Would you buy a M2P now with remote id on distant horizon?

[anotherlab]

Actually the company that makes the tablet has multiple versions of the screens available, for both 1000nits and 1200nits. I did all the research on the company to see if I could get one cheaper directly. Not unless I wanted to commit to volume orders.

The same reviewer does a side-by-side with the 1000nits high-bright Crystalsky and found the Tripltek to be much brighter.

Do you have a link to the CrystalSky review? There are 3 models of the CrystalSky and I only saw the one for the Smart Controller, which is not the same thing.

Take his comparison reviews with a grain of salt. The Note 20 Ultra test was done on an in-store display model. Its brightness is adaptive, you won't see the high values unless you are in direct sunlight. I also tend to discount anonymous reviewers.

 

[KingRat]

Here's a review on YouTube where the luminance was measured with a cheap screen luminance meter you can get from Amazon for around $270.

It's a short video, but it shows that brightness was not even across the display. It shows a range from around 1170 to 1570 cd/m2 (nits), with most of the readings in the middle. That's just the nature of a backlit LCD panel.

In the video, 90% of the screen is pure white and the reviewer was only measuring the white areas. A more realistic reading would be a screen that wasn't all white, like running the DJI apps.

It's a bright screen, the tablet is designed for outdoor use. The real-world brightnes is probably 1000 cd/m2, which is what the company that actually makes the tablets reports for the screen luminance.

NITS - COMB... wake up at the back!

 

[OliveViewImages]

Depends on your immediate need and location. I'm in Upstate NY, my flying season is over for a few months. I would wait to see if DJI announces that RID will be added to the M2P,

Same here. I live in the Hudson Valley and I’m looking to purchase a second drone. I want to relegate my current drone to backup status for my commercial work, but I’m holding off on any purchase until I see what might be coming....

 

[BigPlanDan]

I moved up to a Mavic 2 from a first-generation Mavic. I would still buy now as I'll likely crash before the new regs take effect, and if I don't, I would move up to the newest & best by then. I do believe that by then we will have very good options with drones that come in under the weight break...lightweights that will be superior to the Mavic 2. In the meantime, a lot of people will be putting off drone purchases, hurting DJI and other drone manufacturers in the wallet. More and more people will get drones, which will likely result in even more stringent regulations in the future.

 

[wco81]

Would you buy an M2P at roughly it’s present full price now (roughly $1600)with remote id on distant horizon?

Remote ID is almost 3 years away.

The M2P is 2.5 almost years old.

Bigger chance that Mavic 3 comes out some time this year, which may push down prices of M2.

 

[KingRat]

I moved up to a Mavic 2 from a first-generation Mavic. I would still buy now as I'll likely crash before the new regs take effect, and if I don't, I would move up to the newest & best by then. I do believe that by then we will have very good options with drones that come in under the weight break...lightweights that will be superior to the Mavic 2. In the meantime, a lot of people will be putting off drone purchases, hurting DJI and other drone manufacturers in the wallet. More and more people will get drones, which will likely result in even more stringent regulations in the future.

Lightweight - does that mean build strength will be compromised? I have heard from a professional drone repairer that the Mini2 is very fragile and he fixes more of those than anything else. I realise that the more there are owned the more will be crashed, but they don't seem to bounce very well, whereas I know the Air2 and the 2Pro are much more robust - a friend crashed his Air2 quite severely, a few scratches on the body and broken props was all it suffered. Mini2s are breaking with even just minor prangs.

 

[DanMan32]

MM2 from what everyone says is stronger in build than MM1.

With less weight, there's less stress on impact which should compensate some to thinner material.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Came into this soap opera of a thread late... looks like several Posts were "deleted" from various replies. Kinda sorry I missed all the fussyness... entertaining reads!

Regarding RID, I've read somewhere... a recap of the FAA docs, that a "add on" RID would be allowed for older sUAV's. That add-on will be extremely small and minimal weight... and probably able to be independent of the platform or for other platforms be added into power or logic.

One of the original concerns of the proposed changes were the existing sUAV's that support businesses and Hobbyist. That concern was apparently heard and adaptive add-ons have been acknowledged to be designed & allowed.

The justification to use, not use, hack, or modify... isn't my interest. I'll adapt within the FAA guidelines as needed... too much invested, too old to risk illegal, and don't care to draw attention from the FAA. As in other discussions on FAA and fines... Best to work within the system and if needed, work on changing the regulations. If a group forms to change the system, I'd be interested... till then, I'll oblige and hopefully media will not continue to show how bad drones are to an ill-informed public.

Regarding "Older" platforms. I'm not concerned at all, I have a wide spread: Inspire1, M600Pro, and older...and newer Inspire2, M210, and the Mavic series. Other makes: Yuneec, Autel, PowerVision, etc. Not to mention all the expensive Payloads for many Platforms. Flushing all this Investment, Inventory Assets within Tax & Income preparations isn't even a concern over RID... and the Thousands of Other small sUAV shops.

The I1 is probably the oldest consumer platform, and it remains a popular platform in several fields: cinema photography, SAR, Thermal, Inspections, Agricultural, etc. The M600Pro still carries the Full size payloads: DSLR, LiDAR, etc... both based on older technologies and radios and both will have no issues being adaptive to RID.

There are many "Prosumer/Enterprise" platforms that many have $15-50k invested per platform, and a high density of "Consumer" high quality drones in the $500-2500 range. If you own a retail toy class, no comment... but if you own a quality drone... not just DJI brand, it'll most likely have a path to continue flying.

A purchase now... even a used older Mavic Pro wouldn't be a concern. The RID may cycle through a few generations, and still not a concern.

Buy what meets your immediate needs, upgrade later if desired and add the RID as needed: FW update or add-on Module.

 

[Dougcjohn]

MM2 from what everyone says is stronger in build than MM1.

With less weight, there's less stress on impact which should compensate some to thinner material.

Have both, except for a few minor differences... they look identical. The ft arm's rear material is different... that may provide a little more strength on Mini2.

They are light weight machines, they aren't considered strong robust crafts.
That said, I'd still say they're both pretty durable overall.

 

[palo34]

Great summary and analysis. I agree with your assessment. I don’t think that power will be a concern at all. It is a very small text file transmitted once per sec. Since the controller and drone are already transmitting and receiving continuously at a very high data rate this extra should be inconsequential.

The rule stipulate that the drone is to send the information to the FAA system using bluetooth/wifi/rf. The Mavic Drone has only one transmitter which is dedicated to the control on a proprietary protocol (accusync 2). Do not think you can with software modify the transmitter to send the additional information from the actual drones. The transmitter may be able to do it, through the wifi channel in the celular phone, or tablet, however, it might require programming within the kernel of the os of the phone that I am sure apple will not allow the app to modify.

 

[Camino Ken]

The rule stipulate that the drone is to send the information to the FAA system using bluetooth/wifi/rf. The Mavic Drone has only one transmitter which is dedicated to the control on a proprietary protocol (accusync 2). Do not think you can with software modify the transmitter to send the additional information from the actual drones. The transmitter may be able to do it, through the wifi channel in the celular phone, or tablet, however, it might require programming within the kernel of the os of the phone that I am sure apple will not allow the app to modify.

I believe that this could be easily implemented based on my limited understanding of the system. Occusync 2 is a spread spectrum, frequency hopping transmission protocol that sends and receives all of the information in packets and is designed specifically for random dropped packets with no impact. Borrowing one, or several of these packets to broadcast a tiny text file would be inconsequential to the proper operation of the overall drone communication. My understanding is that the drone only has to broadcast the information but if necessary the phone could also send this information out through the normal API of the DJI app, like it already does when writing the .txt and .dat files. If you would like additional information there are a few YouTube videos that describe the Occusync transmission system with included test data results.

 

[anotherlab]

I believe that this could be easily implemented based on my limited understanding of the system. Occusync 2 is a spread spectrum, frequency hopping transmission protocol that sends and receives all of the information in packets and is designed specifically for random dropped packets with no impact. Borrowing one, or several of these packets to broadcast a tiny text file would be inconsequential to the proper operation of the overall drone communication. My understanding is that the drone only has to broadcast the information but if necessary the phone could also send this information out through the normal API of the DJI app, like it already does when writing the .txt and .dat files. If you would like additional information there are a few YouTube videos that describe the Occusync transmission system with included test data results.

You can't use a phone or other mobile device for RID, as the FAA has defined it. It has to be an integrated part of the aircraft, either by original design or by a registered add-on module.

Ocusync 2 is a custom protocol sent over off the shelf Wi-Fi components. Generating a Wi-Fi broadcast data packet should be doable with a firmware update. It wouldn't be sending a text file, just a properly formatted data packet with well-defined fields. You wouldn't need to "borrow" an Ocusync packet, you would be just adding a Wi-Fi Broadcast packet once a second.

 

[anotherlab]

The rule stipulate that the drone is to send the information to the FAA system using bluetooth/wifi/rf. The Mavic Drone has only one transmitter which is dedicated to the control on a proprietary protocol (accusync 2). Do not think you can with software modify the transmitter to send the additional information from the actual drones. The transmitter may be able to do it, through the wifi channel in the celular phone, or tablet, however, it might require programming within the kernel of the os of the phone that I am sure apple will not allow the app to modify.

Ocusync was implemented as a Software-Define Radio (SDR). This allowed DJI to have a custom protocol using off the shelf Wi-Fi parts. This means that they can change the Ocusync functionality via a firmware update on the aircraft. The software on the phone does not have any connection with how the Ocusync packets are defined on the drone. No OS kernel mods are needed on the phone.

 

[Camino Ken]

You can't use a phone or other mobile device for RID, as the FAA has defined it. It has to be an integrated part of the aircraft, either by original design or by a registered add-on module.

Ocusync 2 is a custom protocol sent over off the shelf Wi-Fi components. Generating a Wi-Fi broadcast data packet should be doable with a firmware update. It wouldn't be sending a text file, just a properly formatted data packet with well-defined fields. You wouldn't need to "borrow" an Ocusync packet, you would be just adding a Wi-Fi Broadcast packet once a second.

Thanks for the additional information. Yes, that was my understanding as well that only the drone needs to broadcast. There was some discussion at one point that the phone needed to be connected to the internet for RID to work but I believe that was dropped. Your right about adding a packet but depending on whether the payload was full it would drop one somewhere else, which is obviously not an issue.

 

[Willyc32]

I'll probably still buy drones without remote ID until it gets closer to the time when they must have it. At least used ones. Hard to see what things will be like that far out. Can get a lot of photography and use out of them before 2023.

 

[Thomas B]

Would you buy an M2P at roughly it’s present full price now (roughly $1600)with remote id on distant horizon?

To get back to the OP’s question.... Yes, there is over 2 years for developement of a retrofit device.

 

[Orion33]

Here's a review on YouTube where the luminance was measured with a cheap screen luminance meter you can get from Amazon for around $270.

It's a short video, but it shows that brightness was not even across the display. It shows a range from around 1170 to 1570 cd/m2 (nits), with most of the readings in the middle. That's just the nature of a backlit LCD panel.

In the video, 90% of the screen is pure white and the reviewer was only measuring the white areas. A more realistic reading would be a screen that wasn't all white, like running the DJI apps.

It's a bright screen, the tablet is designed for outdoor use. The real-world brightnes is probably 1000 cd/m2, which is what the company that actually makes the tablets reports for the screen luminance.

We don't have to buy an extra luminance-meter from Amazon, because we al have decent luminance meters. Your photo-camera wil do a good job in measuring the luminance with a precision of at least 1/3 f-stop.
We just need a comparison standard in terms of iso, shutterspeed and diafragma for lets say 500 nits.
The reading of my camera with an almost white screen of the 1000nits Smart Controller gives the following results : Iso 400, diafragm F5.6 , shutterspeed 1/1000.
These results are only an approximation because it was a too quick job.
Ton

 

[anotherlab]

We don't have to buy an extra luminance-meter from Amazon, because we al have decent luminance meters. Your photo-camera wil do a good job in measuring the luminance with a precision of at least 1/3 f-stop.
We just need a comparison standard in terms of iso, shutterspeed and diafragma for lets say 500 nits.
The reading of my camera with an almost white screen of the 1000nits Smart Controller gives the following results : Iso 400, diafragm F5.6 , shutterspeed 1/1000.
These results are only an approximation because it was a too quick job.
Ton

A luminance meter will measure the brightness right at the screen. Your camera will be adjusting for all the light in the area. The brightness of light as a function of the distance from the light source follows an inverse square relationship, you need to measure right at the screen level with a device designed for it.

 

[Orion33]

A luminance meter will measure the brightness right at the screen. Your camera will be adjusting for all the light in the area. The brightness of light as a function of the distance from the light source follows an inverse square relationship, you need to measure right at the screen level with a device designed for it.

Your statements are only partly true. On the first place; the inverse square relationship holds only for a point source (with no reflective surfaces in its neighbour hood). If you measure an object exposed bij a lightsource, in this case the monitorscreen, the farther away the less light it reflects from its surface.
But camera (sensor) measures the lightsource it self als long as your camera sees only the screen or part of the screen. In that case the measurement results stay the same with different distances. Of course you have to correct your (zoom)lens for seeing only the screen.
Try it yourself and you will see the results.
Ton

 

[anotherlab]

Your statements are only partly true. On the first place; the inverse square relationship holds only for a point source (with no reflective surfaces in its neighbour hood). If you measure an object exposed bij a lightsource, in this case the monitorscreen, the farther away the less light it reflects from its surface.
But camera (sensor) measures the lightsource it self als long as your camera sees only the screen or part of the screen. In that case the measurement results stay the same with different distances. Of course you have to correct your (zoom)lens for seeing only the screen.
Try it yourself and you will see the results.
Ton

The problem with using a camera would be calibrating the results. Then you would have something defined for that camera and its settings, that lens and its settings, the ambient lighting in the room, and the distance from the camera to the display. If you want to be able to have comparable and repeatable results for measuring the luminance of a display, you are going to get a more accurate and precise measurement if you use a luminance meter.