WorldPeace
 New
United States
Offline
|
(Sorry in advance for the length of this post)
I have to agree with the rationale and reasoning of Geebax and Mike.WildLight and others who have a clear understanding of this topic.
And, I know it can be accomplished without the alleged management of multiple instances of country- or region-specific firmware. I won't go into detail, but secure policy management is not rocket science. Single binary is a reality.
Hacking - like the Canon example - is now next to impossible with the recent update to the RC/firmware security. Trust me on this.
Anyway, the lunacy of the height limits has already been stated over and over. I am of that opion as well. Strongly so. I also do not believe that the US government has set any such requirement upon DJI for DJI to be able to sell itno U.S. markets. It is arbitrary. To me, I find it (the limit) kinda humerous and not so forthright that it somehow gives someone somewhere the warm fuzzy that airspace above a Phantom 3 (and Inspire and others) is now safe. Pfft!
Simplified example:
I have a need for routine agricultural reconnaissance - monitoring animals, feed, water, fences, etc. Today, it requires nearly a half day of driving, saddling up and riding. Preferable is that I could create a waypoint mission for a Phantom 3 aircraft to fly up and over a peak a mile away, dropping into the ranch, spending a few minutes recording stuff and then returning home, 12 to 15 minutes max. At no point does the aircraft EVER need to be more than 50m above the ground directly below it. Yes, that's 50m, not 500m. And, in the rare case where Forest Service or Fish and Game may be flying, the likelihood they would ever drop to within even 100m above the ground is next to nil. The mission is within all limits - oh, except that the peak is higher than the 500m "relative to home point" limit. So, its a "no go"
Solution:
Let the drone pilots determine what they need.
Firmware can set pseudo limits, like 500m for example. (same as today but not the same implementation)
Pilot configures app for even more restrictive limits than are set in the firmware. This would just be something that an app might provide as an optional safety net. Not enforced by the firmware. Fine. Pilot optionally limiting himself. (App could also have other optional limits)
Pilot defines waypoints for missions...
1) App checks if wp is within bounds set by the pilot. Yes = no action; No = warning and Pilot approves or changes wp
2) App checks if wp is within bounds that would otherwise be enforced by the firmware. Yes = no action; No = perform waypoint validation
Waypoint Validation, simply stated, is verifying that 1) the altitude of the waypoint is greater than the approximate altitude of the ground directly below the wp by some reasonable amount AND 2) that the difference between the altitude of the waypoint and the approximate altitude of the ground directly below the wp is less than the limit imposed by the firmware - in which case 500m is perfectly acceptable.
Waypoint Validation could be done a couple different ways. But, it needs to be secure, and it should be quick (<1sec?). Ideally, the app would perform this step without having to have a connection (to a backend server or whatever). The SDK would need to have access to secure (signed) map datum, ideally included with the SDK or caching of it on the device managed by the SDK. Validation by a connected backend would allow for much more granular map datum, yielding greatest accuracy and flight safety. But that would require creating/editing missions somewhere you can get a "connection" to the web.
Waypoint Validation for those waypoints or missions requiring validation would produce a "key" or "signature" that would be part of the waypoint mission, validated by the drone as the mission is uploaded. Editing a waypoint would require a new approval.
Existing missions would still be supported - same as they are today. Updated Firmware/SDK/Apps would be required for this practical "extension."
Its software. It can be done - and done right.
And, it should be.
The limit is just too unrealistic and doesn't solve any real problems. Let's hope that it was just a "stopgap" measure to appease somebody somewhere. (Sad day when attorneys drive product requirements or more worrisome product implementation)
Keep pushing DJI to do the right thing! |
|
lvl.4
First Officer
lvl.2
