H520 mode selection

[Smityair]

Hi folks,
We spent just over 3k on a h520,e90 and a load of spares. We are a search and rescue organisation. Short story is we received our order on the 4.10.17 we can't use the machine as there is no way to change the control modes. E.G mode 1,2,3 or 4. Not to mention every other feature that is missing. I have a h480 and can change what I want when I want to. We have been in contact with the model shop where we purchased the kit, been in contact with Yuneec UK. All told us there will be a firmware update to address this in 2 weeks time. Guess what nothing. We where then told it will be the end of the month. Surprise still nothing :-(
Has anyone else experienced any of the issues, if so let me know please. 3k latter and I have a paper weight. Come on Yuneec please be fair before you destory a great product. Just for the record I am a fan of Yuneec and have a h480 also. I was hoping to purchase the new thermal camera when it comes out. But to be honest our confidence in Yuneec is waver.
Please let me know your views folks.
P.S may I add we are a charity and 3k is a massive amount of money to put out and be let down like this. Especially when the trail h520s all had the features we are used to on the h480.

 

[bluelight.support]

Thats disappointing to hear - we also serve the emergency services and disaster response arena, and has just sold our Inspire 2 for Phantom 4 Pro Black edition and cancelled my order when I saw the 520. I have emailed the UK office for further details with no joy as yet - I was hoping with a UK presence they (Yuneec) would be a better option moving forward than DJI - keep us posted as this is really disappointing - from a professional point of view - no-one can afford a paperweight. How did you do your ops manual for emergency use without prior daylight surveys - or are you daylight only ?

 

[PatR]

Incredible as it may seem, people frequently buy the “latest, greatest” before fully researching the capabilities and limitations of a product. When such info is not readily available there’s good cause to delay or avoid the purchase. I just bought something else because of the short comings in 520 info.

 

[Smityair]

Hi Pat
Problem is the pre launch samples all came out with all the features found on the h480.
So one would naturally think they would be on the final product. Which they where not!
I have been told in good faith that some of the issues are being addressed as we speak and should be available either late this week or mid week the following week.

 

[PatR]

I forgot about the pre-launch samples that were so widely acclaimed...

OTOH, when requesting more comparison and operational info from those having them the responses were at best sparse and always woefully incomplete. After deciding I wasn’t interested in mapping I went with a 920 since it did pretty much everything else and allowed both camera and lens changes. Down side is I expect nothing where future improvements are concerned. In a way that’s not a bad thing when researching a purchase. Go with the one with what you know you must have with no anticipation of later extras. No disappointments later that way.

 

[Ty Pilot]

A lot of us were anticipating the release and dreaming of the possibilities of the new cameras as well as the 520 itself. When the forum added the 520 Discussion Topic and threads started popping up the excitement grew but as users' videos started showing up and people got their hands on them; one could see that this release of the 520 was a mish-mash of uncoordinated behavior for a company like Yuneec. I know for me personally I was let down first by finding out that the cameras would not likely be made available for the 480. I thought to myself - no worries, I'll just get the 520 and have a great back-up in my 480; but the nail in the coffin for me was the video quality. While better than a CG03+, it is no where near "the Other Guys" 1 inch 20 megapixels camera, and you can buy that other rig for half the cost. I love my 480, it is filling the bill for now, but Yuneec needs to find a way to straighten out the 520 line or I don't think they will have a solid future. Here's to hoping Yuneec gets the 520 figured out and soon or I think more of us will be going another route. I love the entire Typhoon H platform 480 & 520, it has the potential to be a great little pro-sumer drone but it ain't there yet.

 

[PatR]

I pretty much was seeing the same thing. When it finally got out the CGO-ET was going to be a non starter I figured for the money there had to be a better non DJI alternative. Looking at all it could do, inclding using any of the current CGO-3 and ET cameras, the 920 made a lot of sense. 16 mpxl with the CGO-4 but it has a zoom and shoots a true RAW video if desired.

My understanding has another maker coming out with something good pretty quick. Yuneec needs to get their act together in a big hurry or they’ll go the 3DR route. Too many eggs in the 520 basket, which is not an affordable option for the consumer level. If they turn their backs on the H with upgrades they might as well just shut the doors.

 

[FlushVision]

This last few days I have been considering options for adding a new sUAS to my fleet. I'd previously decided that I would have a H520 but hold off until at least spring next year for them to iron out the glitches, but my P2V+ is starting to show signs of it's old age. The flight apps have become unstable on my new 'phone and all it's flight batteries (except one) are clearly past their best. So it is that I'm considering putting it into retirement earlier rather than later...which is why I began looking at replacement options (it is my view that a commercial operator should have at least two aircraft available).

This last few days I looked at the H520 again and even got into a dialogue with a company here in the U.K. to ask certain questions, etc. The fact that it transpired that the company lied to me about a certain issue regarding CGO-ET compatibility, and from what I've gleaned from this forum and other sources, I've been put off the H520 somewhat. So I looked at the 920. A nice machine which would easily fit most of my needs, but it seems to me that it's size (and weight) could be a problem for carting it around. A good proportion of my aerial work involves me having to go to places not accessible by car and often involves a slog up steep footpaths. Lugging one of those around could be a problem and I'm not getting any younger.

So it is that my options (to fit my budget) are limited if I'm to stay clear of DJI. I may still consider a H520 simply because of my limited options to find an aircraft within my budget that doesn't have a dji logo on it, but I'll need to be convinced it's the right thing. A few weeks ago I was convinced, but I need now to be convinced again

Edit: I always have the option of another H480 but I wonder about Yuneec's intentions regarding it's future support.

 

[PatR]

The 920 is certainly a lot larger than a 480 or 520, and does not fold up flat if desired. At 11lbs RTF it's not something I would want to cart up and down back woods trails. Requiring at least 2 batteries per flight adds quite a bit more to the cartage factor. Due to some things that happened in far away places I'm a bit limited physically so I avoid situations where I have to hike to a shoot. That costs me some nice scenes but we all make trade offs in what we do.

I believe the 520 to be a good start to being a great platform but like so many models in the past they failed to work out the bugs before release. Me thinks their selection of field testers might not have been diverse enough in areas of interest to fully vet the system, and not providing actual production units made their system assessments inaccurate. Being provided equipment that did not function exactly as the production units would caused the field testers to appear misleading in their performance reports. What they had was different from what the public was going to receive so their performance reports could not be 100% representative of the product at large. The first firmware upgrade will likely resolve the major complaints though. Thing is, Yuneec needs the consumer players to provide the bread and butter that will keep the doors open while they build their commercial operation. I feel their focus is much too narrow in thinking the Breeze, (which is showing issues similar to what the H and initial version of the 920 have experienced like falling out of the sky, GPS issues, fly away's, lost comms), and the 520 will keep them afloat. That just isn't going happen. The Breeze targets a small, limited entry level market while the 520 is considerably more expensive than average consumers want to spend. They want all the features and functions but they don't want to pay for them. So the H-480 is very important middle ground. At the moment Yuneec's market is based largely on those that don't like or want DJI, those that already know how to fly and prefer a more immersive flight experience, or those that are new to the field and react to the first advertising they see.

So Yuneec needs systems at the entry and intermediate levels, which the Breeze and H-480 accomplish. Both need to experience some improvements in power system reliability and upgrade of the GPS and compass hardware. There is a need for more than one level of commercial model. The 520 will be just fine for most inspection work using the E-50, and for photogrammetry, especially for those that elect to make use of the professional cloud services. In that kind of application the 520 works out to be a very reasonably priced system as those that currently handle the work well are pretty expensive. For cinema or high quality type imagery I don't see the E-90 cutting it, even at 20mpxl and a 100MB/s bit rate. It still experiences horizon lens distortion and the higher bit rate is only available at specific resolutions. Using PX4 functionality was a great move but they have blocked the users from taking full advantage of all it has to offer. There needs to be a means of unlocking the system for those qualified to make use of it. The ability to change cameras is nice but that is not something unique to Yuneec. Expanding the camera selections for the H-480 would significantly expand that system's functionality and provide an expanded line of accessories to be marketed. Unfortunately there is an appearance that Yuneec has been consolidating their parts inventory by converting systems to utilize a common line of components. The 920 is an example where they obsoleted the ST-24 and changed to the ST-16. I would not be the least bit surprised to learn the 1" sensor in the E-90 to be the same one that was used in the CGO-4.

The inventory and staff reductions and inventory consolidations are indicative of financial problems, similar in process where the average person starts eliminating small things they think they can do without when money gets tight. A product driven company needs to handle that differently. If they want to stay afloat they need to become more agile and creative, focusing on expanding research of their customer demographics in order to develop and offer products their current customers want and those that will lure new customers into the family. Product diversity is essential. Cutting back on customer service is a really bad idea. Sure, they'll save a little money on the front end with reductions in employee expense but as we are already starting to see, extending repair turn around time increases customer dissatisfaction, as does the inability to make contact with the company when issues arise. The exchange of information is just too fast and widespread to ignore or discount the words of unhappy customers.