I strongly agree with both of these recommendations.
I fly mostly in hilly and densely forested areas where average tree heights greatly exceed 20 meters. In most cases a 20-meter return to home flight would be more risky than simply landing in place, which of course, unless flying over an open field, generally would result in a crash.
The RTH altitude should be adjustable up to at least the 122-meter height that is generally the legal limit in the U.S. However, that 122-meter limit is height-above-ground, not height above a takeoff site. If someone takes-off in a valley and flies up a steep hill, their drone can be much higher than 122-meters above the takeoff site, but less than 122-meters above ground, and legal. Furthermore, licensed pilots in the U.S. can legally fly up to 122-meters above towers, bridges and buildings, which in some cases can themselves be hundreds of meters higher than a takeoff site. If the RTH height isn't made adjustable to accommodate common circumstances like these the Anafi will not be usable by a large segment of potential users.
It also is very important to add EXIF info to DNG\RAW files. Autel's failure to provide that in their X-Star greatly limited practical usability for commercial photography. Why exclude a significant segment of potential users by failing to provide something that could be added easily with the mere investment of a couple hours of software development?
