I can't think of any reason they would say that other than 5.8 offers more channels and the antennae are smaller. But 1.3 is far better at penetration and range for the power. I run 400mW 1.3 transmitters and I've been 3+ miles out on my long-distance quad. I'm using the same transmitters on my ALTA and MōVI but of course I haven't been that far away. 1.3 harmonics can potentially cause issues on 2.4 control systems, but that's easily addressed with a $5 notch filter. Although at 400mW and some degree of separation I've never had an issue on my ALTA. On my long distance quad I'm running DragonLink UHF.
Yeah I agree the 1.2 signal is much better. Isn't the 1.3 antenna really big and awkward where you need to mount it on the Alta? I would be afraid it would get damaged easily around the retracts. Back the topic at hand though. Even if you a 1.2 FPV signal, you still need to hide on a golf course if you are half way down and therefore can't fly line of site for the most part. Plus there are many links style courses that don't have many trees to hide behind. So the proposed solution Freefly offers about filming long golf course holes isn't really realistic. Freefly if you are monitoring this thread please offer a solution to unlock the restrictions if the user has professional credentials such as a 333 and pilots license (or equiv for other countries). If you don't want to micromanage this then just unlock it since it does create a safety issue.
Dave: The skew planar antenna (circularly polarized) is indeed very large -- worse yet, I believe that the SMA-RP connectors typically used are not designed for high mount/dismount cycles. The reason skew-planar became popular is that they use circularly polarized RF signals (and they look cool ). The circular polarization means that the Rx rejects (to some degree) vertically polarized signals from conventional rubber ducky antennae (which are linearly polarized). But you can use a whip antenna instead -- the conventional rubby-ducky kind. This rubber ducky only gives you 3 dBi: https://www.dpcav.com/xcart/1.2GHz-1.3GHz-Dipole-Antenna-Swivel-SMA.html This one claims 6 dBi: http://www.nghobbies.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=358#.VlCntmSrT5c On the ground, either use the same antenna (oriented in the same horizontal/vertical plane as the Tx) or use something like this: https://www.dpcav.com/xcart/1080MHz-1200MHz-Patch-Antenna-8dBi.html (build this into the lid of the ground station case). Remember the dBi scale is logarithmic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel#Antenna_measurements. And if you happen to have insomnia: http://www.antenna-theory.com/ I've switched to 5.8Ghz only because I'm typically flying VLOS and the image quality seems less noisy -- as well as the antennae are smaller as you and Steve have pointed out. Andy
I really need these restrictions removed as well. I have several projects / scenarios in a controlled environment where these restrictions won't work for the shots we need. There should be no restrictions on a pro aircraft.
This is insane... This means that i have to cancel a job filming a local ski resort because i cant film more then 400 feet up the mountain while remaining 100 feet over the ground because some rule that does not apply to Sweden?
Not the best example. As also a pilot, the C172 I fly does not restrict where, how high or how far I can fly it. Only its performance limits apply. It is entirely up to me, as pilot in command to stay out of prohibited airspace or obtain proper clearances in class Bravo for example. This should be no different. Please allow Section333 holders to disable height, distance restrictions.
Hi, Is there a solution for the "Height Max Ceiling restriction" In France we need 150 meter. Thank you
I think they put these restrictions in place to cover their butts in case someone decides to do something malicious with their products. Their primary customer base is USA operators which fall under FAA regulations. Are people in other countries not worried about hitting manned aircraft trying to fly thousands of feet off the ground?
That's like saying Ford can be sued if I take my Mustang Cobra out the highway and get caught speeding at 120 mph. The main issue here at hand is that many people purchased their Alta under the assumption that they can (like every other copter out there) go as high and as far as they need to without loosing AH or PH. There was no disclaimer or electronic document that communicated that change. Since no other copter has that disabled it would have been very important to have communicated that so customers knew what it can and can't do. Lastly, the Alta will go higher than 400 feet and farther 500 feet in distance, the issue at hand is that Height control and Position hold automatically disable as soon as you reach those parameters. This can be a safety issue which defeats the original intended purpose anyway. I don't think anyone wants to go "thousands" of feet high. I myself don't like the fact that the Alta can only go so far ahead before it loses position hold. Position hold can be extremely helpful especially if you do lose orientation awareness. I don't like the fact that I can't film Par 5 holes on a golf course knowing that I have to fly manually at very far distances. Losing PH would make it a dangerous situation. These type of situations are going to make pilots depend on FPV which is something the FAA does not want flyers to do.
Tabb, Could you please comment on the official FF position on this for professional users? It is very important.
It's not like we are some kind of savages flying thousands of feet up without consideration, that's for Phantom users. Countries other than US have aviation laws and drone laws too. Plus it's not like you can't fly further away with Alta - you can in manual mode. Which is a bit pointless, because if someone wants to they can break the US law too using the Alta, just in a less secure manner, that is in manual mode. We all know that when flying longer range LOS the Position and Altitude hold features are the safest options. FPV is different, but we are not allowed to fly FPV here in Poland yet. The main customer base argument is pointless too because it does't matter how many clients Freefly has in the US, it is still selling their stuff in Europe (and the rest of the World for that matter). Actually, Freefly is marketing here in Poland heavily, even sponsoring Poland-exclusive events and film festivals. Plus we have no access to stats on how many Alta units they have sold to US versus other countries. I can buy any other machine here (RTF or otherwise) and disable the range/height restrictions. Can't do that with Alta so I'm waiting for Freefly to fix this because I need to fly further than 500m and higher than 150m pretty often. And no, I am not breaking local aviation laws.
Hi everyone, There is a big internal discussion going on about these restrictions. I do not have an output yet, but we will drive to a conclusion soon. I will update you all after the holidays. Thanks for your patience. Tabb
For me, the biggest problem with the restrictions, especially the max distance, is when taking off from a moving object. The most dangerous scenario, is taking off from a big boat/ferry or similar. Imagine this: You get a job filming a big cruise ship. After leaving dock you lift up your Alta and start filming. Before takeoff your Alta set it`s home point. But after a couple of minutes (or less) in the air, the cruise ship has moved more than 500m from Alta`s home point and the Alta will stop moving towards you because it has reached its distance limit. If you`r aware of this problem and switch to manual right away you might get it back on the ship, but if you freak out for a bit the ship may have moved to far away from your "ship" to safely get it back. Byebye Alta!
Even interesting scenario. In jest, your cruise ships must be much more efficient at leaving the dock than the ones in the US. But in a loss of signal event, if you take off from the boat while it is moving then your home point is being left behind the ship regardless. And even with unlimited restrictions it will land where the boat was and now isn't...
Ah yes, the "Return to Where Home Was A While Back" feature. You don't need a cruise ship for that to be a problem, but the cruise ship scenario does make the Deep Six ending more certain. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deep_six With the ALTA you can reset to a new home position but it has to be within 20 meters of the ALTA's starting point. See ATLA manual page 70. Andy.
Hi Rory and everyone at FreeFly. I totally agree with anyone who needs more distance and hight. I work up in the Swiss Alps and getting to somewhat remote locations to get the shot is not possible this way. Oh and yes golf courses are a issue too. We have a new PGA rated golf course what is the longest one in Switzerland. 500m is just no distance even flying with my spotter. So especially in countries with less restriction to multicopters we should get this settled. Dear Freefly, please give us this option. Thanks
Did this get sorted out? I have a whole lot of work from boats coming up and this would be pretty restrictive.