H PLUS Autopilot on the H520 ?????

[arruntus]

I know that the H PLUS has just been released, but with the tests that were done on the H520 with the H PLUS autopilot, you know how the subject is?

We were resourceful in thinking that maybe we could put it in the H520 and get a lot of the missing features from the H520?

 

[Kev Waite]

I am told it won't work on the released version and won't recognise the E90 camera. But I know someone that has both, so will get him to try it.

 

[arruntus]

Waiting for news

 

[budwiser27]

I am told it won't work on the released version and won't recognise the E90 camera. But I know someone that has both, so will get him to try it.

following

 

[Tuna]

My understanding is that the autopilot runs on the drone, not in the controller, so you would need to update the h520 to run the H Plus firmware. If you did that, it would (probably) not work with the H520 DataPilot app, as the protocols are apparently different. You could downgrade all of your software (on the drone and ST-16) to the H-Plus version but then you'll loose the mission planner.

I've not yet got my hands on a H Plus to confirm any of this, but curved cable cam is not a feature of the PX4 flight controller software that the H520 runs.

 

[budwiser27]

My understanding is that the autopilot runs on the drone, not in the controller, so you would need to update the h520 to run the H Plus firmware. If you did that, it would (probably) not work with the H520 DataPilot app, as the protocols are apparently different. You could downgrade all of your software (on the drone and ST-16) to the H-Plus version but then you'll loose the mission planner.

I've not yet got my hands on a H Plus to confirm any of this, but curved cable cam is not a feature of the PX4 flight controller software that the H520 runs.

will you be developing the mission planner for the h plus?

 

[arruntus]

My understanding is that the autopilot runs on the drone, not in the controller, so you would need to update the h520 to run the H Plus firmware. If you did that, it would (probably) not work with the H520 DataPilot app, as the protocols are apparently different. You could downgrade all of your software (on the drone and ST-16) to the H-Plus version but then you'll loose the mission planner.

I've not yet got my hands on a H Plus to confirm any of this, but curved cable cam is not a feature of the PX4 flight controller software that the H520 runs.

Of course I would prefer that we do it all with DataPilot, but if while they are finishing it we can do it with the H PLUS version we will be welcome, even if it means we have to change the application.

This would be an important step forward given the low and slow progress of DataPilot.

 

[Tuna]

I believe that the H520/Datapilot software is developed by a completely different team from the H Plus/Whatever it's called software. There was no intention to make the two codebases compatible, and I'm not sure if there is much common code between the two machines.

Yuneec planned for there to be a clear difference between the commercial and consumer models.

will you be developing the mission planner for the h plus?

It depends entirely on how Yuneec handle the launch of the machine.

 

[Kev Waite]

I believe that the H520/Datapilot software is developed by a completely different team from the H Plus/Whatever it's called software. There was no intention to make the two codebases compatible, and I'm not sure if there is much common code between the two machines.

Yuneec planned for there to be a clear difference between the commercial and consumer models.



It depends entirely on how Yuneec handle the launch of the machine.

The 2 apps and firmware are developed by 2 different teams, but the 2 platforms share the same or very similar hardware. I am led to believe that some features that are being developed or are on the H+, such as mode change are being ported over from the h+ to the h520.

 

[claudius62]

Thank you Thon,
"Yuneec has predicted that there is a clear difference between business and consumer models"
rather not bad
Professional drone, more expensive with the least functions available.
Consumer Drone, all functions for half the price.
Does Yuneec take Pro users for cash cows or idiots?

 

[FasterPastor]

Thank you Thon,
"Yuneec planned for there to be a clear difference between the commercial and consumer models"
rather not bad
Professional drone, more expensive with the least functions available.
Consumer Drone, all functions for half the price.
Does Yuneec take the pros for cash cows or idiots?

You hit the nail on the head here, but if I remember correctly, it took quite a while to actually get the H520 out in the consumers hands, so it may be that these features were not as common when the H520 concept was developed, and it does seem like they have been slow to add the promised features, so it could be they intended to add these features, but the speed of development and deployment to the market, was just too slow and now this model is behind.

 

[arruntus]

You hit the nail on the head here, but if I remember correctly, it took quite a while to actually get the H520 out in the consumers hands, so it may be that these features were not as common when the H520 concept was developed, and it does seem like they have been slow to add the promised features, so it could be they intended to add these features, but the speed of development and deployment to the market, was just too slow and now this model is behind.

Everything I agree with you about, except one thing. All the functions of the Thypoon H or Thypoon H PLUS are functions that have been on the market for years, it's nothing new, you can change the name, change the color, camouflage it as you like but are functions that are common in many drones long ago. So..................................

 

[claudius62]

So .......................... it may be in the ***, Arruntus.

 

[arruntus]

It is clear that with the PX4 software they have a big, big problem. There's no other way to explain it. I imagine they thought they would solve it much faster than reality has shown. In 9 months of development, counting on what they had already done initially, I don't see that much has been developed. Or they are putting in so few resources that there is no way or the base is so bad that they cannot move forward. We are talking about the world's second largest drone manufacturer and the situation is laughable

 

[FasterPastor]

Everything I agree with you about, except one thing. All the functions of the Thypoon H or Thypoon H PLUS are functions that have been on the market for years, it's nothing new, you can change the name, change the color, camouflage it as you like but are functions that are common in many drones long ago. So..................................

It is hard for me to believe that someone would PLAN to develop a drone that did not have basic functionality, HEY lest make a drone that is behind the market, and see what happens. I like to believe they had a plan that was more comprehensive to take some market share, Guess I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, there was a lot of buzz around this before it came out, I was hoping to get one sooner, but I assumed it would be a more complete package.

 

[Stein]

As an old IT developer I recognize familiar issues. Re-use across applications are only economic if the same team is re-used as well. Knowledge is much more important than documentation for speed and quality. If they kicked off parallel processes for H520 and H Plus - at the same time with different teams - it is more normal than not that they will get obvious differences and a lot of cleaning up after. It is not un-professional but rather a market driven consequence to deliver at time. They should have established a common technical architecture prior to kicking this off - but as some have said the 2 have some re-use and some differences - possibly from chance more than planned.

 

[arruntus]

I agree with you @FasterPastor, I think the bottleneck is the PX4 firmware. Yuneec has made the mistake of selling the fur before hunting the bear. With all the criticism the H520 has garnered I don't think they're doing anything, but what's clear is that we as buyers, that's not our problem.

The reality is that the aircraft went on sale in September and it is mid-June and we still have an overwhelming lack of functionality. It is not 100% functional in any of the areas they announced it would be.

As a buyer, I'd rather not be saying it, but the reality is that it's like that and you can't deny it, even though de Yuneec tries to make up with half truths or lies directly.

Hopefully those computer guys in Switzerland, I seem to remember, will give the firmware a good head start and get it out soon so we can try new things out, or just not be afraid to fly with every new update

 

[FasterPastor]

As an old IT developer I recognize familiar issues. Re-use across applications are only economic if the same team is re-used as well. Knowledge is much more important than documentation for speed and quality. If they kicked off parallel processes for H520 and H Plus - at the same time with different teams - it is more normal than not that they will get obvious differences and a lot of cleaning up after. It is not un-professional but rather a market driven consequence to deliver at time. They should have established a common technical architecture prior to kicking this off - but as some have said the 2 have some re-use and some differences - possibly from chance more than planned.

This is the most plausible explanation I have heard that could explain how this ended up this way, thanks for your insight.

 

[Tuna]

Just to be clear, Yuneec did not see it as a requirement to make their consumer and commercial software compatible. They set out to use two different teams so as to be able to offer two different products - one 'industry standard' and compatible with apps like Pix4D, and one that offered what they perceive to be consumer features (curved cable cam etc.).

It's not an accident, and unless their business priorities change, they have no reason to encourage compatibility between the different platforms.

 

[arruntus]

Just to be clear, Yuneec did not see it as a requirement to make their consumer and commercial software compatible. They set out to use two different teams so as to be able to offer two different products - one 'industry standard' and compatible with apps like Pix4D, and one that offered what they perceive to be consumer features (curved cable cam etc.).

It's not an accident, and unless their business priorities change, they have no reason to encourage compatibility between the different platforms.

@Tuna i'm going to say this, don't take it personally, but looking at what I see, I think the statement you're making is not based on anything real, even though you may be right.

Just to be clear, no one knows what Yuneec is going to do, except the Chinese headquarters. It has been shown time and time again that the delegations that Yuneec has contradict each other all the time. Unless you work for Yuneec I don't know where you get this information because not even his own workers know where the company is going. But even working for Yuneec it has been shown that it is not known either. We are already bored with delegations saying that there is going to be an update and that is not the case. That they are going to add features and they are not, and a long etc..

That they have created 2 different working groups to develop the software can only say that for whatever reasons they can not advance in the version based on PX4. With the intention of bringing another drone to market they have developed the version of the Typoon H and have implemented it in the Typoon H PLUS. This is really a completely valid assumption.

I will not fall into the trap of starting to list "amateur" and "professional' functions. In order to carry out certain tasks, it is necessary to use advanced functions, which are not currently available on the H520, even the most basic ones.

I also disagree that it is not necessary to make the H PLUS firmware compatible with the H520, much less that it's not necessary, quite the contrary. . This would allow us to have functions in the H520 to be able to do those tasks that we should have been able to do 9 months ago. When it is developed, if it ever does, the PX4-based frimware, will not be required the H PLUS firmware. In the meantime, it is necessary, indeed, it would be indispensable.

I don't understand why anyone doesn't want the H520 to have as many functions as possible