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.
Hello
that is only partially correct.
You're right, if you say that once you have to fly off the route to set the waypoints, you can simply correct the waypoint. If you set waypoints and also fix the camera orientation, then flies and then finds that the position or camera orientation are not correct, you always have to correct, so fly back again, the difference is marginal.
Once programmed a route, you can fly the route forward and backward, as you like, whenever you want.
That's what I'm doing in a construction project for almost two years, first Typhoon H, now Typhoon H +.
See video:
Yuneec offers a waypoint function, but only with the H920 + or the H520. If you need the unattended, you should get the H520 additionally, has the advantage that many components of the H + with the H520 are compatible (batteries, filters, remote control ...)
greeting
Fan Tho Mass
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
german translation
hallo
das ist nur bedingt korrekt.
Du hast recht, wenn Du sagst, dass Du die Route erst einmal abfliegen musst, um die Wegpunkte zu setzten, dafür kannst Du den Wegpunkt einfach korrigieren. Legt man zuvor Wegpunkte und vlt auch die Kameraausrichtung fest, fliegt anschließend und stellt dann fest, dass die Position oder Kameraausrichtung nicht richtig sind, muss man immer korrigieren, also auch wieder zurückfliegen, der Unterschied ist marginal.
Einmal eine Route programmiert, kann man ohne unterlass die Route vorwärts und Rückwärts fliegen, wie man möchte, wann man möchte.
Das mache ich bei einem Baurojekt jetzt bereits seit fast zwei Jahren erst Typhoon H, jetzt Typhoon H .
Siehe Video:
Eine Waypoint-Funktion bietet Yuneec an, aber nur mit dem H920 oder dem H520. Benötigt man die unbedient, sollte man sich den H520 zusätzlich holen, hat den Vorteil, dass viele Komponenten vom H mit dem H520 kompatible sind (Akkus, Filter, Fernsteuerung...)
Gruß
Fan Tho Mass
