I think it's very proactive.. We don't need people flying that close to airports.
True, but I wonder what the cost is. In real time the controller is taking in IMU and GPS/Compass data and making a bunch of decisions. One issue that potentially illustrates the limitations on that process is the introduction of vibration at the IMU. Why would that be a problem? One hypothesis is that the controller can't keep up with the flood of changing IMU position status. That may or may not be the case, but let's consider the possibility that the real-time computing power of the controller is taxed with current tasks. This is a potentially more significant concern for firmware updates to existing products (e.g., NAZA / WKM / A2).
Now consider the impact of adding a new task -- periodically checking GPS position and comparing it to a database of restricted areas, setting limitations in those areas, and forcing flight behavior (e.g., landing or ceiling restrictions) as needed. How do I, as I user, benefit? The answer is, assuming I'm not stupid enough to fly in these areas in the first place, that I don't benefit at all. And, I operate under the knowledge that my flight controller is spending time checking conditions that I know don't apply. We add complexity, a (presumably) evolving and growing database to hold in firmware, and the potential for bugs/errors in the process.
So, while I get the risk-reduction / proactive approach to potential issue down the road, as a user I see nothing but negatives. More than anything I want stable attitude and flight (GPS hold is nice, but I could do without it for my photo/video interests). I generally like DJI products, and particularly the Zens, which require a DJI flight controller to function. So this isn't DJI bashing -- in fact I usually am irritated by the knee-jerk anti-DJI stuff we often hear. But in this case, I can't say I'm pleased. At best, I won't notice any changes that are inserted into future firmware. I hope that this is the case.
