mavic 2 latest firmware? 1.00.0790

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

[...] If you've been paying attention since the P3P, I'm pretty surprised you are of the opinion that DJI does not strategically leave things out of the release notes from time to time, and is totally transparent about the effects that a new FW will have, is all.

I am not of that opinion. If you read the entire thread, I mentioned that DJI often leaves things out of the release notes. My only point of departure from other posters here is what it leaves out and why. Read from the start to see what opinions I'm actually countering with my replies.

Chris

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

The more important word in post #2 is the last one.

That's fine for you to offer that advice and it's your honest opinion. I don't wholly agree, because said caution could also lead to someone NOT getting an important fix that relates to the proper operation of the aircraft. You don't know either way (in respect to what they're leaving out of the release notes).

My best advice in respect to caution is "it's best to update your firmware, but it's also not a bad idea to wait to see if there's news about anything bad in the update".

Chris

 

[SkyeHigh]

I think you and I may have differing definitions of fact. I usually have to actually experience it (as opposed to hearing speculation on forums), or see it documented by an authorities source.

Opinions aren't facts.

(And my personal experience is even suspect since I could be wrong, so I would prefer to have my suspicions verified.)



Any company that releases new versions of software / firmware is sustainably keeping their products up to date and it should be no surprise to anyone that it occasionally breaks something. It happens to drones, it happens to refrigerators and it happens to cars (which have led to fatalities) and also actual commercial aircraft (Boeing passenger jets). You're probably already aware of what comes next (they fix what broke). Staying away from firmware to keep from crashing bugs could also mean not getting fixes that keep you from crashes due to bugs (or design failures).

But who said anything about blind updating? I have no problems with waiting and do that myself.

I simply take issue with people who are certain that these firmware releases are nothing more than "bait" to take firmware with new restrictions. Read the thread above if you missed that.

Also, nobody has defined what these restrictions are. I notice that so far, my question above about what the perceived lost "freedoms" are have gone unanswered.

Chris

It’ll be interesting to see how many people refuse a firmware update on their future cars - if such an update becomes user installable. How many legal cases will ensue where an accident caused by a driver is investigated and the legal squirrels discover a user hasn’t kept firmware up to date and that is enough to swing a case against the driver.

Firmware updates will increasingly come into play with warranties and manufacturers. Insurance companies will have certainly looked into this as a scapegoat already.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

It’ll be interesting to see how many people refuse a firmware update on their future cars - if such an update becomes user installable. How many legal cases will ensue where an accident caused by a driver is investigated and the legal squirrels discover a user hasn’t kept firmware up to date and that is enough to swing a case against the driver.

Firmware updates will increasingly come into play with warranties and manufacturers and insurance companies will have certainly looked into this as a escapegoat already.

A lot of cars already get firmware updates (over the air), but I'm not sure how much control the users have to accept these or not.

Litigation has (I think) already come into play with Tesla cars, with user agreements, beta programs, and firmware updates. Self-driving features ad a lot into the mix given how that capability is still in it's infancy, But I haven't followed this closely at all.

Chris

 

[Dave Pitman]

I am not of that opinion. If you read the entire thread, I mentioned that DJI often leaves things out of the release notes. My only point of departure from other posters here is what it leaves out and why.

My comment was in response to your post.

I mean, actual verified occurrences of "hidden" firmware updates that restricted freedoms? Please feel free to point to any example of this actually happening.

My read of this post is that you disagree that DJI may include user restriction and/or system logic behavior and purposefully not disclose it in the release notes. Since they have indeed included restrictions without notice in the release notes, I guess it comes down to that you think they were just forgetful, or just called it "stability improvement" or "bug fixes". And I think they didn't include them because users may not update if they are notified in advance of such. If so, we can leave it at that.

 

[Dave Pitman]

It’ll be interesting to see how many people refuse a firmware update on their future cars - if such an update becomes user installable. How many legal cases will ensue where an accident caused by a driver is investigated and the legal squirrels discover a user hasn’t kept firmware up to date and that is enough to swing a case against the driver.

Firmware updates will increasingly come into play with warranties and manufacturers. Insurance companies will have certainly looked into this as a scapegoat already.

This is a complete red herring and was hashed to death back when DJI's software was taken apart leading to the various ways of regaining control over the drone.

If you had any aviation background, you would understand that for any particular software to be a "requirement", then it must first be mandated by, and then certified according to FAA standards. In manned aviation, hardware system manufacturers are in a different league than consumer drone manufacturers and play by different rules. No such software, not even drone manufacturer's own software, meets that requirement, currently. How do you think all of the SDK application developers are able to exist? Think about it.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

My comment was in response to your post.

My read of this post is that you disagree that DJI may include user restriction

Yes, and said I see no proof of it. I've asked for proof countless times and none has been supplied. Your OWN authority is history with old Phantom models (8-10 years ago), but you also offer no proof, just assurance that it happened. And I'm supposed to just accept that? Maybe you can be sure that it happened, but you can you assure me without proof?

You didn't actually say what it was they restricted either.

and/or system logic behavior

"and/or system logic"? Where did that comes from. The claim was "restrictions" that limited "my freedoms" (without defining what those freedoms were).

and purposefully not disclose it in the release notes.

Yeah, it was a claim they made and I said they have no proof to make the claim. They still don't. What part of that do you not understand? You say the proof is that "they did it before", but offered nothing to back that up.

Since they have indeed included restrictions without notice in the release notes, I guess it comes down to that you think they were just forgetful, or just [ ... blah blah ...]

You guess wrong. That statement starts off with the false premise of me accepting that they did include restrictions without notice in the past. I don't accept that. After that, your guess just falls off into further fallacious assumptions of what I might be thinking.

I AM DONE NOW, but I'll say this in parting: DJI restricts our ability to operate these aircraft quite openly (no need to hide it) with GeoFencing and the like. These are all done quite publicly, all documented, and certainly for good reasons.

OTHER RESTRICTIONS TO FREEDOMS? (Either today or in the old Phantom days.) I'll make my own wild-*** assumption and say that the person complaining about DJI possibly taking away our freedoms (earlier in this thread) is QUITE POSSIBLY (though I can't prove it) one of those users that feels that he/she should be able to fly anywhere they want. They can't.

So far, since flying the P3P, I have never been restricted from any place I shouldn't have been flying in the first place.

Chris

 

[Dave Pitman]

I AM DONE NOW

Thank goodness!

DJI restricts our ability to operate these aircraft quite openly

Yes they do... now. Before your time, I guess, they did not restrict flight. When they began to insert those restrictions, the release notes did not say that was included in the updates. At certain times, DJI has restricted the option to roll back firmware. Not always, but sometimes. I also consider that included as a "restriction".

I get the impression that you have to touch a stove yourself to prove it is hot. That's fair. You seem to want to have a DJI employee come on here and admit that this has been done else it hasn't happened as far as you are concerned. I don't think you will see that happen on a public forum, NDAs and all. But I have a couple of friends that did indeed work for DJI before the purge (sorry, you probably don't know what that was either) and in private they have some interesting stories.

Good luck!

 

[SkyeHigh]

This is a complete red herring and was hashed to death back when DJI's software was taken apart leading to the various ways of regaining control over the drone.

If you had any aviation background, you would understand that for any particular software to be a "requirement", then it must first be mandated by, and then certified according to FAA standards. In manned aviation, hardware system manufacturers are in a different league than consumer drone manufacturers and play by different rules. No such software, not even drone manufacturer's own software, meets that requirement, currently. How do you think all of the SDK application developers are able to exist? Think about it.

Maybe my avatar will answer your first ignorant comment.

And at no point did I mention anything about manned aircraft, but I did clearly mention cars, which by my understanding has nothing to do with the FAA but instead you continue to demonstrate a preference to bend other peoples responses to further argue your cause.

Maybe that’s something you should think about.

 

[Starz]

but it's also not a bad idea to wait to see if there's news about anything bad in the update".

Thank you.

 

[Yogi053]

That's funny yogi.

Now flown it extensively found no issues at all, and can still change CE to FCC when flying. (Change it on the ground of course before taking off).

 

[Dave Pitman]

Maybe my avatar will answer your first ignorant comment.

And at no point did I mention anything about manned aircraft, but I did clearly mention cars, which by my understanding has nothing to do with the FAA but instead you continue to demonstrate a preference to bend other peoples responses to further argue your cause.

Maybe that’s something you should think about.

If you are involved in manned aviation, then shame on you for assuming that somehow DJI's (or other manufacturer's software) is currently a requirement, or mandated. Thus requiring the user to update to a given firmware as if it were an AC. Back to class for you. Here, have a look and see if you can find anything.

Software & Airborne Electronic Hardware | Federal Aviation Administration

Software & Airborne Electronic Hardware

www.faa.gov

 

[SkyeHigh]

If you are involved in manned aviation, then shame on you for assuming that somehow DJI's (or other manufacturer's software) is currently a requirement, or mandated. Thus requiring the user to update to a given firmware as if it were an AC. Back to class for you. Here, have a look and see if you can find anything.

Software & Airborne Electronic Hardware | Federal Aviation Administration

Software & Airborne Electronic Hardware

www.faa.gov

Well I’ll just assume you have a problem with comprehension. Comprehension is something you learn in class. That’s where the shame is.

Again, for your clarification, I used the word CARS, not DJI, not manned aircraft not the FAA.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Well I’ll just assume you have a problem with comprehension. Comprehension is something you learn in class. That’s where the shame is.

Again, for your clarification, I used the word CARS, not DJI, not manned aircraft not the FAA.

Sure, you did say "cars" and not drones. So you just brought cars and their firmware up out of the blue when discussing drone firmware, but your intention was not to have any connection or comparison between "cars" and the subject of the thread?

Okay, whatever. Maybe next time you will bring up horse racing to not compare with. Carry on!

 

[Dave Pitman]

@SkyeHigh My original comment to your comment was not aimed at picking a fight or to put you down personally in any way. It was simply meant to shut down any notion that DJI (or any other manufacturer's) firmware updates carry any kind of importance or mandate as far as regulations, and even insurance is concerned. Note recarding insurance. I personally asked my underwriter about this specifically and they really didn't even know what I was talking about let alone have any such requirement. Someday, it is likely that there may be some kind of vetting and requirements. But as of now, there is none.

So, in summary, if you were just discussing cars and their firmware with no relationship or correlation to drones and their firmware, then great. I'm not sure why bring it up, then, but that's fine.

Go in peace!

 

[SkyeHigh]

Sure, you did say "cars" and not drones. So you just brought cars and their firmware up out of the blue when discussing drone firmware, but your intention was not to have any connection or comparison between "cars" and the subject of the thread?

Okay, whatever. Maybe next time you will bring up horse racing to not compare with. Carry on!

May be instead I should have highlighted earlier the difference between the word ‘future’, which I stated rather than your repeated use of ‘currently’.

There will come a time when such warranties and insurances will be invalidated if an accident can be linked to firmware that was not current or at least didn’t contain a fix for a known issue that was implicated in the accident.

For a country we’ll known for its litigious nature I’m surprised you don’t see the relevance.

 

[SkyeHigh]

‘Someday, it is likely that there may be some kind of vetting and requirements.’

Which is precisely what I am saying and it will relate to all forms of transport, cars just being the most likely at present as a result of the number of fatal and serious incidents.

Insurance companies are expert at lobbying governments and, as they are in the business to make money for their shareholders, they will and already do everything to find ways to avoid paying out. As for whether a mandate will be required or not will be for legal cases to determine… or politicians.

How long before our drones are grounded unless running the most recent firmware - if it were to prevent DJI (and others) from being sued as a result of a serious incident?

By the way, no offence taken.

 

[mobilehomer]

How long before our drones are grounded unless running the most recent firmware - if it were to prevent DJI (and others) from being sued as a result of a serious incident?

If you are in the EU, it's that way now. You MUST have the latest firmware/software to be legal.

 

[Dave Pitman]

For a country we’ll known for its litigious nature I’m surprised you don’t see the relevance.

Of course I do. However, our laws and regulations are so far behind technology that it's difficult to have any idea when it may begin to catch up. The gov't can barely scratch together enough consensus to fund the gov't from month to month.

Yes, someday we may see such requirements. Including some actual guidelines for maintenance schedules, etc. But for now, with regard to DJI, and Chinese network gear in general, half the gov't doesn't want them sold or used in the country at all. Currently, the RPIC is where the buck stops and I'm pretty sure the manufacturers are quite satisfied with that.

 

[SkyeHigh]

If you are in the EU, it's that way now. You MUST have the latest firmware/software to be legal.

Probably all the more reason that all firmware changes should be openly published so pilots are made more aware of changes that may affect their flights and associated safety.