New Firmware . . . v01.03.0800

[SkunkWerx's]

What exactly is difficult about moving forward, back, left, right, and up/down?

I never once said I could control the camera functions effectively (which youre clearly hinting at), but that's not what the discussion was about. We were discussing being able to control and use the mavic without the camera. And there's no debate as to whether it can be done from that height.

Not everyone HAS to use a camera to fly their drones, hence drones without cameras. DJI never advertised the Mavic as requiring a tablet or phone to fly -- that's just to use a lot of the features. Core flight functionalities (navigating) have always been stated as possible without an app.

The difficulty at that distance is that the human eye no longer has any concept of depth perception -- By the time you figure out the direction to bring the Mavic back without using any of the Telemetry on the remote or the app your battery will discharge to the point of an EM landing

 

[SkunkWerx's]

I don't recommend anybody try to prove this --- You will loose your Bird!!!!!

 

[dwallersv]

Yeah I dont understand how this is difficult for you to get.

Agree to disagree. I just flew the thing yesterday at 1500ft and was controlling it via LOS for a minute or two, just watching it move around. Did I use the app? Sure, but at times I controlled and watched it via eyesight only.

Why is it so hard to accept that this is doable?

Because it's impossible.

If you asserted that you flapped your arms really hard, ascended to 150 feet, and then flew around for a while I wouldn't believe that either. Because it's impossible.

Or if you claimed you heard a conversation from 2 miles away, unaided. Again, I'd simple say you were either (grossly) mistaken, or knowingly lying. Because it's impossible.

So, we can't just "agree to disagree"; you're promulgating a complete, utter falsehood. If you can truly see a Mavic at 1600 feet -- really, truly, and I'm being serious as a heart attack here -- contact the Stanford Eye Institute and introduce yourself to them. I guarantee you there are Opthamologists there who would drop whatever research they are doing to study you, and I'm certain you could make a reasonable bit of bank in the process.

- OR -

Just drop it and stop lying.

 

[nickmavic]

You guys are a hoot. I'm not gonna beat the issue to death.

If you wanna disagree, go ahead. I'm more than comfortable knowing that my statement was true and not an exaggeration.

 

[dwallersv]

Well if you can see it at that distance you better not take your eyes off of it -- For if you do You will not see it
At that distance you know your looking at something smaller then a nat that's right in front of your face

Yes, more facts that are not in his favor.

At 1640 feet, and a visual cross-section of 9" at most, the Mavic covers an angle of 0.024 degrees. Yes folks, 24 thousandths of a degree.

Again, no human being has, can, or ever will resolve that arc. It actually is smaller than a knat right in from of your face. Smaller than a spec of dust in front of your face.

Does he have laser vision too? Can he cook a can of Dinty Moore simply by looking at it? With acuity like that, did he simply not need to use microscopes in High School biology?

And, if he wears a cape, can he fly?

 

[mark_t]

You guys are a hoot. I'm not gonna beat the issue to death.

If you wanna disagree, go ahead. I'm more than comfortable knowing that my statement was true and not an exaggeration.

Against the right cloud cover I can see my Mavic at around 1200-1400 feet, but, I only know which way it is facing because I put it there and can check the screen to see where it is pointing.

Without that it is impossible to orient the aircraft, I think that is really the point here.

 

[dwallersv]

You guys are a hoot. I'm not gonna beat the issue to death.

If you wanna disagree, go ahead. I'm more than comfortable knowing that my statement was true and not an exaggeration.

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of what's possible.

Hoot? You bet! I'm having a lot of fun with this. Your boast is one of more outrageous I've encountered on the internet in years, and there are a lot of nuts out there claiming all sorts of crazy things.

Actually, it's fun refuting something so easy.

 

[SkunkWerx's]

Yes, more facts that are not in his favor.

At 1640 feet, and a visual cross-section of 9" at most, the Mavic covers an angle of 0.024 degrees. Yes folks, 24 thousandths of a degree.

Again, no human being has, can, or ever will resolve that arc. It actually is smaller than a knat right in from of your face. Smaller than a spec of dust in front of your face.

Does he have laser vision too? Can he cook a can of Dinty Moore simply by looking at it? With acuity like that, did he simply not need to use microscopes in High School biology?

And, if he wears a cape, can he fly?

"Dewallersv" I will never ever argue with you --- Your full of too much "True information"

 

[dwallersv]

"Dewallersv" I will never ever argue with you --- Your full of too much "True information"

Thanks, but not really.

This one was just really easy, 'cause it's so patently false. At this point, though, I'm dropping out of the conversation. I've made my point to my satisfaction, and it's starting to feel a little mean.

 

[hookalakupua]

AMA - - I recharged the initial battery, loaded up my Mavic and took it to the park I habitually fly in. When I got to the park and set everything up, I did not have to connect to the DJI servers - it was a perfectly normal flight.

It appears to me to be much more stable in hovering and I was not limited as far as height and distance. I did not see any other differences from the .700 version I ran last week. Trump's Air Force did not shoot me down, nor did North Korea's President fire an intercontinental missile at me.

Maybe Trump is too busy tweeting about what a liar and nut case Comey is -- I don't know: What I do know is for me all the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) that has been expressed over the last 3 or 4 weeks amounted to just that -- FUD.

As always - YMMV

Good Flying.

Not only is that funny as heck but well said! Cheers

 

[SkunkWerx's]

Against the right cloud cover I can see my Mavic at around 1200-1400 feet, but, I only know which way it is facing because I put it there and can check the screen to see where it is pointing.

Without that it is impossible to orient the aircraft, I think that is really the point here.

Now your looking at the screen -- The other guy said he don't need it at 1640 feet and still can control it lollllllllllll

 

[Turnerm]

That's completely unacceptable. Changes the core functionality of the product, essentially now stating that a compatible Android or iOS device is required for core flight functions.

That's how lawsuits get filed, regardless of any amount of legal language they stick in the update agreements. Not saying who'd win or lose, but this is exactly how the lawsuits start.

And unless DJI changes the product information pre-sale, they're going to be in for a world of hurt with this move.

Except no one is forcing anyone to upgrade to the new firmware. They even tell you in the app pop up that you can downgrade to prior firmware if you don't like the new requirements.

So people can start a lawsuit all they want but they'll be laughed at incessantly.

 

[SkunkWerx's]

Thanks, but not really.

This one was just really easy, 'cause it's so patently false. At this point, though, I'm dropping out of the conversation. I've made my point to my satisfaction, and it's starting to feel a little mean.

I'm right behind you, at 1640 feet can you see me lolllllllllllllll

 

[Turnerm]

Nope. You obviously have absolutely no actual expertise, experience, or understanding regarding tort law for you to make such claims.

My goodness, errors in marketing collateral or packaging material -- ESPECIALLY errors caused by outdated materials -- happens all day, every day. If this was a legitimate basis for any kind of meaningful tort with compensation, we'd see these suits constantly, and people getting rich.

Here's the real world: A person who has a successful tort is entitled to "being made whole", which means compensating them for their legitimate damages. What are an individual's damages in this case?

Marketing and/or packaging claims the product has a feature it doesn't. Again, this happens all the time. This sort of issue was settled in courts long, long ago, and there is ample precedent. Want to know what the cure is for such damages? Return the product and get a full refund.

That's it! You can not claim you've suffered any actionable harm other than what you paid for the product that doesn't do what you want. You are never entitled to be enriched by a tort -- you are only entitled to be made whole. For this reason, you are not entitled to keep the product AND get a refund, you are only entitled, under the law, to be put back in the same state you were in before you purchased the product.

This means return for a full refund.

And that, folks, is the actual, real-world legal landscape for this. Given these facts, this would never make it into a courtroom, but would be tossed as frivolous, with an instruction to go get a refund.

Armchair lawyers, sheesh!

Not to mention that no one is being forced to upgrade to the current firmware. So they can still do today what they did yesterday with absolutely zero issues. They'd be laughed out of the court room...

 

[SkunkWerx's]

Not to mention that no one is being forced to upgrade to the current firmware. So they can still do today what they did yesterday with absolutely zero issues. They'd be laughed out of the court room...

I guess you didn't see this post -- What you claim "So they can still do today what they did yesterday with absolutely zero issues" is not true ?????
Information if you DownGrade you GO4 app on Android

 

[Turnerm]

I guess you didn't see this post -- What you claim "So they can still do today what they did yesterday with absolutely zero issues" is not true ?????
Information if you DownGrade you GO4 app on Android

Sigh... and the massive ramifications and significant losses you will experience because of this are what exactly??

Take off the tin foil hats guys. It honestly feels like many of you are just looking for a reason to be upset.

 

[TimesTen]

This is not what happened with me today, Autopilot just works regardless of if you have connected Go or -G

Litchi works works fine also with no restrictions so the sky is not falling for Litchi users either.

 

[SkunkWerx's]

Sigh... and the massive ramifications and significant losses you will experience because of this are what exactly??

Take off the tin foil hats guys. It honestly feels like many of you are just looking for a reason to be upset.

Tin Foil Hat ???????? This is actually true --- so your here to misinform people so that they do update ?????
I rather ware a Tinfoil hat Then Be a DJI "Agent Chang"
Like I said to the other joker in that Thread ---- Try it B4 you Post about tinfoil Mr. Chang

 

[HFMan]

Nope. You're simply honestly mistaken, or lying.

Resolving an object 9"x3"x2.5" (the arms are completely irrelevant at this distance) at 1600 feet is not humanly possible. Period.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your optometrist, and when he stops laughing he'll tell you to give him some of what you're smoking.

As for the Hawk, you just keep digging deeper. While Hawks have exceptional acuity, the best they can do is spot a Rabbit at about a half mile limit (2640ft). You are claiming visual acuity better than half that of a Hawk. Absurd.

Hawks on average, have about 8x the visual acuity of humans. Which would put the limits of a human being spotting a rabbit at about 300-400 feet (an American football field), which -- surprise! -- is about right for most people.

Maybe not 1600, but I have been able to EASILY see my Mavic at 1000 feet in the right lighting conditions. Early evening, cloudless bright southern skies, no LEDs enabled. I just checked the map, because this is a flight I do all the time. I can't tell which way it is facing, but I can see it easily and I can see that it is a Mavic (it's not just a dot).

 

[Tonka]

Jesus. A full page on what a person can see or not. Really? Who gives a rats *** if he can see 1600ft away and you cannot. This is post is for the new firmware and information on people who have updated. If you guys are so into eyes, go look it up. Even I know that you can see a candle flame from over 20 miles away. Basic science taught back in elementary. It all depends on the person's sight and circumstances of the object in question.

Now, with that out of the way, can someone confirm for me that if I fly later with my Android 7.0 and the new firmware and knowing that the app WILL crash, what happens when I reopen the app while in airplane mode?