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

mapping or waypoint feature

Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
253
Reaction score
112
Age
44
Many pilots talk about mapping or waypoint feature for H+, with my understanding, it's mostly like advance CCC, just could set some point on the mapping(maybe could use mobile phone) and the the drone could fly as this mission, some times maybe take pictures as well. It should not be survey feature like in H520, that's mostly for commercial purpose.

Anything more or missed? Thanks!
 
CCC the drone has to record each way point, once recorded the drone will then autonomously fly the POI.

Mapping hub:. Having a ground station dedicated to pre-missioned flight that preselected in the “Mission Hub” that either sits in the cloud or in the RC that allows you to program your flight path in Google Earth on your Mac/PC before you even leave home. The missions you save on the Hub are synched in the RC. When you arrive on site, just load the pre-programmed mission and hit Start.

To map, you have to take accurate images with coordinates embedded in the metadata for supporting services to render the photos into a precise and accurate 3 dimensional map of the POI.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What defines a commercial vs a consumer drone? There is no true definition if you classify drones as tools.
 
What defines a commercial drone? There is no true definition if you classify drones as tools.
I partly agree with you, just want to see if a simple waypoint is most requirement. Yes, more is better, hence not easy for one production to support all advance functions.
 
A member on here, created a mission hub called UAV Toolbox.

Yuneec predefines its drone’s with the probabilities based of what they think the market wants. Where DJI unleashes its source codes, so that 3D party apps are able to support, by thinking ahead of what they think the market will use it for.

The H Plus has a winning advantage, if the previous lessons from the original H are applied and features carried unto the H+

The H Plus at this point, I don’t believe it can stand to its promise, due to the experience that I and others that are flying beyond the hover are experiencing.

Before a new feature is to be introduced, Yuneec has to build confidence with each build release.

If the drone does not have solid connectivity, with reliable RTH, entering a mapping mission will only prove disastrous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AH-1G
sooo Phantom or mavic are a commercial drones ? Thay have mapping function thats all :)

It will probably be difficult to write a mapping program as third party software, due to the fact that H + CCC files are hidden, unless you can do root in ST16 (warranty problems ?).It is not a problem to write an application, the problem is to find hidden CCC files.
 
Last edited:
sooo Phantom or mavic are a commercial drones ? Thay have mapping function thats all :)

Yes, those drones are used in the commercial industry both film and construction. By commercial pilots. The M2 is now proving its worth in the big leagues.
 
Yes, those drones are used in the commercial industry both film and construction. By commercial pilots. The M2 is now proving its worth in the big leagues.

Following this path ... you run a business and use TH + for commercial purposes, does TH + make it a commercial drone? : P
The lack of this function, in my opinion is a mistake ... that's all
 
Following this path ... you run a business and use TH + for commercial purposes, does TH + make it a commercial drone? : P
The lack of this function, in my opinion is a mistake ... that's all

I believe the mistake is in the classification. I used the H+ in construction, and it served me well, as a commercial drone operator.

The lack of a feature, such the ability to map should be highly considered and looked, because to some this is an icing on the cake in predetermining the direction of their future investment, specially with the new aspiring operators who are learning and trying getting into the industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LukaszP
The CCC method of creating a flight plan is simply not cost effective. It doubles or triples the demand for battery resources and requires more that twice the time to set up and execute than required to create a flight plan created and up loaded at ground level. The CCC method also increases risk factor as the mission has to be flown twice.

In all candor, creating a WP referenced flight plan prior to take off was implemented a long time ago by Mikrokopter with limited way points, followed by APM with considerably more way point latitude. Auto pilots providing up to 99 way points referencing a map coordinate and altitude have been around a decade or more before the Mikrokopter auto pilot. The ability to import and store map packs from various sources has been around just as long.

We should consider that Pixhawk was created because APM had reached it data limit. Pixhawk was and is capable of storing and executing considerably more capability than APM, while PX4, the system used in the Plus and 520, was designed to be more capable the Pixhawk while providing the ability for commercial entities to develop proprietary feature code for their business applications that avoided “open source” sharing requirements. PX4 is at least as capable as Pixhawk so the ability to set up a way point generated flight plan resides somewhere within the system. For the Plus that feature has been blocked by the aircraft manufacturer but left open for the 520.

Map data storage is a non issue as that would only require the addition of an SD card reader interfaced with the auto pilot to accept map downloads, long term storage, and way point inputs for auto pilot access. PX4 was designed with that or a similar concept included.

Where semantics are concerned, the FAA clearly defined there’s no difference between commercial and professional. Professional means you receive consideration for your work and the FAA established that receiving any consideration is a commercial activity. The FAA even provided different types of aircraft/personal registration based on that premise, with another dedicated to platform designs that exceed the 55lb sUAS limitation.

So where’s the problem? As it’s been pretty well established that even some of the much less expensive systems can and do incorporate way point flight planning capability using less sophisticated auto pilots the problem has to reside with Yuneec. Someone in management had to say “we can sell a commercial unit for more money than the same unit without a commercial identifier, so let’s call one “this” and call the other “that” to make people think one is more capable than the other. We’ll sell “this” for more than twice as much as “that” and get more money. Customers are stupid and won’t notice there’s no real difference between the two.”

The end result had the business decision for separation decimating their unit sales as customers are not stupid. More sophisticated “deep pocket” customers are even less stupid and recognize they could obtain much more capability with better post sale service and support elsewhere, while obtaining more agility in feature/payload development at the same time.

So Yuneec, being blindly obstinate, elected to drive themselves off a cliff rather than admit they made an egregious mistake. To have avoided this debacle all they needed to do was to ask their customers what they wanted or needed before embarking on development of a new model. But corporate arrogance is not often mitigated with simple solutions.
 
Last edited:
I agree, Yuneec needs to listen to their customers!
Yuneec's problem as you mentioned @PatR, their management team is clueless!
 
The bad part is their customers HAD been telling them but they refused to listen. To ignore your customer demands or requests is the best and fastest way I know to to ruin a business.
 
I don't intend to be argumentative, but I am going on the record to state that CCC can indeed be "cost effective".

If one references a @Ty Pilot video detailing how to record a curved cable cam flight, one will notice each position is flown to, and camera angle set exactly as one wants to see. The resulting CCC mission can then be flown as many times as desired, capturing the same perspectives during different weather and lighting conditions.

On the other hand, unless one is doing nothing but 90 degree downward shots (nadir), creating missions via controller or computer will still likely result in tweaking each waypoint to get the exact desired camera and UAS position/angle.

I love UAV Toolbox. The more I use it, the more I love it. But, I am not yet good enough to know the exact camera angle I need, for a given height I want my UAS to be at any given point, in order to program an exact flight. I don't expect to ever get that good, to be perfectly honest. It could be just me, but I still tweak when I'm using a DSLR and tripod. I can't expect to intrinsically know the exact angles for a moving, aerial contraption!

In other words, pre-flight creation of a mission is likely to result in adjustments, even if only slight. Multiple flights, multiple batteries, et al will be necessary to tweak these pre-configured flights, nullifying the perceived negative of having to fly to record a Yuneec Curved Cable Cam mission.

Just offering one differing opinion.

Jeff
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPR and Ty Pilot
The features you described ate present in the 920 Plus but do not require installing a separate app or flying the mission to record positions and camera angles. Better still, the waypoints correspond to a map reference and can be accurately recalled.

All that using the same software residing in an ST-16 primarily intended for the H-480 but hidden from H-480 access.

If we were to view Yuneec product development starting with the original 920 moving forward to today we would see a process of constant product degradation for each successive release, not improvement. We can observe that by comparing feature sets in each successive platform. Even the 520 was a step backwards as it omitted the imagery feature sets included with the previous H-480. The 520 was, and still is, essentially a very expensive one trick pony. The H Plus maintained those omissions as originally released even though it was said to be a “professional” imagery platform. We won’t mention the gimbal issues for both the 520 and Plus at this time.

In this industry you’re either moving forward or you’re dead in the water. Regression is intolerable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eagle's Eye Video
I am not disagreeing with Pat, as he has hit the nail on the head with regards to the usefulness of CCC in his post above but; Jeff's (and My) distinction, or qualifier for the CCC is that is a videography tool. To that point, it is not for making long, high number of waypoints missions and it certainly is not for mapping - for all the reasons Pat mentions. But if as a videographer, one looks at a subject and decides there is a shot he or she wants that can't be done with other flight modes, the CCC is likely the tool. And keep in mind, most of these shots (at least in my estimation) would be rather short, less than 20 second, runs allowing the operator to have full camera control so they would only be a handful of waypoints needed and the setup time would be relatively quick and this allows a peak thru the camera at each.

Another great use of CCC, and I have to credit @Steve Carr for this; is as a single position platform where the camera is in a 'tracking' mode. I think there was someone that wanted to hover next to a kids motorcycle race track and be able to follow their son as he rode the course. Only CCC will allow this by setting up a simple 2 point mission, hitting start but do not move the throttle stick - just flip the gimbal mode switch to 'Global' and bingo, you have a tripod in the sky with a gimbal stabilized three axis camera controlled by a joystick.
 
I think Yuneec considers themselves to between a rock and a hard spot: They sold the 520 as a Commercial Unit for a Premium Price, Then they brought out the Plus that they wanted to market to the masses that had bought the 480, the Plus is essentially a 520 minus a few features, so as not to upset the current 520 owners.

Now they are clinging to that commitment while time moves on.

The Rock: Plus ownership will increase with full implementation of all the features of the 480 Plus; allowing uploading maps without the need for local programming (CCC).

The Hard Spot: 520 owners will feel betrayed - possibly.

I ask my self: What if I bought the 520 a year prior to the release of the Plus and ten months after that (20 months later - today) a new update for the Plus gives it nearly the same capability?

Well how is that any different than what is taking place across the entire industry? We buy something that fills our needs at a certain price point and use it till something better/ cheaper comes along and then discard the previous like a child on Christmas day. Thats how it is in the tech world and (hopefully) it always will be. We expect it, I know I do. So to answer my own question - How would I as a 520 operator/owner feel if the Plus all of a sudden was a match? I probably would not mind. I would hope Yuneec continues to support me as a 520 owner fully, (maybe a little sour grapes), but I would feel truly no different than I felt after spending 1400 bucks 24 months prior on my 480.I bought it, enjoyed it, made a few bucks then moved on.

Yuneec - The iron is still hot but the glow is fading, I and many others think unleashing the Plus will be a good thing. And as a business owner myself, I would not blink an eye in doing so.
 
Last edited:
I think Yuneec considers themselves to between a rock and a hard spot: They sold the 520 as a Commercial Unit for a Premium Price, Then they brought out the Plus that they wanted to market to the masses that had bought the 480, the Plus is essentially a 520 minus a few features, so as not to upset the current 520 owners.

Well how is that any different than what is taking place across the entire industry? We buy something that fills our needs at a certain price point and use it till something better/ cheaper comes along and then discard the previous like a child on Christmas day. Thats how it is in the tech world and (hopefully) it always will be. We expect it, I know I do. So to answer my own question - How would I as a 520 operator/owner feel if the Plus all of a sudden was a match? I probably would not mind. I would hope Yuneec continues to support me as a 520 owner fully, (maybe a little sour grapes), but I would feel truly no different than I felt after spending 1400 bucks 24 months prior on my 480.I bought it, enjoyed it, made a few bucks then moved on.

Let's play with the above for a moment. Unless Yuneec desires to be just another "toy maker" they need to recognize their market has to appeal to higher levels of sophistication. Whether those people are focused on advanced level hobby imagery, professional videographers, or survey and inspection specialists doesn't really matter, they will be looking for a platform that both fills their immediate need and will remain viable for some time to come. They won't be looking for the cheapest price for a generic "Barbie" doll, they will be seeking effective specialization tools.

One manufacturer pretty much already figured that out, but their method of serving the customer is quite heavy handed by releasing multiple models of the same aircraft to serve different purposes. We know whom I'm referencing. If we consider both the industrial/military scale UAV manufacturers and auto makers we see a different approach. They retain a basic model for a considerable period of time and add or subtract equipment or features to meet user/buyer requirements. With auto manufacturers a model type might remain relatively form consistent for three years or more. For UAV manufacturers the basic form remain consistent for 7-10 years, or more. What changes are software, new accessory products additions, and a few other minor items that can be changed via firmware upgrades.

They develop their initial customers through the performance of a base model and expand their customer base via implementation of new features without altering the base model format. More often than not the customers establish the path the manufacturers will take by delivering the products and features the customers state they absolutely must have. And they earn some pretty darn high returns on their investments for doing so as their platform development costs are both stable and minimized. One size initially fits all if you will, and the customers are fiercely loyal.

Our equipment doesn't wear out at the mechanical level very often. Where we encounter problems is with poorly vetted soft ware and firmware along with impact induced damage. There's really no reason to be running out to buy a new platform every 9 moths to a year or so. The significant improvements in flight control and mission planning can all be performed through firmware changes What does physically change is the technology used in and for the payloads. Our payload needs also change based on an evolution of our areas of endeavor.

If a maker was to design a basic platform that allowed for flexibility in payload weight, employing software that provided for what we might call "industry standard" that encompassed the more common uses currently in place, they could develop various payloads to fit the basic platform which would provide the variability necessary to attract a wider customer base.

If there were needs and a market for more specialized payloads and exotic software those could be developed and sold with the exotic software residing only within the particular payload. if you wanted the super great stuff you would have to buy the super great payload. That payload might (would) be expensive but as you already had the primary platform the transition higher end operations would be easier, cheaper, faster, and safer.

There would be more people buying payload upgrades as doing so would be less expensive that buying a completely new system. You want LiDAR? No problem, buy the payload and associated software. Multi-spectral? No worries, just obtain off the shelf and load the software. IR/Thermal? Same thing. Your payload mount allows for a wide range of adaptation or expansion so there's no problem.

It would make life a lot simpler and more efficient for customer service and tech support departments as there would be fewer models to deal with. The platform manufacturer would retain control of platform service and repair and shift payload service back onto the payload manufacturers as the people that create and produce payloads possess more specialty knowledge and experience in that area. In the end the customer would obtain a base platform and swap payloads in and out as the missions dictated, something critical to success as what we do has to be both agile and flexible.

If Yuneec pays any attention to this forum at all I hope they read the above and seriously consider it. The path they have been following is not working and cannot be made to work. The competition is too far ahead of the game to be playing catch up. Yuneec needs to get ahead of the game and the only way they can do that is by doing something new and different, or at least different from what most are doing.

Mimic a method that has enable earning $billions from the customer base, that's already being done by all the people that have been serving the big money markets for a long time. All that's left is to take the product out on the road to show your customers just what they could do if they had it. Make it easy, make it simple. Establish a customer service department that is fast and efficient. Create one that caters to the higher end commercial customer, providing 24/7 response.

If you want to survive, that's what it will take. Otherwise you might as well be selling generic "Barbie" dolls that end up sitting uselessly on a shelf only a short period after obtaining one. The person that bought it soon cast it aside as 'the other guy" came out with something just a little different.
 
Last edited:
The Rock: Plus ownership will increase with full implementation of all the features of the 480 Plus; allowing uploading maps without the need for local programming (CCC).

The Hard Spot: 520 owners will feel betrayed - possibly.

I ask my self: What if I bought the 520 a year prior to the release of the Plus and ten months after that (20 months later - today) a new update for the Plus gives it nearly the same capability?

I can answer this one first hand... I did buy an H520 December, 2017. Do I feel betrayed, not in the least, and here is why:

  1. I expect my technology purchases to be obsolete soon after I purchase. I rarely buy bleeding edge, so what I buy is usually already mature, meaning it is likely six months to a year old. My first PC was a used 286. I paid $1000, used, and it was from the company I work for! But... I needed it, and... if I wait, I do not get done what I need to get done.
  2. Same thing about my H520. An acquaintance who happens to run his own construction company gave me a tip, back when I was on the fence. He basically said "You can wait to see if prices come down and features are added, or, you can jump in and get the experience with it that others who are waiting will not get."
  3. The H520 also had and has a feature set I needed and still need. The Plus does not, at least not currently. I bought the tools I needed to do the job at hand. (This is not to say I have not been drooling over the comments about the performance of the Plus, as well as the imaging, knowing how nice my H520 flies. For cinematic fun, I am still looking for ways to add a Plus to my hanger. Just don't tell my vice president (I mean real boss.)
  4. Whether its UAS, computers, cameras, you name it... there will always be something coming out likely either cheaper, with more features, or both. How long does one want to wait to jump in?
And to point @PatR is making: Reminds me of the camera "feuds", back when DSLRs first hit the market big time. Back then, the advice for anyone serious, and to get away from the fanboy crowd was simply: "Buy the system, not the camera." In other words, it was the glass that we were investing in. The camera bodies could and did come and go, but the lenses held their performance. Same with UAS; having a platform that could expand as needs expand, without having to procure the whole system every time needs accelerated or capabilities were released, can make our lives much more enjoyable.

Hopefully the same can be said for the manufacturers, who we support via our reliance on them.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Many pilots talk about mapping or waypoint feature for H+, with my understanding, it's mostly like advance CCC, just could set some point on the mapping(maybe could use mobile phone) and the the drone could fly as this mission, some times maybe take pictures as well. It should not be survey feature like in H520, that's mostly for commercial purpose.

Anything more or missed? Thanks!
not really... just make sure the height in the way point file is high enough to clear everything.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,977
Messages
241,829
Members
27,382
Latest member
Sierrarhodesss