Maven height-above-ground capability to be available in June

[AZDave]

This is great news for me, since I live on a mountain hillside with lots of deep ravines and high ridge lines. It has been a pain in the butt to have to manually check Google Earth to properly set height-above-ground for each waypoint.

And according to the comment under the video, Michelle plans to include in the same release the ability to turn waypoints that have been flown manually into mission waypoints.

 

[Jay241]

Too bad it only for IOS.

 

[Claretcass]

It’s a game changer. I have been with this app since it first started. I am a recreational flyer and use a Mini 2 and a MA2 for photography and video and occasionally I do factory roof inspections with waypoints.
Once this latest update comes out with the “above ground” option I will no longer use anything else because Maven meets all my needs. This update coupled with the additional POI and extra tasks at each waypoint makes Litchi no longer required by me.
I am convinced that once the SDK is released for the mini 2 Maven will be one of the first to support it.
It’s a fantastic app

 

[EyesWideShut]

I agree with @AZDave and @Claretcass and am looking forward to the new features.

I use Maven with my mini and I like to say the Co-Pilot feature with Orbit and CableCam is like Quickshots on steroids and easy to setup your flight.

The main feature for me that it is missing is a Panorama Mode so I often choose to fly the Litchi app which has a great auto (or custom) pano mode that includes auto-stitching, while still in the air. The low res image is ready to view when you land.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

I bought it, I just need to spend more time getting used to it and exploring the features. So far all I've had time to do is a short waypoint mission.

 

[GFields]

Thanks for sharing

 

[CaseyGuy]

I’m not sure whether I understand the significance of the new AGL capability. Currently (ie, pre-v3.8), I can set Altitude for each waypoint. How is this different? Is the current Altitude setting the height above the take-off point, rather than height above actual, current ground level?

 

[EyesWideShut]

Yes, with the current version of Maven (v3.7.1) the altitudes being set are based on the take-off point when then AC is started. The upcoming v3.8 will have the option to set the altitudes based on actual ground height (AGL) as the slope changes.

 

[CaseyGuy]

Thanks for the clarification, EyesWideShut. So far, altitude hasn't been an issue for me: I'm learning to fly in the central flatlands of the US, and AGL is pretty much the same all around the take-off point! But I can see how valuable this feature will be when I start traveling with my MA2. I'm impressed with the continuous improvement we see in Maven's development.

 

[AZDave]

Thanks for the clarification, EyesWideShut. So far, altitude hasn't been an issue for me: I'm learning to fly in the central flatlands of the US, and AGL is pretty much the same all around the take-off point! But I can see how valuable this feature will be when I start traveling with my MA2. I'm impressed with the continuous improvement we see in Maven's development.

Yeah, it will be a critical improvement for me. I just checked Google Earth and within a circle of 1,000 feet radius around my house the elevation varies about 700 feet, with a deep ravine crossing it. Even so, the Google Earth point-by-point elevations don't appear to be accurate enough for me to get too aggressive with preprogrammed waypoints. Google is showing some elevations to be equal when I know they are at least 30 feet different. It appears that the resolution on peaks and ridges is pretty good, but ravines don't seem to have that same degree of precision at all. I guess that isn't surprising.

 

[Mitch76]

psst.. there a beta...(iOS)

TestFlight - Apple

Using TestFlight is a great way to help developers test beta versions of their apps.

testflight.apple.com

 

[maelstrom]

psst.. there a beta...(iOS)

TestFlight - Apple

Using TestFlight is a great way to help developers test beta versions of their apps.

testflight.apple.com

With the potential problems you can encounter even with full, release software, it always amazes me why anyone would want to trust control of their drone to beta software. It’s beta because the developer doesn’t know that it works properly in all circumstances.

 

[AZDave]

With the potential problems you can encounter even with full, release software, it always amazes me why anyone would want to trust control of their drone to beta software. It’s beta because the developer doesn’t know that it works properly in all circumstances.

I "liked" Mitch76's post to encourage enough people try the beta so I don't have to.

 

[nedcook]

Which setting would be the best for my scenario? I'm trying to create a timelapse of fall colors by taking the same picture every 2nd day. The drone flies up from my yard to waypoint 1, then goes to waypoint 2, waits 3 seconds, takes a picture, waits 3 seconds, then comes back to waypoint 1 and I land the drone. To get to the exact same spot each time am I better to just use the altitude (which is 285 feet) or should I change it to "Above Ground"? Which is more accurate for this?

 

[AZDave]

Which setting would be the best for my scenario? I'm trying to create a timelapse of fall colors by taking the same picture every 2nd day. The drone flies up from my yard to waypoint 1, then goes to waypoint 2, waits 3 seconds, takes a picture, waits 3 seconds, then comes back to waypoint 1 and I land the drone. To get to the exact same spot each time am I better to just use the altitude (which is 285 feet) or should I change it to "Above Ground"? Which is more accurate for this?

If I was going to do a mission like that with only two waypoints, I would use the Maven feature where you manually fly to a location, set the waypoint, fly to the next location, and set that waypoint. I'm pretty sure that you can then manually add a "third" waypoint that is a duplicate of the first waypoint. That way your waypoints will be as precise as possible, and so will your camera gimbal orientation

In general, though, height above ground is never going to be precise because it is dependent upon databases like Google Earth ... and that data is not exact. For example, there is a large ravine running through my lot that is at least 70 feet deep, but Google Earth shows it no more than 20 to 30 feet deep. The satellite and aerial photography data tends to average out the terrain a bit.

In my opinion, using height above ground is very useful for when you are programming a mission and you're unsure of the terrain some distance from your takeoff point, but you should keep in mind the limitations. If I was doing a mission where I knew the terrain well relative to my takeoff point, I'd use the normal height.

 

[nedcook]

If I was going to do a mission like that with only two waypoints, I would use the Maven feature where you manually fly to a location, set the waypoint, fly to the next location, and set that waypoint. I'm pretty sure that you can then manually add a "third" waypoint that is a duplicate of the first waypoint. That way your waypoints will be as precise as possible, and so will your camera gimbal orientation

In general, though, height above ground is never going to be precise because it is dependent upon databases like Google Earth ... and that data is not exact. For example, there is a large ravine running through my lot that is at least 70 feet deep, but Google Earth shows it no more than 20 to 30 feet deep. The satellite and aerial photography data tends to average out the terrain a bit.

In my opinion, using height above ground is very useful for when you are programming a mission and you're unsure of the terrain some distance from your takeoff point, but you should keep in mind the limitations. If I was doing a mission where I knew the terrain well relative to my takeoff point, I'd use the normal height.

Thank you so much for your help! I will stick to using the normal height setting.