Addison,
There will always be "haters" and those that are clandestinely promoting a different brand. The brand promoters can be weeded out and blocked and "haters" neutralized with proof of performance and reliability. But there are others that really want to see Yuneec succeed through the value of their products. There are many that have been with Yuneec a long time, that have spent considerable sums for their equipment only to see Yuneec make the same mistakes over and over again. They see Yuneec abandoning previous products after waiting a year or more for the problems they were released with left unchanged, or worse, reduced in capability and had new problems introduced through a defective "update and improvement" process.
Personally, I have over $10k in Yuneec products. Two H-480's, a spare CGO-3, a 920+ and Proaction hand held gimbal, and numerous extra batteries for those aircraft. I went with Yuneec after flying their Blade branded Chroma in 2015 and learning it was dependable and had an extremely smooth gimbal. The Chroma/Q-500/H gimbal is better than anything DJI has had up until the P4 and I'm still not sure the P4 is a match or bests the Yuneec gimbal. We must remember that a camera rig has but one purpose, and that's to deliver good video product, and anything that eliminates the need for stabilization in post is far superior to things that don't. Understand that on my end I've been a staunch supporter of Yuneec since before the release of the H-480 and helped promote it heavily because I believed in what Yuneec was trying to do in their approach with an entry level pro camera rig. Although not perfect the H-480 was easily improved through firmware updates and when installed properly those updates provided considerably more functionality and versatility than had been present with the initial platform release. Yuneec has built their camera rig following on their willingness and ability to expand platforms via firmware improvements. As the H-480 is more or less improvement limited by what can be done with the CGO-3 and the gimbal control layout on the ST-16 I recognize the H-480 has for the most part reached the end of it's time, but they could have sold a lot more of them had they added just one critically important mission planning feature; pe-planned waypoints. The FC used would certainly support the function.
Since Yuneec states they are splitting their operations into both consumer and commercial we should take a moment to review their best commercial product, the 920. The 920 is a platform far superior to the H-480, and I daresay it beats out the 520 in many ways. As good as it is it used to be better. For reasons unknown they downgraded the 920 with a "factory" conversion they called the 920+, eliminating many camera controls by discarding the ST-24 and substituting the ST-16. They also discarded a critical tool for professional users by removing Team mode. While all that took place their conversion process caused a system change that cut the flight time that could be obtained with the existing batteries and has done nothing about that defect. They have been aware of that problem since the middle of last year. Worse, brand new 920 batteries are being sold with pack IR's of between 40 and 70 milli-Ohms. Users have discovered the reasons for the battery issues and arrived at a solution that Yuneec could easily adopt and provide to their 920 customer base, (make and provide a higher C rating battery) but they have done nothing. Of course there are soft/firmware issues in the 920 that could be easily corrected with a firmware update but nothing has been done in this area since Yuneec created new problems during the 920+ conversions. It's been left hanging on the vine, which is pretty stupid for a company that states they are expanding into the commercial venue. You don't discard your best product in order to release a new product of lower performance that sells for the same amount of money.
Most people learn from experience, and since Yuneec is populated by people the same should apply to the corporate level. But they are not learning, they are making the same mistakes repeatedly. Taking a moment to look at the ST-16 they should have been able to learn the gimbal controls have been a major stumbling point for users. As people do not have three hands it should have been recognized that gimbal control could be vastly improved with changes to the layout of the ST-16. Put the speed slider on the pan knob as it does not get changed much and put pan control on a slider. Alternatively, add a third slider to the ST-16 under the tilt slider. Transmitters with more than one slider per side have been on the market for over a decade so such a design is not difficult to incorporate. JR and Futaba are examples. You need to have gimbal controls that are positioned where a fingertip can access and control them. Removing your fingers from the flight controls to move the camera is not conducive to smooth or safe flight and is certainly detrimental to scene creation. Alternatively, provide a small control unit that provides camera control for a second operator. Ideally, do both.
So here we have the 520 with the same transmitter lay out that's been present since it was first designed in 2015. What have they learned? What have they improved? As commercial users tend to be considerably more discerning than consumers the gimbal control layout of the ST-16 and ST-16s is a major stumbling point. Removing Team mode from the 520 (and 920) is an even greater faux pau as those using the 520 for law enforcement, fire suppression, and search and rescue have no ability to operate a UAV in the manner they are accustomed to, through separate flight and camera operators. LEA's ALWAYS employ more than one person for surveillance imagery operations. It's necessary for evidence collection and chain of custody. Same thing with fire departments; they are responsible for saving lives and keeping their people alive in fire situations, which requires more than one pair of hands and eyes to accomplish. The flight operator cannot possibly devote the amount of attention required to the delivered video and still fly the airplane. Understand that law enforcement staffs themselves with ex military people and those military people spent years training with and using two operator systems.
Without expanding on the problems Yuneec experienced this past year with vendor induced loss of revenue, and the incessant offensive against them mounted and sustained be DJI, Yuneec is making mistakes. Very serious mistakes. Someone mentioned competition in another thread. I'd like to point out that DJI is not the competition, they are by any standard the industry leader and Yuneec has to compete against them. To compete you must offer something those you are competing against does not have or offer. Desired features, superior customer service, evolving platforms, problem resolution, continuous process and system improvement, are all things Yuneec is not providing. lacking those they can only fail, and I do not want to see them fail. To the contrary, I desperately hope they will improve and expand. Unfortunately you cannot make direct contact with Yuneec upper management. You can't even approach their middle management, which is usually the level discerning corporations put in a position to handle such tasks. Myself and others have tried various avenues to offer suggestions and support but cannot get past the customer service level, a level where the personnel are not permitted to help you move your communications up the chain of command. Yuneec doesn't even bother to provide company representation in public forums where their products are the primary topic. The only thing Yuneec seems to be hearing is customer complaints, and they are failing to react or respond to those, instead choosing to make those problems worse through further staff reductions and releasing more unfinished product with hopes of stimulating their revenue stream by misleading their customers. Engineering of a new product typically revolves around an 80% solution, with product improvements picking up a final 15% or so post production and release. Yuneec isn't even hitting a 50% solution target. That MUST change if they want to survive.
Ultimately, many have tried being supportive and provided suggestions for corrections and improvements that would be relatively easy and inexpensive to incorporate, solutions that would assist increasing market share and customer satisfaction. Unfortunately Yuneec has elected to both ignore them while at the same time kick them in the ta-ta's buy cutting off improvement of the products already sold. The 520 buyers, with a brand new product, have already been kicked repeatedly, promised corrections as yet undelivered, and paid far more for an entry level "commercial" product than it's worth. It does not do anything even close to new or provide ground breaking technology to the market. The only advantage of the 520 as it currently stands is that it does not collect and transmit user generated data to the manufacturer. Everything else it does falls well short of what can be had for less money with different brands and platforms. That's not a good way to run a business where you hope to compete against the brand that can do more with their products than what yours can.
Some of us want to help, have tried to help, found solutions to problems that have been rejected, and are losing or lost faith. The only thing left is hope they will respond to complaints in public forums, something Yuneec has also not responded to. That's not the way improvements should happen, but what do we have left to try?
