Follow me - I think it's just a gimmick

Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,015
Reaction score
772
Age
60
Location
Warrenpoint, Ireland
And here's why...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I have a specific task in mind, maybe not this close up, but I need the follow me to be able to cope with height flying at about 12-15m but it's so unreliable that it's unusable.

Nice gimmick and well done DJI but it's not practical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmyers and Andron
Α lot of bugs which is expected from a first version of a very difficult implementation of Follow me functionality
 
What about chasing?
When in front, doesnt it need to predict your heading and speed?
 
And here's why...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I have a specific task in mind, maybe not this close up, but I need the follow me to be able to cope with height flying at about 12-15m but it's so unreliable that it's unusable.

Nice gimmick and well done DJI but it's not practical.
Doesn't look like it is even well doneo_O Maybe the cars driving on the left side of the road screws up the GPS:D:D:D Im glad I dont have to drive there Mate! Might work OK in the States:D:D
 
It's not Practical for You would be the correct terminology.
Perhaps you are trying something not in the design of the function?
 
I think expectation might be a bit unrealistic. Since you have it flying so close to you, you are leaving it pretty much zero tolerance for error. When you have it flying in front of you, it has to predict where you are -- and since it's using GPS, it's using information from where you were and when you account for lag in acquiring position, margin of error (10m?), sending it to the the controller and Phantom, that would explain why you are always out of the frame.

I'm not sure any GPS-based follow-me quadcopter could work as you are expecting at that close proximity.
 
And here's why...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I have a specific task in mind, maybe not this close up, but I need the follow me to be able to cope with height flying at about 12-15m but it's so unreliable that it's unusable.

Nice gimmick and well done DJI but it's not practical.

I think you've confused FOLLOW ME with LEAD ME. This is only a FOLLOW ME function......I think the Phantom has to be behind you to be able to follow you!
 
I'm not sure any GPS-based follow-me quadcopter could work as you are expecting at that close proximity.
Exactly this. It's going to take something built using computer vision algorithms to have any kind of accuracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhoke
The best points of the ones included in litchi is that:

1- P3 goes faster
2- Camera adjust itself to keep you in frame
3- You can bring with you just a mobile device connected to internet with litchi magic slash
4- You can adjust the tolerance of your GPS precision
5- If the mobile device has also a barometer follow you even on height

PS: you've been very lucky that the p3 has not crashed a tree when behind you :D
 
What about chasing?
When in front, doesnt it need to predict your heading and speed?

You are quite correct - there is now way it can predict which way you are going to steer, and I would expect that the amount it moves back when you are coming towards it is the component which is directly towards it. Funnily enough, I flew the new software today, and that was what I noticed then when I walked towards it and away. It does seem to fly ok on a parallel course though. I could walk along a curved path & it kept me centered and at the same distance. Anywhere in the 180 degree arc behind is what I would expect, with it being most accurate following behind. Maybe that's why they call it "follow me"? Anyway, I like the POI!
 
Yours did better than mine. I put it on follow me and it just started flying back and forth and I was standing still. Then it started making figure 8's
 
One of the most intense videos I have seen. Trees, light posts, buildings... UGH! You have confidence brother!
 
I agree with the others, you set it up to fail. Not saying this was your fault or that you did it on purpose... you just set up the worse scenario possible for this flight mode.

As mentioned, you left zero room for error/lead for the P3. Being so low, in front of you and you moving so fast, you allowed zero time for it to react. Your position is updated every 4 or 5 seconds.

If you wanted to film yourself riding it would be best to have the P3 higher and behind you. This would allow it much more time to adjust to your new position. I've also found that this mode works best when the P3 is a little higher. This increases the size of the camera frame which keeps the subject in the picture longer so that the P3 can adjust.

But you have certainly shown the limitations of Follow Me mode. Good things to know.
 
Thanks for the comments. I know it was not going to work exactly like I had wished, but I wanted to test it. I'm not out to bash DJI - in fact I think that any follow me function is absolutely fantastic, but V1 FOR ME isn't practical.

Firstly, I was riding the bike painfully slowly initially to test it. 5-6mph at most.I usually ride at 17-18mph but this was just a field test. I had done some preliminary tests in a field walking and running and these showed promise, so I thought I'd take the bike out. What I want it for are aerial shots of MTB riding alongside an off road track and also for a separate job involving mapping a local canal for about 25 miles.

I tried four different scenarios; low level with it ahead of me about 2-3m off the ground (major fail as it couldn't keep a steady course at that low level), ahead of me at about 12-15 metres, ahead of me about 25m and then behind me at about 15m up. 12-15 m cleared all of the obstacles shown in the video, that's why I went up to that height So no worries about crashing into trees, lamp posts etc guys!

The ahead shots were useless; I agree that the technology is called 'follow me' and that it's new technology, and that it needs strong GPS to track.I was using an iPhone 6 as the FPV, until yesterday, Apples most up-to-date phone.

Still, if the phantom detects movement, be it in front or behind the subject, shouldn't it react the same either way? The problem is that I don't want to be in the shot for the mapping job, and I definitely DO want to be in the MTB shot.

The major problem that I saw was the yawing when following. It was just too severe for the footage to be of any use at all. And in the close up parts, it couldn't keep up.

Sure I could bounce it up to 50m and I'd be in the shot, but I'd be a pinprick in the frame. So that's why I think it's nice, but for me, a gimmick.YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Homelock and Mako79
I want to know how you mounted the tx in the bike. I want to test that on my beach cruiser
 
I'm a cameraman and do it for a living
Keeping the moving subject framed correctly and in focus is a challenge, takes years of practice.
Expecting this bit of plastic and circuits to provide a similar result is just foolish.
The thing can't think so you have to do that part.
Go somewhere out in the country away from people, practice it 109 times then report back.
Until then
 
  • Like
Reactions: N017RW
The ahead shots were useless; I agree that the technology is called 'follow me' and that it's new technology, and that it needs strong GPS to track.I was using an iPhone 6 as the FPV, until yesterday, Apples most up-to-date phone.
YMMV.
One thing that could be a problem is apples stupid wifi assisted gps. Turn that crap off so you get a pure gps location and see what that does. I'm betting that's what caused the strange right turn on the way back to the start point.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers