Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

H Plus vs H520 ponder

Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
637
Likes
198
Age
60
Location
MidWest - Iowa
#1
With the H Plus now out & easily obtainable.... most all the listing I see $1900 with C23.
This is essentially the same hardware & camera of the H520 E90 with a considerable higher price mark of $3300.

Firmware, sensors, and new features on H Plus and H520 more industry focused firmware and with minimal upgrades. The H Plus software is more focused to photography vs H520 grid & map.
Although with Tuna's app, wouldn't it still be a serviceable grid/map platform as the H520.

If the H Plus platform is physically a H520 (is it a new platform mold?), similar performance specs why is the H Plus so much less in cost than the H520. Is the H520 worth an additional $1400, and if so what justifies the bump in price on a older AC that hasn't gained a strong following.

I kinda expected the H520 to take a major drop in price, but it hasn't happened yet.
The H Plus looks like a great AC, but I was kinda waiting to see where the pre-owned H520's settled into as several may be planing a move to the H Plus.

Read a lot on the comparison of the H480 vs H Plus but platform comparison would be more H520 vs H Plus.
 
Likes: thoneter
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
3
Likes
0
Age
77
#2
The Typhoon H Plus has different internals, and uses different firmware. It's may look the same as the H520 but it's a completely different bird.
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
7,947
Likes
3,542
Location
N. California
#3
Although similar in appearance, the 520 was developed, and priced, to target a specific customer group. That it still fails to function as well as it should appears lost on some people.

In general hardware the H Plus is the same machine but flashed with a different code to prevent cross pollinating with the higher spending 520 customer base. For general use the H Plus is more versatile, and should firmware improvements materialize it will become even more so. Should Tuna develop a program similar to UAV Toolbox for the H Plus it would make the 520 an expensive paper weight.

Imagine your 920 with a more expansive flight and camera control and interface. That’s what the H Plus essentially is but currently without the ability to build flight plans prior to take off.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
637
Likes
198
Age
60
Location
MidWest - Iowa
#4
Although similar in appearance, the 520 was developed, and priced, to target a specific customer group. That it still fails to function as well as it should appears lost on some people.

In general hardware the H Plus is the same machine but flashed with a different code to prevent cross pollinating with the higher spending 520 customer base. For general use the H Plus is more versatile, and should firmware improvements materialize it will become even more so. Should Tuna develop a program similar to UAV Toolbox for the H Plus it would make the 520 an expensive paper weight.

Imagine your 920 with a more expansive flight and camera control and interface. That’s what the H Plus essentially is but currently without the ability to build flight plans prior to take off.
:) I would agree... same basic hardware with different FW.
I'd also add... I still think if they offered a full new guts in/out interface upgrade for the 920, added heavy gimbal options; Yuneec would have a killer mid-large 25lb payload platform able to carry Red or any mainstay camera system. But alas, we all know that won't happen... Yuneec really needs a platform in the mid-large industry. That was the original intentions with the H920, and on another tangent, the original intentions of the H520 fell short too.

If Tuna adds the H Plus to his UAVToolbox, that's where I pondering, kind of replaces the H520. The next subject would be if anyone would add functionality to the H520 to resurrect it.
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
7,947
Likes
3,542
Location
N. California
#5
I agree 1000% with your 920 assessment and will add they would start to become competitive with DJI if they did so. But they are either not smart enough to recognize that or too under funded and under staffed to execute. It’s almost like the CEO is saying they made a bad decision and they’re sticking to it, regardless of the long term consequences.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the prices of 520 packages are dropping, as are some H accessories. I’ve received several e-mails from Yuneec this week trying to elicit 520 sales along with similar notes from big box vendors. The 520 is coming up on its birthday soon but I don’t see the price reductions as a celebration.
 
Likes: Docdor
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
637
Likes
198
Age
60
Location
MidWest - Iowa
#6
To add to this scheme to produce the H920Max! If this was a DIY Kit Upgrade in the range of $2000 it would probably be a sought after kit and you'd see the sales of H920's climb!

Not to disturb the thought with a "Mix" Gene pool... but I've pondered a wrecked or retired S900, S1000 or M600 transfer. The works, including the A2 and Lightbridge 3. The M600 various gimbal mount frame(s) would resolve any issues mounting up various gimbals & cameras. Could even swap the carbon arms for longer arms to use the M600's 21" props. Visually, it'd be a Beast!

I've been watching the H520's. I'm mainly interested in the Grid, Map, Tower Inspection type of tasks. But even with a "used" H520 it's more than a new H Plus, the Orange isn't worth that much.
 
Likes: Luftdrone.dk
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
723
Likes
239
#7
No insult intended to anyone in this branch/post. It's nice to ponder all of these issues but it always seems to me that all of the Chinese manufacturers couldn't care less about common sense or our concerns. The 920 and 520 were dismal on sales and resolutions to the issues that cause the poor sales.

The 480(H) was a success and from my perspective a well rounded drone that ended up with decent firmware/features. I agree the hardware for the 920 is still competitive but as always the focus is selling the next better thing which sometimes is the better thing and sometimes is worse.

Someone brighter than me needs to marry a better internal system with the 920 that allows for a gimbal that works with the latest cameras like the new Sony's. Not worded the best but hopefully you get my gist!
 
Likes: Docdor
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
637
Likes
198
Age
60
Location
MidWest - Iowa
#8
No insult intended to anyone in this branch/post. It's nice to ponder all of these issues but it always seems to me that all of the Chinese manufacturers couldn't care less about common sense or our concerns. The 920 and 520 were dismal on sales and resolutions to the issues that cause the poor sales.

The 480(H) was a success and from my perspective a well rounded drone that ended up with decent firmware/features. I agree the hardware for the 920 is still competitive but as always the focus is selling the next better thing which sometimes is the better thing and sometimes is worse.

Someone brighter than me needs to marry a better internal system with the 920 that allows for a gimbal that works with the latest cameras like the new Sony's. Not worded the best but hopefully you get my gist!
You're in a common crowd, all share the same opinions... the comment above on using S900, S1000 or even M600 components is on track with your statement. Any of these would be workable, and based on their FW would accept a Ronin MX Gimbal that accepts basically any sm-med cinema and most all DSLR's. The Lightbridge module would stream the video and RC signal, the A2 components would interface with the Motors, ESC, and all electronics of the M600 or S900's.

Realistically, That would be pricey, and basically other than just wanting to put a "Chevy" into a "Ford" mentality, wouldn't accomplish much since the Donor Birds are well suited to the task too!

But in Yuneec's flavor, this is the type of upgrade the H920 needs, total In/Out hardware upgrade for modern version of a strong heavy lift platform.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Docdor
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
637
Likes
198
Age
60
Location
MidWest - Iowa
#9
Back on the original question...
They share the same plastic molds, and have a totally different flavor & focus of firmware.
The C23 camera is basically a relabeled E90.

Below skin, how much is in common: motors, ESC's, GPS modules, etc. Does the HPlus have redundancy or any other major differences physically.

Speaking of upgrades, main board of Hplus in H520? :rolleyes: Hmmm?
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
723
Likes
239
#10
Back on the original question...
They share the same plastic molds, and have a totally different flavor & focus of firmware.
The C23 camera is basically a relabeled E90.

Below skin, how much is in common: motors, ESC's, GPS modules, etc. Does the HPlus have redundancy or any other major differences physically.

Speaking of upgrades, main board of Hplus in H520? :rolleyes: Hmmm?
I'm the wrong guy on what's under the hood of the 520- and the 520. It looks like Yuneec didn't sell the 520 so they came up with the H+(520-) to sell the leftover 520 parts. Reminiscent of the 920 to the 920- aye?
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
1,471
Likes
1,258
Age
48
Location
UK
Website
www.feertech.com
#12
Adding UAV Toolbox to the H Plus would not make it into a replacement for the H520 - the commercial machine comes with different support arrangements, and most importantly different live flight controls. My app deliberately does not provide live flight controls for the simple reason that I don't have the resources to test it against all situations it might be used in.

I certainly don't want to be in conflict with Yuneec. The app takes pains to add useful tools that are not 'core' for most drones, and tries to be a good companion for Yuneec's own software. Don't for one minute assume I'm out to replace the existing tools - I aim to work with Yuneec rather against them!

As for the H Plus and H520 - as has been pointed out elsewhere, they were conceived at the same time which is why the platforms share many components. The 520 is very much about Yuneec addressing the commercial market with a product that is not a 'toy'. Their desire was for a clear separation between it and the machines you can buy at Wallmart so that professional users could buy with confidence - and turn up on site without someone telling them "My kid's got one of those".

The H Plus then is not a 'rebuild' of the H520. It was planned from the outset as an evolution of the Typhoon H (so it wasn't a surprise that machines started shipping just as the Typhoon H turned two years old). It was always designed to be sold alongside the H520, but to have entirely different software to better suit consumer users. I fully expect that Yuneec will continue to support both machines for however many years it is until their replacements are announced.

By all means tell Yuneec (and their dealers and distributors) that you want to see good third party software on their machines, but don't tell them you're relying on third party software to do stuff they don't do - it makes my position more difficult as I end up in conflict with their developers.
 

Eagle's Eye Video

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
2,166
Likes
1,132
Location
Albuquerque NM
#13
By all means tell Yuneec (and their dealers and distributors) that you want to see good third party software on their machines, but don't tell them you're relying on third party software to do stuff they don't do - it makes my position more difficult as I end up in conflict with their developers.
Better yet, tell Yuneec (and their dealers and distributors) that you want to see good third party software provided for their machines, IN THE MANNER THEIR COMPETITION DOES.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
7,947
Likes
3,542
Location
N. California
#14
Tuna,

I don’t believe anyone was suggesting to use you and your talents to do an end run around Yuneec. OTOH, you have a history of producing good functional software and generating updates as needed vastly faster than Yuneec does. Basic waypoint flight planning has been available as a standard function with consumer level drones as far back as 2013-2014 when they were equipped with APM or Mikrokopter flight controllers. In my view Yuneec has deliberately limited their consumer equipment by removing or omitting that feature from the base FC they build off of. I have two such non DJI COTS machines in my shop where at any time I can sit down with a laptop, program a mission directly to the FC, launch and observe, or launch, fly, interrupt a mission and redirect the aircraft as needed. No APK’s or Apps required. The same applies to a wide variety of flight mode selections. That both cost less than an H Plus, can be fitted with my camera of choice, have very long range when operated with telemetry radio and antenna tracking as conditions require, and are both extremely high in reliability and positional accuracy should not get lost in discussion. Those facts establish Yuneec could provide the same or similar if the desire was present as both use APM and Pixhawk FC’s, which is the deconfigured basis of the H-480 FC. Sure, the 580 and H Plus are using PX4 but rapid development of PX4 came to a screeching halt over 3 years ago due to a massive falling out between the developers and various corporate interests. Many of them bailed from the group, removing many of the best from further PX4 development. That programming a basic orbit feature with waypoint tangent intercepts had not been incorporated with PX4 is a fair indication of developmental problems. Having to stop at each waypoint on a flight plan to change direction is a miserable failure. We might also consider that 3DR released a version of their X-8 in 2015 specifically designed for mapping and directly integrated with Pix4D software and did a **** fine job with a Canon point and shoot camera.

That Yuneec wants to play to different groups of consumers is commendable but the manner they have been serving them leans a bit towards the deplorable as once their products are released the bugs they contain are slow to be corrected, if they are corrected at all. They need to be aggressive in process and product improvement or risk experiencing exactly what has been occurring with product owners seeking their own solutions. That both the 520 and H Plus were released with poor gimbal horizontal positioning pretty well establishes the focus has been on getting new airframes out the door for sales generation, not getting new products out the door that satisfy their customers needs. There’s the appearance of an attitude of “take the money and run”. They did rather well with the Typhoon H with a series of firmware improvements but have fallen flat on their faces with the 580 and releasing the H Plus without some of the features in the H-480, including NFZ wavered software, along with a pin cushion lens was either extremely poor quality control, poor planning, or deliberate. As 580 corrections still languish I'll call the problem one of prioritization. Fixing what's broken is not high on the priority list. Pick the one that suits the moment.

If they want to be competitive they have to meet customer needs and demands. If they desire only to pick up the few that won’t or don’t buy another brand they still need to keep that group relatively happy if they want to remain in business. I don’t know very many people that will spend $1,600.00 to $4,000.00 knowing they will have to develop “work around's” for that new equipment to function as it should have before it went into distribution. Few will wait indefinitely for fixes that may never or don't get delivered.

Bear in mind some of us still know how to build what we want or need and are not dependent on a company to provide us what the company feels we should have. In having that knowledge we have the ability to quickly recognize corporate BS before we step in it and choose a path that takes us around it instead of through it. The only drawback for us is having to use an external monitor instead of a screen incorporated with the transmitter. OTOH, we can pump data directly to anywhere we want to at longer ranges and higher resolutions without needing an HDMI cable.

Unlike Yuneec we don't need, or want, to do the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 2, 2018
Messages
246
Likes
113
Age
71
Location
Corvallis, Or, USA & Bonaire, Dutch Caribbean
#15
Tuna,

I don’t believe anyone was suggesting to use you and your talents to do an end run around Yuneec. OTOH, you have a history of producing good functional software and generating updates as needed vastly faster than Yuneec does. Basic waypoint flight planning has been available as a standard function with consumer level drones as far back as 2013-2014 when they were equipped with APM or Mikrokopter flight controllers. In my view Yuneec has deliberately limited their consumer equipment by removing or omitting that feature from the base FC they build off of. I have two such non DJI COTS machines in my shop where at any time I can sit down with a laptop, program a mission directly to the FC, launch and observe, or launch, fly, interrupt a mission and redirect the aircraft as needed. No APK’s or Apps required. The same applies to a wide variety of flight mode selections. That both cost less than an H Plus, can be fitted with my camera of choice, have very long range when operated with telemetry radio and antenna tracking as conditions require, and are both extremely high in reliability and positional accuracy should not get lost in discussion. Those facts establish Yuneec could provide the same or similar if the desire was present as both use APM and Pixhawk FC’s, which is the deconfigured basis of the H-480 FC. Sure, the 580 and H Plus are using PX4 but rapid development of PX4 came to a screeching halt over 3 years ago due to a massive falling out between the developers and various corporate interests. Many of them bailed from the group, removing many of the best from further PX4 development. That programming a basic orbit feature with waypoint tangent intercepts had not been incorporated with PX4 is a fair indication of developmental problems. Having to stop at each waypoint on a flight plan to change direction is a miserable failure. We might also consider that 3DR released a version of their X-8 in 2015 specifically designed for mapping and directly integrated with Pix4D software and did a **** fine job with a Canon point and shoot camera.

That Yuneec wants to play to different groups of consumers is commendable but the manner they have been serving them leans a bit towards the deplorable as once their products are released the bugs they contain are slow to be corrected, if they are corrected at all. They need to be aggressive in process and product improvement or risk experiencing exactly what has been occurring with product owners seeking their own solutions. That both the 520 and H Plus were released with poor gimbal horizontal positioning pretty well establishes the focus has been on getting new airframes out the door for sales generation, not getting new products out the door that satisfy their customers needs. There’s the appearance of an attitude of “take the money and run”. They did rather well with the Typhoon H with a series of firmware improvements but have fallen flat on their faces with the 580 and releasing the H Plus without some of the features in the H-480, including NFZ wavered software, along with a pin cushion lens was either extremely poor quality control, poor planning, or deliberate. As 580 corrections still languish I'll call the problem one of prioritization. Fixing what's broken is not high on the priority list. Pick the one that suits the moment.

If they want to be competitive they have to meet customer needs and demands. If they desire only to pick up the few that won’t or don’t buy another brand they still need to keep that group relatively happy if they want to remain in business. I don’t know very many people that will spend $1,600.00 to $4,000.00 knowing they will have to develop “work around's” for that new equipment to function as it should have before it went into distribution. Few will wait indefinitely for fixes that never don't get delivered.

Bear in mind some of us still know how to build what we want or need and are not dependent on a company to provide us what the company feels we should have. In having that knowledge we have the ability to quickly recognize corporate BS before we step in it and choose a path that takes us around it instead of through it. The only drawback for us is having to use an external monitor instead of a screen incorporated with the transmitter. OTOH, we can pump data directly to anywhere we want to at longer ranges and higher resolutions without needing an HDMI cable.

Unlike Yuneec we don't need, or want, to do the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.
Yikes, if I had read this a month ago, I wouldn't be on this forum and would still be waiting for the Magic 2 ...
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
7,947
Likes
3,542
Location
N. California
#16
Barton,

You have an engineering background. As you learn more about what you have and research improvement opportunities you will observe the same systemic failures others have. Yuneec does and has made good products but they could do much, much better for the same cost with a few simple changes in their corporate attitude. In this I believe all consumer drone makers have a similar problem, with differences only in how they demonstrate them.

Consumer drone buyers, for the most part, have not been exposed to all the system applications and functionality that is snd has been available for years in the DIY market. For them, and myself as well, convenience is a prime motivator and they research accordingly.

Then we have the group with ownership experience across several different brands that make decisions based on system and company performance. Many arrived at Yuneec after poor experiences with other brands, discovering that most Yuneec products worked well for our needs. Yuneec also used to have one of the best customer service departments in the industry. But Yuneec made a mistake a year ago they have yet to correct and because of that some are holding back making further purchases until we determine if they intend to repeat that history. If Yuneec generates H Plus firmware improvements in a timely manner and corrects the C23 lens issues we will presume they learned from and have grown from their previous errors. If not, consumers have some decisions to make. Companies have to earn customer trust and loyalty through a long process of user experiences. They can lose all that was gained much faster than it was generated.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
1,858
Likes
720
Location
Davidson, NC USA
#17
I don’t think things are quite as grim as Pat paints them. I’m not arguing against Pat’s points though as they’re well reasoned and factual.

I can go to a shop nearby and they’ll build me anything I want as Pat describes. When finished it might cost 2-3 times what the H Plus would cost. How much better would it be for my needs?

I could go with DJI and have to use my phone or tablet as a controller by attaching to a set of gaming sticks.

In both of those scenarios I would expect firmware updates for 6 months to a year before things settled down on a new aircraft.

Could both of these companies (Yuneec and DJI) do better? You bet! In the two cases I cite though we’re talking about a tough consumer market that they have to survive in. We live in a world where some of the first things that roll of people’s tongues are “cheaper”. Can I get it cheaper elsewhere? I got it cheap from xxxxx. Quality is often second to how much does it cost?

Here’s the thing for me and perhaps other drone pilots in this consumer market, how much time and effort do I wish to put into my drone versus flying it and taking stills and videos? Do I want to spend the time acquire the skills and knowledge to build my own? That’s not for me.

I’m an amateur or hobbyist, if you prefer, when it comes to drones. I fly for the love and joy of it. I really like creating videos and stills from the perspective of a drone. That said, I’m willing to wait for the dust to settle on firmware updates for the H Plus before a purchase. In the meantime I’ll be happy flying my H looking forward to better things coming.

The current H Plus is missing features that seem to be able to easily rectified with firmware updates. So far I haven’t see anything to suggest the bird isn’t airworthy or squirrelly.
 
Likes: Graham
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
7,947
Likes
3,542
Location
N. California
#18
I can’t disagree with any of that Ron. In fact, I agree with all of it from multiple perspectives, especially the RTF versus DIY perspective. There has to be trade offs:). Cost wise the custom build would be 2X+ the 580 cost but more functionality and flexibility would be present in the custom build so that cost differential is actually a bit less than double. However, the old 3DR X8 ran about $1200.00 with a Go Pro gimbal, and they still function perfectly today. A gimbal swap and a little programming puts an a6XXX or GH series camera under the frame. There are many other payload alternatives.

All indications has the Plus flying very well. But... the Plus and C23 is but a 580 and E-90 in most all things, and what it carries forward from its origin is important.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
1,748
Likes
1,389
Location
Central Florida
#19
Before buying the Plus, I had set aside enough money (More than triple what I paid for the Plus) to build, my own rig or go to another COTS platform. I have been looking at the good's and the bad's and the pluses and the minuses (No pun intended) at all routes. All in all, it came down to a bit of a gamble; for sure, knowing Yuneec's track record actually had me wanting to just give the Plus a pass but all indications were looking good so I took the Plus Route because it is exactly what I wanted since I first saw footage from a P4P - an H Platform with a much better camera. In the end (for my purposes) the Plus was the cheapest, quickest and shortest route to my Camera Platform goals. Having seen clear examples of the camera's imagery, my only hope was that it would be reliable and; we're still not all the way there yet but getting closer.

In the end when the dust settles Plus's record stabilizes I think it will compare favorably to anything in its class and probably be as big a market as the H especially when the buy in price gets under the 1,500.00 dollar point. I would say the only thing holding back the Plus's sales at this point is Yuneec's own track record.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
1,858
Likes
720
Location
Davidson, NC USA
#20
If by track record you mean the lack of some features expected by Yuneec pilots, a comprehensive manual and a set of good videos covering getting started and making the most of the aircraft and camera then I agree fully. :)
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
14,264
Messages
162,566
Members
17,038
Latest member
donmcnabb2