The last straw that is close to breaking the camels back

[Felix the Cat]

An open letter to Autel Robotics

For over three years, I exclusively used DJI products. I did so because they were the industry leader and had a good reputation for mechanical and software quality. But during that 3 year honeymoon period, I grew increasingly sick of trying to deal with their arrogant and unhelpful support network and in particular, I got really hacked off trying to deal with the DJI mandatory geofencing. On numerous occasions, this 'feature' made interior shoots impossible inside... I repeat... INSIDE buildings that just happened to have been built within an area later overlaid by a red DJI Geozone.

Dealing with the unlockable blue Geozones was a relatively straightforward process as long as the mobile device being used as the flight screen was able to connect to the internet. But, because of potential signal interference, I always have any screen device either set to airplane mode: or set so that wifi and bluetooth connectivity is completely switched off (chronic signal interference was the second biggest reason why I ended up ditching DJI products).

But it was the DJI Geozone Dictator mentality that was totally unacceptable to me. That was the final straw. I decided to buy an Autel product.

Since that expensive purchase, I have had one problem after another. Numerous missing features. Poor colour science with DNG files. The total lack of third party apps which might remedy the gaping holes in the Nano+'s capabilities because Autel refuse to release an SDK for the Lite and Nano series. A wonky gimbal which never stops auto-calibrating and always leans to the right on the yaw axis. Auto-stitching of panoramics: which doesn't complete. The total lack of the final panoramic JPG. Unbelievably poor exposure metering (as evidenced in the DNG files). No 8bit LOG for still shots. No 10bit LOG for still shots. No HDR that I can select for still shots. No LCP released to the Adobe or LensFun databases in order to correct the DNG lens distortion in post. No colour and exposure calibration profile released to the Adobe or LensFun databases that a user might use to correct the horrible colour-casts, yellow & magenta zebra striping on roof tiles and the tendency for the picture to be badly over-exposed in the centre of the shot and then progressively further and further under-exposed towards the outer limits of the frame. In essence: the very same corrections already applied to the DNG's by the in-drone processing that produces the JPG.

The only things that I have no reason to complain about are: The controller to drone signal: which (touch wood) has been rock-solid and completely reliable. The quality of the JPG stills (which is leaps and bounds better than the DJI equivalent). The in-flight characteristics, which while slightly different to the DJI yardstick: are easily just as smooth and reliable as any DJI drone once you get used to them.

Just when I was getting ready to suck-up the shortcomings listed above and settle down to use what is, in essence, the bare-bones of a genuinely impressive sub-250gram drone... the mechanical failures start.

Early this morning, I set out to take the final series of still shots of an archaeological feature that is in the process of being completely destroyed: erased from the ground it had been buried under for over 350 years. This was a genuinely important project that had been undertaken to provide the historic record with a portfolio of high resolution digital images of a feature that had been described by professional archaeologists as being of "...National Importance..." which a business conglomerate had decided wasn't worth the effort of preserving in-situ, so they had sent a demolition team in with bucket JCB's to destroy it.

I set up my Nano+. Fired her up. Connect to the controller and hit the take-off button. Three of the motors span up. Luckily: the fourth motor didn't while it was still on the ground. The motor had failed completely. Faint smell of fried electronics from beneath the rotor blades. Mission aborted.

In desperation, I drive the 5 miles back home to grab my now massively distrusted and thoroughly hated DJI Mavic 2 zoom out of mothballs. Check the batteries: yup! enough juice to get the shoot done. Drive the 5 miles back to the shoot. Set Quasimodo up: Hit the take-off button and...

"Warning! the aircraft is in a geozone. Do you want to apply for an unlock certificate..."

Unlock certificate??? I'm in Class D airspace - enhanced warning zone... it doesn't NEED a (Mod Removed) unlock certificate!

The flight screen I'm using (Huawei mediapad) doesn't have a sim. I'm not connected to any wifi network because I'm in the back-end of beyond. My phone can't be tethered to the Huawei mediapad. I can't use my phone as the flight screen because it can't cope with running the Autel SKY app and the phone won't set up a mobile hot-spot anyway. I'm screwed because DJI decided to increase its definition of "restricted airspace" to include areas that up until a few weeks ago weren't restricted by anything other than a warning screen. I'm even MORE screwed because my Autel Evo Nano+: less than 2 months old, flown less than 30 times, never flown further than 400 feet from the controller and never flown hard: has blown a motor.

And... that turreted Tudor Era fortified gatehouse? By tomorrow: what was left of it today will be a neat pile of rubble at the back of the demolition site. The very last chance to complete this project gone. Forever.

As a post-script, just to make the comparison between the Autel Evo Nano+ and Quasimodo reasonable and balanced: The DJI Mavic 2 Zoom after 3 years of hard use with shoots all over the British Isles -
Mechanical failures: None.
Battery failures: None.
Number of motors failed: None.
Camera or gimbal problems: None.

"ANGRY" doesn't even cover it.

 

[herein2021]

That is a very unfortunate story, I steered well clear of the Nano+ as the horror stories continued to accumulate. BTW Autel mostly does not read these forums, @Blade Strike is an Autel employee so you may want to send him a message alerting him to this post....but all he will be able to do is tell you to open a trouble ticket.

I have none of the problems with the EVO II 6K that you are having with the Nano. The EVO II 6K is far from perfect by any means, but it really is a great workhorse drone that has performed flawlessly for me for over a year now.

Obviously you are completely out of luck when it comes to the failed motor (actually there's a 90% chance the motor is perfectly fine and it is a failed ESC but I digress). For the photography concerns I've never heard of wanting or needing 8bit or 10bit LOG for stills. LOG is typically reserved for video and provides more editing latitude in post by maximizing the dynamic range of the sensor. For stills you want RAW (14bit no color profile), or JPG (8bit color profile of your choosing gets baked in).

For panoramas, I never rely on in camera processing, I manually overlap, shoot RAW and use LR, PS, and PTGui to post process the image. This will always yield higher quality results than anything automatic. The exposure meter is terrible in almost every camera I have shot with and that includes drones, mirrorless, DSLRs, and cinema cameras. I never use the exposure meter except to get me in the ballpark. From there the histogram is far more useful and is rock solid reliable regardless of the camera platform.

For the lens profile issues, typically you can just make your own lens correction preset and apply it in LR. I did that for the EVO II 6K. It only takes a few min and once it is saved as a preset you can just use it every time. Not saying it is ideal, ideally the manufacturer provides it, but its not hard to make your own in LR. If you use something else to post process your RAW files then it might be a different story.

Hopefully Autel makes this right and repairs your drone, but unfortunately I wouldn't count on it. Maybe the vendor where you got it from will let you return it if you are still within the return window.

 

[Felix the Cat]

That is a very unfortunate story, I steered well clear of the Nano+ as the horror stories continued to accumulate. BTW Autel mostly does not read these forums, @Blade Strike is an Autel employee so you may want to send him a message alerting him to this post....but all he will be able to do is tell you to open a trouble ticket.

I have none of the problems with the EVO II 6K that you are having with the Nano. The EVO II 6K is far from perfect by any means, but it really is a great workhorse drone that has performed flawlessly for me for over a year now.

Obviously you are completely out of luck when it comes to the failed motor (actually there's a 90% chance the motor is perfectly fine and it is a failed ESC but I digress). For the photography concerns I've never heard of wanting or needing 8bit or 10bit LOG for stills. LOG is typically reserved for video and provides more editing latitude in post by maximizing the dynamic range of the sensor. For stills you want RAW (14bit no color profile), or JPG (8bit color profile of your choosing gets baked in).

For panoramas, I never rely on in camera processing, I manually overlap, shoot RAW and use LR, PS, and PTGui to post process the image. This will always yield higher quality results than anything automatic. The exposure meter is terrible in almost every camera I have shot with and that includes drones, mirrorless, DSLRs, and cinema cameras. I never use the exposure meter except to get me in the ballpark. From there the histogram is far more useful and is rock solid reliable regardless of the camera platform.

For the lens profile issues, typically you can just make your own lens correction preset and apply it in LR. I did that for the EVO II 6K. It only takes a few min and once it is saved as a preset you can just use it every time. Not saying it is ideal, ideally the manufacturer provides it, but its not hard to make your own in LR. If you use something else to post process your RAW files then it might be a different story.

Hopefully Autel makes this right and repairs your drone, but unfortunately I wouldn't count on it. Maybe the vendor where you got it from will let you return it if you are still within the return window.

Thanks for the reply. I chose the Nano on the strengths of the camera performance and the form factor. Sub-250's have a lot more deployment leeway to begin with and they are also close to perfect for interior shoots, or close-quarters "macro" shots of exterior features such as sculpted stonework, which is why I ended up with this Autel variant... but the lack of geofencing was the real deal-clincher. Topped off by the fact that the genuinely impressive RYYB Huawei/Leica sensor in the Nano+ captured in RAW.

Pity that the RAW's turned out to be so flawed, but I get the feeling that a lot of the problems with 'orrible colour casts are down to whatever software editors are used. I've heard complaints about lightroom displaying Nano+ RAW's with garish tints. I don't use Adobe at all: the RAW editor I use to apply my own custom LCP (not spot-on perfect: but close enough for a pixel-peeper) is PhotoNinja which can be 'trained' to one-click correct just about any lens you might throw at it- but this RAW editor also gives the Nano+ RAW's that Andy Warhol twist, but if I want the pincushion/barrel/moustache distortion ironed out to an acceptable level and output to 32bit floating point TIFF for further enhancement: I have to use it. The kind of shots I need to present have to be as close to orthocorrect as possible, the same with perspective distortion.

The other editor I use is Darktable, which is a hairs breadth away from being the freeware equivalent to lightroom... but... Darktable doesn't have a trainable distortion correction widget like PhotoNinja (which is very similar to the Hugin Lens Calibration GUI which is REALLY impressive) : Darktable relies on the LCP's uploaded on to the LensFun database and there ain't one for any of the Autel birds, (hell, there still ain't one for Quasimodo: the Mavic 2 Zoom) so no lens aberration correction. I had a crack at the Adobe Lens Profile Creator too: that's a damn good bit of kit, but I genuinely couldn't work out how to export the LCP for use in Darktable.

Here's the rub - If I bypass PhotoNinja and load the RAW's directly into Darktable: perfect colour profile straight out of the box: but I end up with a banana horizon that can't be precisely corrected. As bad burned as scalded eh?

I have been using the Nano+ to shoot 80% overlap ortho-shots (gimbal 90 degrees down) of the feature in the attached shot and I use Microsoft ICE v.2 as the stitcher. For such a simple and quick program: it is awesome, as are the TIFF images it kicks out.

I hope that Autel sorts out what is obviously a faulty motor fitted at manufacture too... but I'll probably end up buying a rear arm and motor and getting all Blue Peter with the micro screwdriver set before the manufacturer puts their gaff right. I get the feeling that the vendor won't help either - I bought direct from Autel. I genuinely hope that I am wrong.

Gods help me: I REALLY want to be able to say to myself that the "Buy Autel" decision was the right one as regardless of the warts: after flying the DJI brick and getting used to the fact it was rock-solid in anything but a gale: I was genuinely impressed with the flight characteristics of such a tiny, feather-light drone and I really like that little camera... such potential.

Much as I ended up hating the Mavic 2 Zoom because of unreliable transmission signal/signal dropouts as close as 200 feet/bloody geofencing, I have to give the Devil its due. Mechanical faults: none. Flown like a banshee in conditions you wouldn't put a dog out in: never crashed and motors still going strong. Nearly four year old, high cycle batteries still returning close to 24 mins air-time without being bloated. RAW's from it: yeah... banana horizon... but bloody good quality and a joy to edit. But I just don't trust it. When you're hovering 18 inches away from a statue 60 feet up on the side of a 300 year old building: you have to be confident that the control signal won't crap-out on you.

 

[davshev]

I've certainly had my share of problems with Autel, but they've helped me out a few times. As far as getting their ear, I have contacted Ken Booth with Autel via his FB page. He was very responsive. Log into Facebook.
I would also definitely contact Autel support about why your motor crapped out. Standard procedure with them is to look at your flight data. If they can see that something happened as the result of mechanical failure, they will likely replace or repair your drone.
Good luck

 

[moodman]

I am surprised at your problems with DJI geofencing. I have heard there are plenty of hacks that can turn it off. Why weren't you able to turn yours off?

 

[Felix the Cat]

I am surprised at your problems with DJI geofencing. I have heard there are plenty of hacks that can turn it off. Why weren't you able to turn yours off?

I did apply the Drone-Hacks solution: mainly to boost the dodgy transmitter signal to an across-the-board 26db (CE rated Mavic... and Drone-Hacks signal boost DOES work flawlessly), but once your confidence has been badly knocked by a drone going loopy, I defy anyone to say that they ever really trust that drone again.

I did not try to take off in a locked zone - but I have no doubts that if the signal boost works that well: the geofencing workaround will too. After testing, I kept the signal boost: but removed the Geofencing hack: deciding to buy another make that didn't have Geofencing to begin with, Even with the Autel: if I need to fly in a blue zone: I will go through all the right channels and give any local ATC 3 days notice beforehand. This wasn't a Blue zone: it was the sand-coloured EWZ with no official NOTAM in effect.

Most of my work is made easier by me being being certified and sticking rigidly to the CAA/EASA regulation rulebook. A lot of the people I work for demand to see that level of certification and expect that level of professional compliance. A hacked drone doesn't argue for sense and legality if it gets inspected by the police after some local sticky-beak dog-walker decides they know the difference between 'legal' and 'illegal' drone deployment. Apart from that: I really hate breaking the regulations - it makes me out to be as big a muppet as those who decide it's okay to fling a drone up over accident sites, on the doorstep of International airports and near or over prisons.

Flying exclusively indoors within a building close to, or within a Red Zone is a totally different kettle of fish. The geofencing makes no sense when what you fly on-site will never even get a sniff of the great outdoors during the deployment.

 

[imcool]

I did apply the Drone-Hacks solution: mainly to boost the dodgy transmitter signal to an across-the-board 26db (CE rated Mavic... and Drone-Hacks signal boost DOES work flawlessly), but once your confidence has been badly knocked by a drone going loopy, I defy anyone to say that they ever really trust that drone again.

I did not try to take off in a locked zone - but I have no doubts that if the signal boost works that well: the geofencing workaround will too. After testing, I kept the signal boost: but removed the Geofencing hack: deciding to buy another make that didn't have Geofencing to begin with, Even with the Autel: if I need to fly in a blue zone: I will go through all the right channels and give any local ATC 3 days notice beforehand. This wasn't a Blue zone: it was the sand-coloured EWZ with no official NOTAM in effect.

Most of my work is made easier by me being being certified and sticking rigidly to the CAA/EASA regulation rulebook. A lot of the people I work for demand to see that level of certification and expect that level of professional compliance. A hacked drone doesn't argue for sense and legality if it gets inspected by the police after some local sticky-beak dog-walker decides they know the difference between 'legal' and 'illegal' drone deployment. Apart from that: I really hate breaking the regulations - it makes me out to be as big a muppet as those who decide it's okay to fling a drone up over accident sites, on the doorstep of International airports and near or over prisons.

Flying exclusively indoors within a building close to, or within a Red Zone is a totally different kettle of fish. The geofencing makes no sense when what you fly on-site will never even get a sniff of the great outdoors during the deployment.

i have exact same issue, i cant unrestrict DJI as its latest firmware is unhackable for now. which made me consider AUtel but now you are saying that Autel has geo fencing drama as well so which drone to buy now? which other brands are left out there?

 

[moodman]

I did apply the Drone-Hacks solution: mainly to boost the dodgy transmitter signal to an across-the-board 26db (CE rated Mavic... and Drone-Hacks signal boost DOES work flawlessly), but once your confidence has been badly knocked by a drone going loopy, I defy anyone to say that they ever really trust that drone again.

I did not try to take off in a locked zone - but I have no doubts that if the signal boost works that well: the geofencing workaround will too. After testing, I kept the signal boost: but removed the Geofencing hack: deciding to buy another make that didn't have Geofencing to begin with, Even with the Autel: if I need to fly in a blue zone: I will go through all the right channels and give any local ATC 3 days notice beforehand. This wasn't a Blue zone: it was the sand-coloured EWZ with no official NOTAM in effect.

Most of my work is made easier by me being being certified and sticking rigidly to the CAA/EASA regulation rulebook. A lot of the people I work for demand to see that level of certification and expect that level of professional compliance. A hacked drone doesn't argue for sense and legality if it gets inspected by the police after some local sticky-beak dog-walker decides they know the difference between 'legal' and 'illegal' drone deployment. Apart from that: I really hate breaking the regulations - it makes me out to be as big a muppet as those who decide it's okay to fling a drone up over accident sites, on the doorstep of International airports and near or over prisons.

Flying exclusively indoors within a building close to, or within a Red Zone is a totally different kettle of fish. The geofencing makes no sense when what you fly on-site will never even get a sniff of the great outdoors during the deployment.

I totally appreciate your desire to be law abiding. But your purchase of another drone without geofencing doesn't really equate with being law abiding. It isn't DJI who makes the law, it is your government. Just because DJI has the geofencing "feature" doesn't mean that if you choose to not use it you are breaking any laws, or even appearing to. In fact, a good case can be made that you are actually SAFER with it turned off or hacked. For example, suppose you took off in a non-geofence area but then DJI decides as you fly that you are breaking into a restricted space (even if you weren't or already had permission) The drone would then stop taking your inputs and would become a danger to people on the ground or perhaps other aircraft.

This is primarily why I fly Autel drones. Besides that, I suspect DJI sends back covertly, intelligence data gathered by civilian pilots. Kind of like a Trojan horse. The US military prohibits DJI drones for exactly this reason.

I am not Canadian, but you said 'inspected by the police" Do the police in Canada even know HOW to inspect a drone for compliance?

 

[moodman]

... but now you are saying that Autel has geo fencing drama as well so which drone to buy now? which other brands are left out there?

AFAIK, Autel only has a version of geofencing in China. Want to be safe? Buy non-Chinese drones. And, BTW, I have flown the regular Skydio and the Skydio X2D. Both these models overheat and are very quirky, even though made in the USA. I wouldn't recommend them. I have also flown Yuneec, and they are decent, but performance isn't robust and reliable. Autel so far is the best drones out there in terms of non-intrusive software and hardware. I DO give DJI points for their technology. It is the best in the civilian category. But I don't trust the communist party that controls DJI. It shows up with their attitude about geofencing.

 

[moodman]

....Pity that the RAW's turned out to be so flawed, but I get the feeling that a lot of the problems with 'orrible colour casts are down to whatever software editors are used. I've heard complaints about lightroom displaying Nano+ RAW's with garish tints. I don't use Adobe at all: the RAW editor I use to apply my own custom LCP (not spot-on perfect: but close enough for a pixel-peeper) is PhotoNinja which can be 'trained' to one-click correct just about any lens you might throw at it- but this RAW editor also gives the Nano+ RAW's that Andy Warhol twist, but if I want the pincushion/barrel/moustache distortion ironed out to an acceptable level and output to 32bit floating point TIFF for further enhancement: I have to use it. The kind of shots I need to present have to be as close to orthocorrect as possible, the same with perspective distortion.

The other editor I use is Darktable, which is a hairs breadth away from being the freeware equivalent to lightroom... but... Darktable doesn't have a trainable distortion correction widget like PhotoNinja (which is very similar to the Hugin Lens Calibration GUI which is REALLY impressive) : Darktable relies on the LCP's uploaded on to the LensFun database and there ain't one for any of the Autel birds, (hell, there still ain't one for Quasimodo: the Mavic 2 Zoom) so no lens aberration correction. I had a crack at the Adobe Lens Profile Creator too: that's a damn good bit of kit, but I genuinely couldn't work out how to export the LCP for use in Darktable......

Just wondering if you have tried GIMP software for editing stills?

 

[Felix the Cat]

Just wondering if you have tried GIMP software for editing stills?

GIMP 2.10.32 is right there on my desktop. That gets used to apply the final polish and my logo.

 

[moodman]

GIMP 2.10.32 is right there on my desktop. That gets used to apply the final polish and my logo.

Is it true to RAW files?

 

[Felix the Cat]

i have exact same issue, i cant unrestrict DJI as its latest firmware is unhackable for now. which made me consider AUtel but now you are saying that Autel has geo fencing drama as well so which drone to buy now? which other brands are left out there?

The Autel birds don't have active geofencing software outside China, Japan and a couple of other far-eastern countries. But like another user pointed out - all it will take is one firmware update and anyone with an Autel drone will be in exactly the same situation as a DJI (or other big brand) owner. As a big player in the drone marketplace, I think Autel won't really have the option to maintain their reputation as the non-nanny drone developer for much longer if they want to carry on selling their products. In Europe: we've got something called "U-Space" looming on the horizon, which is almost exclusively geared towards controlling drone flight for the benefit of businesses who want to use commercial drone fleets for delivery. Amazon, Google and the rest of the big delivery players want the 400ft AGL airspace for their own use.

 

[Felix the Cat]

Is it true to RAW files?

Really good question... I've only ever used it to edit up to 16bit TIFF's and the final 8bit JPG's. I have no idea if it can even open a RAW file. My workflow is:
Photoninja: RAW correction of distortion / Exposure correction / 1st level enhancement & noise reduction. Output to 32 bit floating point TIFF.
Darktable: 2nd level enhancement for local contrast / shadows & highlights / astrophoto denoise (BRILLIANT TOOL!) / wavelet decompose for enhancing fine detail. Output to 8 bit JPG. But Darktable CAN handle RAW input.
GIMP: final contrast & brightness tweak / chroma adjustment if required / tidy up with clone tool if required. slap on the logo and save as lossless (100%) 8 bit JPG.

...additional... GIMP has a Darktable and RawTherapee plugin - it will automatically launch one or the other of these freeware RAW editors if you try to open a DNG file.

 

[Felix the Cat]

I totally appreciate your desire to be law abiding. But your purchase of another drone without geofencing doesn't really equate with being law abiding. It isn't DJI who makes the law, it is your government. Just because DJI has the geofencing "feature" doesn't mean that if you choose to not use it you are breaking any laws, or even appearing to. In fact, a good case can be made that you are actually SAFER with it turned off or hacked. For example, suppose you took off in a non-geofence area but then DJI decides as you fly that you are breaking into a restricted space (even if you weren't or already had permission) The drone would then stop taking your inputs and would become a danger to people on the ground or perhaps other aircraft.

This is primarily why I fly Autel drones. Besides that, I suspect DJI sends back covertly, intelligence data gathered by civilian pilots. Kind of like a Trojan horse. The US military prohibits DJI drones for exactly this reason.

I am not Canadian, but you said 'inspected by the police" Do the police in Canada even know HOW to inspect a drone for compliance?

It depends on how that drone is used. Neither my Mav 2 Zoom or my Nano+ has ever been been taken out and put on the floor near a red zone, let alone booted up - and the Autel never will be (if I actually get it back). Like I said: inside a building: to photograph interior architectural features. Aviation Authorities control airspace that carries air traffic. Apart from that - DJI Geozones are ridiculously arbitrary - there are still loads of locked zones that might have been airfields and military sites back when Goering was still a slim-Jim, but they have been abandoned and decommissioned since 1945. The zone I was trying to fly in was 'Enhanced Warning Zone' - usually only a screen warning and a "do you want to continue". Why the DJI app decided that it was locked Sunday morning is beyond me. No temporary or permanent NOTAM in place (always check beforehand).

In my country, a lot of the police forces have dedicated drone units now, and they are well clued-up about both software and hardware. Funnily enough, I met up with one yesterday - he was off-duty and very interested in what I was doing. Showed him the courtesy of DMARES compliance so he knew I wasn't a cowboy.

I'm not Canadian - I'm a Brit (although, if I would have had my head screwed on in 1979 when I had the sponsorship offer: I would be Canadian now),

 

[davshev]

Just an FYI as I read through this thread. It is possible to use an Autel E2P version 1 with an older firmware version (2.6.22) and not have any popup warnings about restricted airspace. In fact, it's possible to rollback from a later version FW to v2.6.22....but only with an E2P version 1.

 

[imcool]

what is altitude limit of autel evo nano + they are saying its 4000m. is it legit 4000m or sea level is included in it? for ex if i am at mountain which is 4000m above sea level, what will happen in that case, will i be able to still fly 4000m theoretically?

 

[Felix the Cat]

what is altitude limit of autel evo nano + they are saying its 4000m. is it legit 4000m or sea level is included in it? for ex if i am at mountain which is 4000m above sea level, what will happen in that case, will i be able to still fly 4000m theoretically?

4000 metres is the maximum operational ceiling - this is the height past which you would not be able to get the drone to take off at all, but you would have to be taking it out of your climbing pack after you had carried it up to this height first. 800 metres is the flight ceiling - this is how far above the spot you are standing on you can (theoretically) fly the drone straight upward. But again: I wouldn't recommend it. The 400 foot AGL ceiling means that you are 100 feet lower than the minimum height that light manned aircraft can legally fly - so less chance of ending up staring at the business end of a Cessna barrelling towards your drone. Just because something CAN go a lot higher than the legal limit: doesn't mean you have to fly it higher than the legal limit.

It's nice to have the freedom to choose - Not many people like being dictated to, which is why I like the Autel mentality. So I choose to fly an Autel, but I also choose to respect the sensible restrictions to HOW I fly it. No higher than 400 feet AGL so I don't end up a menace to other air traffic and not anywhere near airports and airfields for the same reason.

If you want to fly higher than 400 feet above what you have your feet planted on: get your hiking boots on and do a bit of hill-climbing. If the rock you're standing on top of is 2,600 feet higher than ground level: you can still take your drone out and fly it straight up to 3,000 feet above ground level because you have still only climbed the drone the legal 400 feet (120 metres) limit.

 

[imcool]

4000 metres is the maximum operational ceiling - this is the height past which you would not be able to get the drone to take off at all, but you would have to be taking it out of your climbing pack after you had carried it up to this height first. 800 metres is the flight ceiling - this is how far above the spot you are standing on you can (theoretically) fly the drone straight upward. But again: I wouldn't recommend it. The 400 foot AGL ceiling means that you are 100 feet lower than the minimum height that light manned aircraft can legally fly - so less chance of ending up staring at the business end of a Cessna barrelling towards your drone. Just because something CAN go a lot higher than the legal limit: doesn't mean you have to fly it higher than the legal limit.

It's nice to have the freedom to choose - Not many people like being dictated to, which is why I like the Autel mentality. So I choose to fly an Autel, but I also choose to respect the sensible restrictions to HOW I fly it. No higher than 400 feet AGL so I don't end up a menace to other air traffic and not anywhere near airports and airfields for the same reason.

If you want to fly higher than 400 feet above what you have your feet planted on: get your hiking boots on and do a bit of hill-climbing. If the rock you're standing on top of is 2,600 feet higher than ground level: you can still take your drone out and fly it straight up to 3,000 feet above ground level because you have still only climbed the drone the legal 400 feet (120 metres) limit.

but is the drone unlocked to go as high as user want? or it will stop after that altitude limit? not that i want to to take it but i have same concept as you 'Not many people like being dictated to, '

 

[Felix the Cat]

but is the drone unlocked to go as high as user want? or it will stop after that altitude limit? not that i want to to take it but i have same concept as you 'Not many people like being dictated to, '

No, I really don't like being dictated to at all. But I can see the sense in making sure that what I fly doesn't end up being a menace to other air users. That's why I choose to abide by the common-sense restrictions like maximum AGL, staying completely clear of anything that is a registered red Geozone and making sure that any local ATC knows three days in advance that I want to fly in a locked blue zone, so they can okay the flight beforehand.

I am supposed to live in a democracy, where everyone has the right to choose: so I just choose NOT to break the rules every time I fly out in free air. An Autel drone has the capability (at the moment) to climb as high as the upper limit set in the app: which at present is (theoretically) 800 metres. I wouldn't know for sure - because I haven't been irresponsible enough to try it.