over open water?

I own a yuneec. The phantom on 1.6 is still quite a bit faster man, lol. It's not that drastic. For me, it's not slow at all and so far I haven't noticed much difference, myself. To each their own.


So, what can you take away from that? From this ever more pissing about regulation environment, if the bird flies a bit slower and shortens up the range of people flying well beyond LOS (an absolute no-no), you get...conformity. Heck, that's a nice plus for them. But if you start talking 13mph, that's ridiculously hobbled. Even pro-am video needs more than that. I hope I don't hear that one again.

Line of sight is a guideline not a law. In

I own a yuneec. The phantom on 1.6 is still quite a bit faster man, lol. It's not that drastic. For me, it's not slow at all and so far I haven't noticed much difference, myself. To each their own.


So, what can you take away from that? From this ever more pissing about regulation environment, if the bird flies a bit slower and shortens up the range of people flying well beyond LOS (an absolute no-no), you get...conformity. Heck, that's a nice plus for them. But if you start talking 13mph, that's ridiculously hobbled. Even pro-am video needs more than that. I hope I don't hear that one again.

Line of sight is a guideline not a law I fly over the Gulf of Mexico at an altitude of under 400 feet my last flight was 8.6 miles and back at under 200 feet Who am I hurting over open water at that altitude. You need to worry about people that just got their drones with no flight experience doing something stupid not someone like me that has 10 million feet and 66 hours of flight experience with the p3.

 

[UnknownCaller]

Recommendation not a law

 

[ParsnipHysorter]

So what is the overall consensus ? It seems some have seen slowness and others haven't observed much difference. My DJI Pro arrives Thursday so I may hang off upgrading. Wouldn't a slightly slower drone prolong battery life ? Then I suppose a quicker drone helps against head winds.
I suppose it all comes down to needs. I'll be using mine for aerial photography and some movies but won't be sending it out far distances.

In my humble opinion I would not upgrade to 1.6. The performance hit is pretty substantial in my tests. I was on 1.4 and I wish I would have stayed there.

It might be meant to address issues in "cold environments" but from what I'm hearing it affects performance in all environments. If it were just a matter of knowing that come summer my performance would improve, I would not mind so much... but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Richard W]

It might be meant to address issues in "cold environments" but from what I'm hearing it affects performance in all environments.

I am afraid you are right. The motors and current draw are being limited now regardless of the environment. It is not necessary a bad thing for the longevity of the batteries and the craft itself in any environment, but some might prefer performance over reliability.

 

[flyNfrank]

Frank,
Can you elaborate on the direction you were flying? Were all these runs in the same direction in relation to the wind? Was it a calm day? Did you do any ATTI mode hovers at 380ft to see what the wind was like? Did you try any vertical ascent speed lifts at full throttle?

This might help with part of what you asked. 1st line of 2nd paragraph. "My test came from using another members data from L.A."

He did say there No Wind the day of the flight. I would like to see another 1.06.0040 firmware flight log if anybody has one handy. You can attach it when posting the same as if it were an image. Btw, I would like for it to have full throttle flying in it somewhere. But anyway, I still say based on the data I last looked at, the reduction was centered around 17mps. The flight log used was nice as it was like 80% full throttle from launch to land. If you are not flying full throttle including using more battery power, there should be no reason to implement a performance reduction.

So until another red flag pops up as in something like say the amount of volts drained in X-amount of time. I'm going to continue focusing on way to test the speed theory. Btw, there has to be a back up method of reduction like the boss man told me. Because if and when wind comes in as a factor. Full throttle, 5mph head wind, 17mps will not be what starts the cycle.

 

[flyNfrank]

I AM


I am afraid you are right. The motors and current draw are being limited now regardless of the environment. It is not necessary a bad thing for the longevity of the batteries and the craft itself in any environment, but some might prefer performance over reliability.

The fact is, there was no battery issues of any kind until the smart firmware was enabled in the batteries. And there was no issues with a/c's shutting off in flight until either 1.04.0010 or 1.05.0030.

My opinion is, this performance reduction is just a band-Ade for what the real issue is. And I'm afraid that issue is, laziness. Somebody has taken the easy way out. Just think, the new style motor's added were even more efficient. Gosh....just starting to look like a lot of sadness.

 

[1st_time_flyer]

Line of sight is a guideline not a law I fly over the Gulf of Mexico at an altitude of under 400 feet my last flight was 8.6 miles and back at under 200 feet Who am I hurting over open water at that altitude. You need to worry about people that just got their drones with no flight experience doing something stupid not someone like me that has 10 million feet and 66 hours of flight experience with the p3.

You're getting those kinds of numbers from a stock phantom? no alterations what-so-ever?