Mavic Pro 2 Precision Landing

[Hedonist222]

Hello gents n ladies

How is RTH different from precision landing?

Thanks

 

[mcsenerd]

Hello gents n ladies

How is RTH different from precision landing?

Thanks

Precision T/O and Landing is an additional improvement to traditional RTH behavior. They're not "separate" things per se. Basically the idea is that the aircraft records video/photographical evidence of orientation and location upon takeoff and when returning, it will utilize that information to re-orient and place itself in a much more accurate landing position than when utilizing only GPS acquired data.

 

[Hedonist222]

Thank you, mcsenerd.

In my mind, RTH and precision landing should be the same.
In the sense that it records the take off coordinates and returns there.
So, what's the benefit or added benefit of precision landing?
I think PL should be the drone's ability to detect an adverse take off point and not land there.

Therefore precision landing feels like snake oil advertising.

 

[mcsenerd]

Well...your mind and the minds at DJI aren't in agreement. If there's no Precision Takeoff, then the aircraft will NOT record this additional data nor will it utilize anything other than IMU/GPS data when returning to home. So, I repeat, the benefit (or added benefit) of Precision Takeoff is exactly what is described (and I'm a bit incredulous as to what's so difficult to understand here)...that is, that the orientation and EXACT position is visually recorded by the aircraft upon takeoff and will utilize that data to return to the EXACT (well...close to it at least) location and position as to when it took off. There's no Snake Oil there. It is MUCH higher precision upon landing than utilizing GPS data only. If you use a landing pad, I can guarantee you that simply using regular GPS assisted landing will not land on the pad at least in the neighborhood of >60% of the time...perhaps more. And furthermore, that GPS only landing could be a great deal of distance away from the original takeoff point. Now, should/could/would one take control and manually land it in a much more precise and controlled fashion? Well, that's a different question and yeah, I'm sure that they would, but that doesn't change the automatic/autonomous behavior in any case.

But...if you're implying that that's just the way it should be ALL OF THE TIME (as in just utilizing Precision Takeoff always), then yeah, I'm right there with you. Too bad that's not how DJI sees it...

 

[sar104]

Well...your mind and the minds at DJI aren't in agreement. If there's no Precision Takeoff, then the aircraft will NOT record this additional data nor will it utilize anything other than IMU/GPS data when returning to home. So, I repeat, the benefit (or added benefit) of Precision Takeoff is exactly what is described (and I'm a bit incredulous as to what's so difficult to understand here)...that is, that the orientation and EXACT position is visually recorded by the aircraft upon takeoff and will utilize that data to return to the EXACT (well...close to it at least) location and position as to when it took off. There's no Snake Oil there. It is MUCH higher precision upon landing than utilizing GPS data only. If you use a landing pad, I can guarantee you that simply using regular GPS assisted landing will not land on the pad at least in the neighborhood of >60% of the time...perhaps more. And furthermore, that GPS only landing could be a great deal of distance away from the original takeoff point. Now, should/could/would one take control and manually land it in a much more precise and controlled fashion? Well, that's a different question and yeah, I'm sure that they would, but that doesn't change the automatic/autonomous behavior in any case.

But...if you're implying that that's just the way it should be ALL OF THE TIME (as in just utilizing Precision Takeoff always), then yeah, I'm right there with you. Too bad that's not how DJI sees it...

It would be nice if precision landing always happened but it places additional constraints on takeoff that may not always be appropriate or available, such as vertical takeoff to at least 7 m, a distinctive takeoff point, suitable lightning to identify the site etc.

 

[mcsenerd]

It would be nice if precision landing always happened but it places additional constraints on takeoff that may not always be appropriate or available, such as vertical takeoff to at least 7 m, a distinctive takeoff point, suitable lightning to identify the site etc.

Oh, I get it sar104, believe me. Thing is, that it wouldn't take that much intelligent code to decide if all of those things were there/in place/functional and either use it...or ignore it. It's a fight I fight every day...IT and Technology is "supposed" to make things better/easier/simple, and it just seems like they could take this just a bit further and put it to bed forever. Then everyone could just shut up about it already! LOL

 

[sar104]

Oh, I get it sar104, believe me. Thing is, that it wouldn't take that much intelligent code to decide if all of those things were there/in place/functional and either use it...or ignore it. It's a fight I fight every day...IT and Technology is "supposed" to make things better/easier/simple, and it just seems like they could take this just a bit further and put it to bed forever. Then everyone could just shut up about it already! LOL

I guess I don't understand what you want it to do. You can choose auto takeoff and request the precision option or not. Are you saying that you don't want the option of a regular auto takeoff to just a couple of meters? I don't see the advantage to that.

 

[mcsenerd]

I guess I don't understand what you want it to do. You can choose auto takeoff and request the precision option or not. Are you saying that you don't want the option of a regular auto takeoff to just a couple of meters? I don't see the advantage to that.

What do I want it to do? Be smart enough to determine with reasonable certainty that it records enough trustworthy data at takeoff to automatically use the precision data that it records upon RTH. This ain’t rocket science here... It’s already got enough onboard sensors to ***** about when it think it doesn’t have a clear landing area, it’s already got enough smarts to flip on landing lights if lighting conditions dictate, it already has enough information in the flight computer to know if it ascended to a suitable height to take an appropriate picture, with ML in today’s day and age...it should also be able to determine whether or not there is enough detail in said captured image to function for precision landing... Why not just make it automatic and if all of the variables support precision after takeoff...just use it. Maybe if they weren’t using some POS SOC part then they’d have enough overhead to handle that all of the time. I find it hard to believe that such a thing is enough of a compute drag to bring the thing to its knees...

 

[sar104]

What do I want it to do? Be smart enough to determine with reasonable certainty that it records enough trustworthy data at takeoff to automatically use the precision data that it records upon RTH. This ain’t rocket science here... It’s already got enough onboard sensors to ***** about when it think it doesn’t have a clear landing area, it’s already got enough smarts to flip on landing lights if lighting conditions dictate, it already has enough information in the flight computer to know if it ascended to a suitable height to take an appropriate picture, with ML in today’s day and age...it should also be able to determine whether or not there is enough detail in said captured image to function for precision landing... Why not just make it automatic and if all of the variables support precision after takeoff...just use it. Maybe if they weren’t using some POS SOC part then they’d have enough overhead to handle that all of the time. I find it hard to believe that such a thing is enough of a compute drag to bring the thing to its knees...

It already does all those things if you ask it to. All you have to decide is if you want it to go to 7+ m on takeoff or not. That's not always desirable. I really don't see the problem here.

 

[mcsenerd]

Don't see it all you'd like. All I'm saying is why ask at takeoff at all? What's the harm? It's not like if it always attempts to rise to 7M or more that it's an issue...it's got sensors and automation to stop that too if it's a problem. Just do it, if it's all available and capable...don't even ask if you can take the human out of the equation.

 

[sar104]

Don't see it all you'd like. All I'm saying is why ask at takeoff at all? What's the harm? It's not like if it always attempts to rise to 7M or more that it's an issue...it's got sensors and automation to stop that too if it's a problem. Just do it, if it's all available and capable...don't even ask if you can take the human out of the equation.

In my opinion - I want the option. I don't want an automatic 7 m climb in all situations. I don't want to rely on upward obstacle avoidance to prevent it climbing into an obstruction. Often I'd like it close to the ground, initially, to check flight control functions. And I don't want all the additional flight log analysis when people start posting that automatic takeoff made their drone crash.

 

[mcsenerd]

I don't disrespect your opinion at all. I'm just trying to get mine across too. I just think that the world's not headed toward more "manual" control nor is it headed toward more "let me decide" either...it's steadily headed the other way. Why couldn't it just easily as be a checkbox for "don't help me land precisely" and default to doing it otherwise I guess I just don't see it so black and white here...why does it have to immediately take off to 30ft AGL every time for it to be smart enough to just be able to use this every time if it could? It could easily have enough programmed in intelligence to do what I'm saying and not change actual takeoff behavior in any shape, form or fashion from what it is today. Take off like normal...if the operator then ascends to a point that satisfies precision landing...great! Take the data in and use it. If not...don't do it.

Furthermore, I guess I'm a technological optimist. When others see issues, I see chances for improvement. I'm still not seeing anything that couldn't be accomplished with some time and a few half-arse decent coders.

 

[sar104]

I don't disrespect your opinion at all. I'm just trying to get mine across too. I just think that the world's not headed toward more "manual" control nor is it headed toward more "let me decide" either...it's steadily headed the other way. Why couldn't it just easily as be a checkbox for "don't help me land precisely" and default to doing it otherwise I guess I just don't see it so black and white here...why does it have to immediately take off to 30ft AGL every time for it to be smart enough to just be able to use this every time if it could? It could easily have enough programmed in intelligence to do what I'm saying and not change actual takeoff behavior in any shape, form or fashion from what it is today. Take off like normal...if the operator then ascends to a point that satisfies precision landing...great! Take the data in and use it. If not...don't do it.

Furthermore, I guess I'm a technological optimist. When others see issues, I see chances for improvement. I'm still not seeing anything that couldn't be accomplished with some time and a few half-arse decent coders.

I'm all for technological optimism. And automation is fine, but I don't want it to automate to the point that it creates other problems. I assume the 30 ft is to give it a broad enough field of view to identify the landing location on return. Bottom line - I'm sure it could do exactly what you asked for, including not asking whether the pilot wanted it or not. The default could be precision takeoff/landing. But that carries more risk on takeoff than non-precision, and so I'm sure that's why they chose to default to non-precision if you don't respond yes to precision.

 

[DanMan32]

It doesn't ask anymore. Either you gave it the conditions it needed during takeoff and didn't interfere with the PL process on landing, or you didn't.
At least I've not seen that checkbox.

 

[sar104]

It doesn't ask anymore. Either you gave it the conditions it needed during takeoff and didn't interfere with the PL process on landing, or you didn't.
At least I've not seen that checkbox.

Isn't that for auto takeoff? The default hover is 1.2 m, which is not high enough for precision landing. I don't use auto takeoff, so I'm not sure on that however.

 

[DanMan32]

You are probably correct, 3.9ft isn't enough. Still, no checkbox that I've seen.

I'm not getting the objections either. Do what it needs, or don't. Interrupt the landing process, or don't.
However I might agree having an option that makes it more certain that PL conditions are met. IE auto-takeoff goes up to the required height if a checkbox is selected, but if not selected, then you'd have to take it up higher.

 

[Meta4]

In my mind, RTH and precision landing should be the same.
In the sense that it records the take off coordinates and returns there.
So, what's the benefit or added benefit of precision landing?
I think PL should be the drone's ability to detect an adverse take off point and not land there.

Therefore precision landing feels like snake oil advertising.

Precision Landing is not snake oil at all. It's actually very impressive technology.
Your lack of understanding is the problem.
RTH brings your drone back in a loss of signal or low battery situation or when you push the RTH button.
It can include an autoland if you choose to let it.
That autoland will only use GPS which is not pinpoint accurate and may place your drone within 2 or even 3 metres from the launch point.
You have the option to use the precision landing feature which uses optical technology to identify the precise launch spot and land there (if conditions are suitable).

But both of those are just gimmicks and you shouldn't really need to use them much at all.
It's easy to cancel the RTH and land your drone wherever you choose rather than it do it for you.

 

[Hedonist222]

Precision Landing is not snake oil at all. It's actually very impressive technology.
Your lack of understanding is the problem.
RTH brings your drone back in a loss of signal or low battery situation or when you push the RTH button.
It can include an autoland if you choose to let it.
That autoland will only use GPS which is not pinpoint accurate and may place your drone within 2 or even 3 metres from the launch point.
You have the option to use the precision landing feature which uses optical technology to identify the precise launch spot and land there (if conditions are suitable).

But both of those are just gimmicks and you shouldn't really need to use them much at all.
It's easy to cancel the RTH and land your drone wherever you choose rather than it do it for you.

Alright.

I thought RTH as as accurate as +/- half a meter.
Which is why I questioned the value of PL.

My phantom 1 always landed exactly or 0.5 meters away.

Therefore, I thought RTH was PL.

It now makes sense.
Thank you.

 

[SCK]

If PL uses optical for landing, what would the drone do if you took off from a mat and the mat moved during the flight? (ie blew away) Just a hypothetical.....

 

[sar104]

If PL uses optical for landing, what would the drone do if you took off from a mat and the mat moved during the flight? (ie blew away) Just a hypothetical.....

The precision landing process involves the aircraft flying over the home point and then attempting to identify the exact takeoff location. If it cannot do that then it abandons precision landing.