ChrisRL
Member
Def not excited.
As a pro, the cost of such a platform is outrageous, for what it is. The A3 FC system is priced to what the market can bear, far more than a fair price. We're paying directly for their R&D, sure, but for all of it? Within a year or so they'll be out with the next one.
Weatherproof and EM proof systems are not as few and far between as they have been in the past, and redundant batteries are carried by pretty much every single pro heavy-lift drone in the sky.
The most telling and deadly strike against it in the professional world is - not enough props. No mechanical flight redundancy.
Sure, they spend over $1500 on the redundant FC system, a load more on the batteries, etc., and sure, we pay a lot more for all of that, fair enough. But if a motor or a prop or an ESC goes, as pros we're not only expected to keep flying, but also to have the craft remain stable enough for the shots to be taken. We're paid for the shots and/or the data, not just to keep flying. Safety first, then the shots second, and the drone itself last. i.e. in an emergency, verify the flight is still safe to continue, then complete the shot sequence, then land, and finally repair and/or replace, and get back up in the air. That's how it goes, for a pro.
One prop or rotor goes (and believe me, after 4-5 hours a day in the air, 5-6 days a week, it's a matter of when, not if), and your flavor-of-the-month quad will, in fact, fall out of the sky. There is a Swiss institute that claims an FC program that will allow a quad to keep flying on three motors, but I doubt that the gimbals, FLIRs and whatnot will still be 100% in that event, unlike, say a flat 8 or X8 octocopter, or even a hexacopter, which, to my flavor of pro flier, is already taking a chance.
So no, not excited.
If I had clients who specifically wanted one for a gig, I'd rent or lease one, or buy one then, for the gig, and sell it on after, if I could find a buyer.
I'm in it to make enough money to make my costs and make a living, not to work for DJI.
Sorry.
As a pro, the cost of such a platform is outrageous, for what it is. The A3 FC system is priced to what the market can bear, far more than a fair price. We're paying directly for their R&D, sure, but for all of it? Within a year or so they'll be out with the next one.
Weatherproof and EM proof systems are not as few and far between as they have been in the past, and redundant batteries are carried by pretty much every single pro heavy-lift drone in the sky.
The most telling and deadly strike against it in the professional world is - not enough props. No mechanical flight redundancy.
Sure, they spend over $1500 on the redundant FC system, a load more on the batteries, etc., and sure, we pay a lot more for all of that, fair enough. But if a motor or a prop or an ESC goes, as pros we're not only expected to keep flying, but also to have the craft remain stable enough for the shots to be taken. We're paid for the shots and/or the data, not just to keep flying. Safety first, then the shots second, and the drone itself last. i.e. in an emergency, verify the flight is still safe to continue, then complete the shot sequence, then land, and finally repair and/or replace, and get back up in the air. That's how it goes, for a pro.
One prop or rotor goes (and believe me, after 4-5 hours a day in the air, 5-6 days a week, it's a matter of when, not if), and your flavor-of-the-month quad will, in fact, fall out of the sky. There is a Swiss institute that claims an FC program that will allow a quad to keep flying on three motors, but I doubt that the gimbals, FLIRs and whatnot will still be 100% in that event, unlike, say a flat 8 or X8 octocopter, or even a hexacopter, which, to my flavor of pro flier, is already taking a chance.
So no, not excited.
If I had clients who specifically wanted one for a gig, I'd rent or lease one, or buy one then, for the gig, and sell it on after, if I could find a buyer.
I'm in it to make enough money to make my costs and make a living, not to work for DJI.
Sorry.
John Doecliff
Member
Fair enough, especially about the quad vs hexa or octo. I think they are specifically targeting the industrial user with this one. I work for a pretty large industrial company and they wouldn't blink at the cost of a matrice 200. And as far as a service company that supports large industrial companies like mine the market will decide if its good or if there is something better out there. From what we pay contractors the system would be paid for on the first job. When you have a dime holding up a dollar they dont have a problem throwing money and bodies at the bottleneck until its gone. That's the beauty of capitalism the consumer decides. If it sucks then it will not sell and another will take its place.
ChrisRL
Member
No, you're quite right. In the corporate mentality, this would be the disposable solution to a bottleneck. A company has money to burn, pilots are cheap to hire, and DJI has done its market research well.
For service though, the larger Matrices or anything heavy lift with the cameras and gimbals, the A3 Pro controller and the Lightbridge 2 / fpv technology that the Matrice 200 represents will do the job just as well as the M200, but with more rotors. And redundancy is, as I've said, life for a service company.
However, take a quick look at the company that DJI is trying to emulate, Apple. They just launched, with a whimper, the latest iPad and when the sales are but a former shadow of past times, the word goes out "tablets are so yesterday", it must be, right?
Well, in this case not. It's just that most people who needed iPads already bought one, the ones they already have from the last Apple ad campaigns and much-heralded releases still work decently well enough, and do the job.
So oops, Apple, you built your iPads too well, they're still there, and you just became your own biggest competition. So now there's only two ways to go with the iPad - wait for something truly spectacular to break in terms of iPad technology, or make a $99 iPad that lasts as long as you want to go between release versions, or your warranty period, whichever is shorter.
Thus it will be with DJI before too long. There's only so many of us fliers out there, and with more and more beginners doing things like crashing into buildings, restrictions will just mean that less and less legal flights will occur as time goes by. That's the same as the flying car fallacy - everybody has wanted one forever, but of course they want to sue the car company if they crash it and kill themselves. Oh, and of course they don't want to take flying lessons. It's a car, after all, right? Not an airplane.
Right....
For service though, the larger Matrices or anything heavy lift with the cameras and gimbals, the A3 Pro controller and the Lightbridge 2 / fpv technology that the Matrice 200 represents will do the job just as well as the M200, but with more rotors. And redundancy is, as I've said, life for a service company.
However, take a quick look at the company that DJI is trying to emulate, Apple. They just launched, with a whimper, the latest iPad and when the sales are but a former shadow of past times, the word goes out "tablets are so yesterday", it must be, right?
Well, in this case not. It's just that most people who needed iPads already bought one, the ones they already have from the last Apple ad campaigns and much-heralded releases still work decently well enough, and do the job.
So oops, Apple, you built your iPads too well, they're still there, and you just became your own biggest competition. So now there's only two ways to go with the iPad - wait for something truly spectacular to break in terms of iPad technology, or make a $99 iPad that lasts as long as you want to go between release versions, or your warranty period, whichever is shorter.
Thus it will be with DJI before too long. There's only so many of us fliers out there, and with more and more beginners doing things like crashing into buildings, restrictions will just mean that less and less legal flights will occur as time goes by. That's the same as the flying car fallacy - everybody has wanted one forever, but of course they want to sue the car company if they crash it and kill themselves. Oh, and of course they don't want to take flying lessons. It's a car, after all, right? Not an airplane.
Right....
Last edited:
John Doecliff
Member
Yes, go pro is suffering that exact fate right now. Except the cheap and almost as good Chinese knock off is what everybody buys now instead of a go pro. I would love to see a serious challenger to DJI. I think DJI wouldnt even mind the competition. Freely is somewhat specific to the movie industry. Yuneec didn't make it. There are others out there as well. The video camera on a drone is a mature technology anymore and now it's about what kind of sensor you put on the drone and what you do with the data. Industrial inspections and agriculture are to areas that need attention. I think surveillance as well. There are a lot of other players out there but none of them are common household names like Apple or DJI. I supose That probably doesn't matter when it comes to the industrial market so much. You could make an argument that DJI hasn't really found their niche yet. Are they just making consumer video drones? Industrial? Agricultural? They are kind of all over the map. Their one true success would be the Phantom line and inspire which are just plain old camera drones.
John Doecliff
Member
Interesting times indeed. Looking forward to see where DJI is in say 10 years and who the next new kid on the block will be.
Shaun Stanton
Member
I think its interesting to see these companies finally graduating to industry specific platforms. When I got into this there was none of that. Hell these were barely ready for prime time and cost almost as much as this. I probably had close to 10,000 in the first gen Freefly Cinestar 8 platform, way more if you consider the amount of man hours required to upkeep that beast. That thing can't hold water to anything on the market now. I mean you can get a way better end product out of the Phantoms than I could ever dream of the CS8 until I modded it to a DJI FC and beefier Tiger motors.
The way I see DJI doing it, is they are diversifying their product line, which is smart. An Inspire 1 was sort of a jack of all trades platform for them in that it could do both cinema and industrial stuff. However, the I1 lacks in the flying precision of the Mavic, P4Pro or anything carrying their 3rd gen FC's like the N3/A3. Of course the I1 is based off of a 4 year old FC of the Naza 2. So now they solved that with the Inspire 2, which is clearly marketed for film professionals with on board prores and DNG processing. But the Inspire 2 would be overkill to industrial uses. The industrial user does not need the DNG/Prores with some very rare exceptions where a model can be done with DNG video files. So they obviously needed an industrial equivalent for those doing mapping and Inspections. I am interested in why they chose to not use a retractable landing gear. But then after doing some mapping stuff the ability to move the gimbal is not that necessary. My guess is the price is as mentioned for the pro client who putting 15k for a 210RTK is a drop in the bucket. Also this is not going to be a high volume item for them compared to sub $2000 frames like P4Pros and Mavics. Its probably safe to say DJI makes more money in volume for Phantoms and Mavics, as well as their ground gear like Ronins and Osmos.
It will be interesting to see what the future is. Camera technology will always evolve as TV's will become 8K and will need the cameras to produce that kind of footage. I would not doubt in 10 years RAW DNG 4K will be on consumer level cameras and whatever the consumer drone is like the Phantom will have that ability.
The way I see DJI doing it, is they are diversifying their product line, which is smart. An Inspire 1 was sort of a jack of all trades platform for them in that it could do both cinema and industrial stuff. However, the I1 lacks in the flying precision of the Mavic, P4Pro or anything carrying their 3rd gen FC's like the N3/A3. Of course the I1 is based off of a 4 year old FC of the Naza 2. So now they solved that with the Inspire 2, which is clearly marketed for film professionals with on board prores and DNG processing. But the Inspire 2 would be overkill to industrial uses. The industrial user does not need the DNG/Prores with some very rare exceptions where a model can be done with DNG video files. So they obviously needed an industrial equivalent for those doing mapping and Inspections. I am interested in why they chose to not use a retractable landing gear. But then after doing some mapping stuff the ability to move the gimbal is not that necessary. My guess is the price is as mentioned for the pro client who putting 15k for a 210RTK is a drop in the bucket. Also this is not going to be a high volume item for them compared to sub $2000 frames like P4Pros and Mavics. Its probably safe to say DJI makes more money in volume for Phantoms and Mavics, as well as their ground gear like Ronins and Osmos.
It will be interesting to see what the future is. Camera technology will always evolve as TV's will become 8K and will need the cameras to produce that kind of footage. I would not doubt in 10 years RAW DNG 4K will be on consumer level cameras and whatever the consumer drone is like the Phantom will have that ability.
ChrisRL
Member
Totally agree, Shaun.
My Cinestars are X8 and Y8 at the moment, one carrying an A2-going-to-A3 asap, and the other still on WKM, never did get along with the MK FCs, basically started putting WKMs and Naza v2's into everything I flew, just to get some kind of consistency going across the flight line, and have been upgrading since then.
You're right, even the 2nd gen DJI FCs def leave something to be desired, not to mention non-DJI Chinese systems (Jiyi etc). I've been overhauling several other small drones to see if I can shoehorn an N3 system into them, since that's my small FC of choice these days.
Having interchangeable camera mounts, etc., sure is a bonus, and of course the way would be open to get the same kinds of mounts onto DJI platforms as well, eventually.
I'm pretty comfortable with my I1's, but yes, they're a generation behind those in my P4Ps and Mavics.
And of course the N3/A3s for the bigger rigs.
I think the future will probably see the consumer versions of these 3rd gen FCs come down in price some, with the VTX hardware (HD/Lightbridge style) FPV systems following suit.
After that... who knows?
My Cinestars are X8 and Y8 at the moment, one carrying an A2-going-to-A3 asap, and the other still on WKM, never did get along with the MK FCs, basically started putting WKMs and Naza v2's into everything I flew, just to get some kind of consistency going across the flight line, and have been upgrading since then.
You're right, even the 2nd gen DJI FCs def leave something to be desired, not to mention non-DJI Chinese systems (Jiyi etc). I've been overhauling several other small drones to see if I can shoehorn an N3 system into them, since that's my small FC of choice these days.
Having interchangeable camera mounts, etc., sure is a bonus, and of course the way would be open to get the same kinds of mounts onto DJI platforms as well, eventually.
I'm pretty comfortable with my I1's, but yes, they're a generation behind those in my P4Ps and Mavics.
And of course the N3/A3s for the bigger rigs.
I think the future will probably see the consumer versions of these 3rd gen FCs come down in price some, with the VTX hardware (HD/Lightbridge style) FPV systems following suit.
After that... who knows?
Last edited:
Shaun Stanton
Member
I been trying to figure out what to do with my one remaining CS8. I flew it a while back after sitting on a shelf for months. I forgot even with the Wookong it actually flies pretty smooth. I can actually fly it smoother for slow shots than the Inspire. I almost don't want to give it up as I have a lot of time on that machine. At the same time I don't want to pour any more money into it that can go to other resources like extra batteries and SSD's for my other rigs. It seems like doing this buying **** becomes a runaway freight train. I am thinking of making it a mapping drone maybe down the road. It still might have some use into it. I think if added a Zenmuse A7 gimbal on it with LB2 it can do some high fidelity mapping. I have pretty much retired it as a cinema rig. I suppose I will rename it a Mapstar X8, LOL.
ChrisRL
Member
Shaun!
Keep flyin' it!
Psst... as if you didn't know, the N3 now runs 8 rotors and it's GLONASS and third generation and most cool! Have two in my Cinestars and they really work well. Plus the Lightbridge etc., of course, but to have a Cinestar hold like a Mavic is pretty darned cool, IMO I tried the A2 and meh, not that much of an improvement over the WKM, and of course the A3/Lightbridge 2 system is so expensive as not really to be worth it unless there's operations near power lines etc., required.
Yes, bigger bird = more momentum = smoother ride. Remember how Wim Wenders et al kept on piling sandbags onto their camera dollies, just to get those very slow, ponderous, incredible track shots? I fly mostly Inspire these days as well, 'cause that's what the client knows and pays for, frankly, but for my own stuff I'm building out my GH4/5 rig with an anamorphic lens kit - and I'm telling ya, in conjunction with my X8 and mantis arms, when I post a few of those test shots, you'll grin from ear to ear.
Kinda like the geometric opposite of my favorite mental image of a Mavic in high wind: "Oh yes, I'm the very latest tech - and yes, I have big props, and yes, I'm this tiny dinghy, floating like a tiny cork in an ocean, but see? I'm paddling mightly away - for as long as my very intelligent battery lasts, at least, oh, and look! I have GLONASS too! byeee......."
Keep flyin' it!
Psst... as if you didn't know, the N3 now runs 8 rotors and it's GLONASS and third generation and most cool! Have two in my Cinestars and they really work well. Plus the Lightbridge etc., of course, but to have a Cinestar hold like a Mavic is pretty darned cool, IMO
I tried the A2 and meh, not that much of an improvement over the WKM, and of course the A3/Lightbridge 2 system is so expensive as not really to be worth it unless there's operations near power lines etc., required. Yes, bigger bird = more momentum = smoother ride. Remember how Wim Wenders et al kept on piling sandbags onto their camera dollies, just to get those very slow, ponderous, incredible track shots? I fly mostly Inspire these days as well, 'cause that's what the client knows and pays for, frankly, but for my own stuff I'm building out my GH4/5 rig with an anamorphic lens kit - and I'm telling ya, in conjunction with my X8 and mantis arms, when I post a few of those test shots, you'll grin from ear to ear.
Kinda like the geometric opposite of my favorite mental image of a Mavic in high wind: "Oh yes, I'm the very latest tech - and yes, I have big props, and yes, I'm this tiny dinghy, floating like a tiny cork in an ocean, but see? I'm paddling mightly away - for as long as my very intelligent battery lasts, at least, oh, and look! I have GLONASS too! byeee......."
Shaun Stanton
Member
I have been considering the N3 for it. I know at least my motor and pro combo will work on this rig as I have a friend who has it on another branded X8 with the same the same Tiger 4014's and XOAR beech woods. Another guy tried KDE motors and CF props and he couldn't seem to tune N3 when it previously flew on the Naza 2.
I agree I did not like the A2 that much, I actually did not see it as much of an improvement at all especially on the X8 config. In fact it was more quirky than the Wookong. I ended up putting the WKM back on. Yeah I would love to see this thing with an N3 and just stay parked in the sky and not move an inch and actually track straight. I imagine the N3 flies like a dream. I have the A3 on the M600 its pretty solid.
What Anamorphics are you using?
Here is a funny thing, is I sold that A2 to guy who got my first Flat 8. So here's what this idiot did. He turned the Flat 8 into an X8 but left the QC 3328 motors from quadrocopter. He converted it to a 6S, when I say converted he just plugged in a 6S battery to the 6S rated ESC's. He did add 16 inch props on it. He was convinced by this idiot kid who thinks he's the best droner in the state that it could carry an Alexa Mini on a full Ronin. This kid somehow got a DP gig on some low budget thing and decided to do the aerial. Well you can imagine the conclusion of that. They apparently took off and at 100 feet while placing the aircraft at one. It came straight down. Somehow the camera body survived which is a testament to Arri cameras. The very rare Cooke they flew was destroyed which I think was assessed at over 50 grand. Oddly enough the production let this DP Idiot kid fly an Inspire Pro to get the shots that they could not do with the wrecked ball of carbon fiber which used to be a Cinestar. The older guy was supposedly a veteran RC guy since the 80's and ran a small RC shop. He touted himself as the most experienced RC builder in our area. The contacted me and started to act it was partially my fault that the rig failed. I told them they would be laughed out of court if they tried to come after me, because I specifically had him sign a notarized statement that I would not responsible for any failures of the rig. That they are solely responsible for any modifications to it beyond factory specs of it being a flat 8 and using Mikrokopter. While I am laughing at them, I told them they would be creating an official record and would be incriminating themselves for flying on a closed motion picture set over crew and talent without a 333 and appropriate airman certs or with a 107 RPIC and the required waivers, I did not hear from those buffoons after that.
I agree I did not like the A2 that much, I actually did not see it as much of an improvement at all especially on the X8 config. In fact it was more quirky than the Wookong. I ended up putting the WKM back on. Yeah I would love to see this thing with an N3 and just stay parked in the sky and not move an inch and actually track straight. I imagine the N3 flies like a dream. I have the A3 on the M600 its pretty solid.
What Anamorphics are you using?
Here is a funny thing, is I sold that A2 to guy who got my first Flat 8. So here's what this idiot did. He turned the Flat 8 into an X8 but left the QC 3328 motors from quadrocopter. He converted it to a 6S, when I say converted he just plugged in a 6S battery to the 6S rated ESC's. He did add 16 inch props on it. He was convinced by this idiot kid who thinks he's the best droner in the state that it could carry an Alexa Mini on a full Ronin. This kid somehow got a DP gig on some low budget thing and decided to do the aerial. Well you can imagine the conclusion of that. They apparently took off and at 100 feet while placing the aircraft at one. It came straight down. Somehow the camera body survived which is a testament to Arri cameras. The very rare Cooke they flew was destroyed which I think was assessed at over 50 grand. Oddly enough the production let this DP Idiot kid fly an Inspire Pro to get the shots that they could not do with the wrecked ball of carbon fiber which used to be a Cinestar. The older guy was supposedly a veteran RC guy since the 80's and ran a small RC shop. He touted himself as the most experienced RC builder in our area. The contacted me and started to act it was partially my fault that the rig failed. I told them they would be laughed out of court if they tried to come after me, because I specifically had him sign a notarized statement that I would not responsible for any failures of the rig. That they are solely responsible for any modifications to it beyond factory specs of it being a flat 8 and using Mikrokopter. While I am laughing at them, I told them they would be creating an official record and would be incriminating themselves for flying on a closed motion picture set over crew and talent without a 333 and appropriate airman certs or with a 107 RPIC and the required waivers,
I did not hear from those buffoons after that.