T600-D FCC####1410 vs, T601 FCC####1510
- Thread starter Air Miles
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,825
- Reaction score
- 5,701
Please do NOT bump threads, it is strictly against our forum rules.
Thank you.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,825
- Reaction score
- 5,701
No - bump means you refresh the thread to make it 'live' again for no other purpose other than to bring it to members attention.
Hey, just write something and don't write 'bump'. Or maybe the word 'bump' is prohibited. Just curious, what is so wrong with 'bumping'. Is it the extra post 'database resources', or maybe it should prohibit responding to a 'bump'.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,825
- Reaction score
- 5,701
Many forums including this one frown on using 'Bump' to keep a thread alive - if people want to view it they can, if they want to respond they can but posting 'Bump' just to get the thread in peoples faces and to get a response because it has gone unanswered for a while is disliked by many which is why it was written into our rules.
If anyone has ever been through a radio interface certification process with FCC and other entities, you will know a few things:
1. It is rigorous.
2. It is convoluted.
3. It is complicated.
With the advent of SDR (software defined radio) and software configured power amplifiers, etc. there is a lot that can be done without physical changes to the hardware. When DJI submits something to the FCC, it will be with the configuration that is intended for production. That does not mean that DJI can't make changes to the configuration after the fact. If they do make material software changes, they should subject that same hardware to the certification process using the new configuration.
The majority of testing done with the FCC is to make sure radio equipment works within the legal limits and in the spectrum that it is designated to use. It tests for noise in power amplifiers to make sure they don't leak into adjacent spectrum or excessively overpower other systems and devices within the same spectrum. It is really to make sure it plays nicely with other wireless equipment. It is NOT to test the range of a drone. They don't do that.
I think Ed's message from DJI is not only plausible, it actually makes sense. I would suggest that those determined to suggest this is a material change in performance should make an effort to do structured testing with the different equipment and share the results in such a way that is not open for interpretation.
So far, I have seen one report from an unknown user saying "flew both, the new one is much better" (paraphrased). That is useless information.
1. It is rigorous.
2. It is convoluted.
3. It is complicated.
With the advent of SDR (software defined radio) and software configured power amplifiers, etc. there is a lot that can be done without physical changes to the hardware. When DJI submits something to the FCC, it will be with the configuration that is intended for production. That does not mean that DJI can't make changes to the configuration after the fact. If they do make material software changes, they should subject that same hardware to the certification process using the new configuration.
The majority of testing done with the FCC is to make sure radio equipment works within the legal limits and in the spectrum that it is designated to use. It tests for noise in power amplifiers to make sure they don't leak into adjacent spectrum or excessively overpower other systems and devices within the same spectrum. It is really to make sure it plays nicely with other wireless equipment. It is NOT to test the range of a drone. They don't do that.
I think Ed's message from DJI is not only plausible, it actually makes sense. I would suggest that those determined to suggest this is a material change in performance should make an effort to do structured testing with the different equipment and share the results in such a way that is not open for interpretation.
So far, I have seen one report from an unknown user saying "flew both, the new one is much better" (paraphrased). That is useless information.
I could not care less about perceived differences of power attenuation and distance comparisons between bit peepers and radio control nerds.
I want:
1) To see details on the product I just purchased and have in my possession (Pro T601) from the DJI website. To date, and according to DJI staff, the product I have in my possession does not exist. Of course, it does, since I bought it.
2) Clarification on what "is to be fixed" in FW 1.7 that DJI Europe is referring to. Is my T601 about to be restricted in power output so that DJI can make what they are telling customers "true" (both T600 and T601 output the same power)? Are T600's going to be boosted (which would represent a "material change" that needs FCC re-submission and approval)?
3) A full and truthful statement from DJI about how this "confusion" (to err on the side of a charitable explanation) happened and how we will know it won't happen again. That and an apology would go a long way in helping close this issue once and for all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,825
- Reaction score
- 5,701
The other thing that everybody has chosen to completely ignore is the fact that all this equipment was supplied by DJI to the FCC testing facility pre configured in Engineering Mode. (This is highlighted on every report). The end user has no access to this mode and never will have.
Since all the equipment is tested for its conformity to FCC standards and to ensure it does not breach those standards it is probably a fair assumption to assume that engineering mode pegs the final output stage along with any pre-amps to maximum. This would drive the system to its maximum and ensure the limits of EIRP, harmonic rf interference (both fundamental and second and third harmonic) are not causing a level of radiated power that would be deemed 'interference' to other equipment.
****, this thread just won't die.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 378
The other thing that everybody has chosen to completely ignore is the fact that all this equipment was supplied by DJI to the FCC testing facility pre configured in Engineering Mode. (This is highlighted on every report). The end user has no access to this mode and never will have.
Since all the equipment is tested for its conformity to FCC standards and to ensure it does not breach those standards it is probably a fair assumption to assume that engineering mode pegs the final output stage along with any pre-amps to maximum. This would drive the system to its maximum and ensure the limits of EIRP, harmonic rf interference (both fundamental and second and third harmonic) are not causing a level of radiated power that would be deemed 'interference' to other equipment.
****, this thread just won't die.
Not everyone [emoji6]
**** Iv posted again [emoji16]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apologies, I've removed that segment of the post
Those answers all would be good now. It appears it's a lot to ask for from DJI.
For your point 2) The Support ticket was DJI Europe, they operate under different legislation than DJI USA. I'm guessing the firmware, which also is responsible for geo-tagging is able to know your location and sets the restrictions based on that. Or at least I hope so for your sake as it wouldn't be fair restricting everyone cause of European standards.
A full statement from DJI to clear the air would be great!
DJI support is an impressive source of misinformation. It's not some clever conspiracy though. It's ineptitude.
having the t600 and the B variant remote. but I added the long range antennas. maybe it's just me, but I don't see what's to get worked up about. thou mine is a x3 and I plan to get only the x5r. after investing in blackmagic ursa and a couple of prime cine lenses, I figured that RAW is probably only my workflow. hopefully it's a 3:1 or 4:1 DNG or even ProRes HQ, 422 and 444.
woops back to topic. I added long range antennas is because I fly a lot in urban areas with the GPS unplugged and using 1.0.7 apk.
I have come to realized that even long range antenna is not a solution with the RF congestion. the only way is to use channel 21-32.
so moral of the story. just use 1.0.7 and get out there and fly. that 1000mw isn't going to mean you are going shoot or fly better. that said, I do hope that the x5r has all of these solved.
I am not sure if I want to still get the x5r. it seems like a compact solution for 4k. but having dealt with ursa mini 4.6k and it's RAW files along with BMPC and RAW, I think a freefly alta might be a better solution for me along with the fact that my camera of choice is a global shutter and not a rolling shutter.
don't freak out too much about it. all my best angles so far are one of those truth or dare moments. flying at 19-21m/s at 2-3ft above ground and water. it was never about range or height.
best angles are when you are on the edge of losing the bird. eg, flying less than 2ft across the roof. so get out there and shoot. if it's range you are worried. just use 1.0.7 and use 21-32 channels.
woops back to topic. I added long range antennas is because I fly a lot in urban areas with the GPS unplugged and using 1.0.7 apk.
I have come to realized that even long range antenna is not a solution with the RF congestion. the only way is to use channel 21-32.
so moral of the story. just use 1.0.7 and get out there and fly. that 1000mw isn't going to mean you are going shoot or fly better. that said, I do hope that the x5r has all of these solved.
I am not sure if I want to still get the x5r. it seems like a compact solution for 4k. but having dealt with ursa mini 4.6k and it's RAW files along with BMPC and RAW, I think a freefly alta might be a better solution for me along with the fact that my camera of choice is a global shutter and not a rolling shutter.
don't freak out too much about it. all my best angles so far are one of those truth or dare moments. flying at 19-21m/s at 2-3ft above ground and water. it was never about range or height.
best angles are when you are on the edge of losing the bird. eg, flying less than 2ft across the roof. so get out there and shoot. if it's range you are worried. just use 1.0.7 and use 21-32 channels.
I have future plans on getting the new remote so a second operator can use the camera in free mode while I am flying and at potential distances that my current remote cannot attain. Yes, camera control may be lost because of less remote power.
Should both remotes be using the same software version or would differences cause issues?
I am very cautious in upgrading my perfectly working bird to anything new due to DJI's quality control in their software upgrades.
Cheers,
Birty.
Should both remotes be using the same software version or would differences cause issues?
I am very cautious in upgrading my perfectly working bird to anything new due to DJI's quality control in their software upgrades.
Cheers,
Birty.
Santa Claus has replied to my letter! Maybe he IS actually real ! Read my post here
:Inspire 1 T600 vs T601 SOLVED - EUROPE CHILL OUT PLEASE
DJI have replied to us about the T600 and T601 issue!
Wow...finally solved after all this discussion. Hallelujah!
The early pro's are really T-601's and software restricted in output power until they got the T-601 approved. Which means all the early T-600's sold as pros are T-601's labeled as T-600 that now output the T-601 approved power because they were really T-601's to begin with. That makes a lot of sense now. Glad they cleared that up.
The early pro's are really T-601's and software restricted in output power until they got the T-601 approved. Which means all the early T-600's sold as pros are T-601's labeled as T-600 that now output the T-601 approved power because they were really T-601's to begin with. That makes a lot of sense now. Glad they cleared that up.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
