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

Now that DataPilot is released

I looked at the table more closely after Glider's comments.
Yes, the mission can be interrupted while in flight by use of sticks and to change the battery. DataPilot does have camera options to take photos by time and distance intervals.
I wonder if options for curved flight and other functions were omitted for simpicity on the ST16S?

Having those options makes taking shots much simpler. Who wants a MR that is jerky and lacks the ability to make smooth transitions of direction? The 3DR Solo still after all this time has the best camera shot system. It's the FC that allows this. The latest 3rd party app Solex for Android is just fantastic. The H480 has some nice features as well, but what about the 520?

My comment on the 'continue mission' was if you lost connection with the craft or get a low battery warning, both are failsafe conditions that in Arducopter can be overridden in the parameters. For example, since it is an autonomous flight, if the craft momentarily loses connection during the mission, I may not want it to abort and RTL or Land or hover. There are good reasons for this. I don't want Yuneec being my nanny. That's what *** does.

As it stands, someone needs to include a detailed manual on what exactly the 520 can and can't do. I watched a recent video with a Yuneec rep, but honestly it was not all that inclusive. It was basically "oh everything is great and wonderful; the H520 is so much better than the H480, you're gonna love it".

I've already checked off what I like about the 520. There are too many unknowns to make a decision right now because nobody seems too sure what it can do. I can wait until about the end of February for Yuneec to get this all ironed out. After that, well...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graham
Arruntus,
The tables I given are from the latest UCGS version 2.13 beta which now takes into account the H520. But there are no additional features compared to what we have in AutoPilot. So no evolution in this software compared to the autopilot. No POI, no orbit etc ...

Well that explains a lot.
 
Arruntus,
The tables I given are from the latest UCGS version 2.13 beta which now takes into account the H520. But there are no additional features compared to what we have in AutoPilot. So no evolution in this software compared to the autopilot. No POI, no orbit etc ...

UGCS is not what the H520 carries. It's another third-party firmware. It also talks about PX4, which is not what the H520 carries either, because it is necessary to distinguish between the PX4 hardware and the different firmwares that can operate on the PX4 hardware. There is a firmware called PX4 Autopilot, but there is also a firmware called Ardupilot that works on the basis of PX4 hardware. It's a little messy.

That version of UGCS you're commenting on, the 2.13 beta, when it says it supports the H520 it means that it could be put in the Yuneec and run. The catch is that it's not the firmware that comes from the factory, even though we could replace it with that one. I don't see it clear, change the version for another one that has less functionalities.....

In those tables it says that the firmware PX4 does not support some functionalities that are supported by the H520. Hence the question to know where the discrepancy was.

I do not know if I have explained myself correctly....... :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graham
UGCS is not what the H520 carries. It's another third-party firmware. It also talks about PX4, which is not what the H520 carries either, because it is necessary to distinguish between the PX4 hardware and the different firmwares that can operate on the PX4 hardware. There is a firmware called PX4 Autopilot, but there is also a firmware called Ardupilot that works on the basis of PX4 hardware. It's a little messy.

That version of UGCS you're commenting on, the 2.13 beta, when it says it supports the H520 it means that it could be put in the Yuneec and run. The catch is that it's not the firmware that comes from the factory, even though we could replace it with that one. I don't see it clear, change the version for another one that has less functionalities.....

In those tables it says that the firmware PX4 does not support some functionalities that are supported by the H520. Hence the question to know where the discrepancy was.

I do not know if I have explained myself correctly....... :oops:

I've used UgCS with Pixhawk so am aware what it's used for. It's an alternative to Mission Planner.

Personally I think Yuneec should have used Arducopter. Why? Because Yuneec is not a huge company with unlimited resources. PX4 requires a lot more fiddling to get stuff to work, whereas AC works out of the box and is much more hardware friendly. Do a search to find comparisons of PX4 vs Ardupilot (Arducopter for MR). I do know they use different licensing schemes.

The SDK will shine the light on all of this when it comes to crunch time. I hope Yuneec reads these forums because no doubt there are others sitting on the fence waiting to see what transpires in the next couple months.
 
I have just purchased my 520 are you guys telling me I have bought a pile of crud. Surely Yuneec have a duty to provide a machine capable of the features discussed in the advertising and marketing material that make it fit for purpose. I have invested a good chunk of cash in the drone E50 and E90 and awaiting the CGO-ET to come into stock. I cannot afford for this to fail
 
Yes, it is far from the potentiality of the machine that Yuneec was promoting on paper.
I think there will be a lot of dissatisfaction waiting.
 
I have just purchased my 520 are you guys telling me I have bought a pile of crud. Surely Yuneec have a duty to provide a machine capable of the features discussed in the advertising and marketing material that make it fit for purpose. I have invested a good chunk of cash in the drone E50 and E90 and awaiting the CGO-ET to come into stock. I cannot afford for this to fail

No, I'm not saying it's a pile of crud. As I stated, there are a lot of unknowns as to what it can do now. One thing Yuneec has been poor at is communication.

There are many positives I've already seen. In fact, there hasn't been any negatives I've read about or even on YouTube mechanically, just a few bits and pieces of information concerning the software/firmware. The problem is Yuneec needs to promote their products, make detailed announcements. DataPilot is so new, but from what I've been reading there aren't many who have used it. Where is the manual and full list of features for the H520? What in the future will be added?

I apologize for giving the impression you are conveying. It wasn't intended to be that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dobba
Don't be discouraged, in fact what Claudius62 has published has made me investigate a little more and I'm even more animated than at the beginning, it's going to be a very powerful system. The catch is we're seeing that it's taking a while to materialize.

A working group made up of large drone manufacturers has been set up to focus on open source firmware, based on PX4 Autopilot but different. As I have already mentioned, the main Platinum level promoters are 3DR, Qualcomm and Intel, Yuneec is a Gold member and then Silver members are other leading manufacturers. A project supported by "The Linux Foundation". We're talking about serious things in my opinion.

A common base is developed for all manufacturers and then each manufacturer has tools to adapt it to their aircraft. That's why we also have an SDK available that will eventually expand its functionality. I think I am right in thinking that the controller of the H520 is the Pixhawk mini.

I understand that the development of the firmware is not directly dependent on Yuneec, there are many parties involved, even though he's directly involved in it. It will depend on yuneec then adapt that firmware to the H520 and make it work well.

I also understand that buyers of the H520 want features that still do not have, I also want them, but knowing a little more about how the future of our aircraft is headed I think that buying it is a success. Unfortunately, the lack of information makes these demands appear. It has been said many times, please Yuneec, give us more information, even if it is little, that we see that something moves. I think the lack of information is a mistake. :(

I've already mentioned it again, it seems I work for Yuneec, No. What I do is think positive. This does not prevent us from continuing to give our opinion and continue to contribute with new ideas so that the H520, we do not know when, will have functionalities that are absolutely necessary and others that can come very well :)

As usual, forgive my bad English, I hope I didn't say anything stupid :rolleyes:
 
I had to delete a post because of incorrect links that wouldn't cooperate, will try to fix.
 
Below is a Yuneec rep giving a rundown of the 520. One word he stresses is "simple"; keep it simple stupid? I like the video. However there is still the question about the flight planning software and why there are no smart shots available (or are there?).

This is what Rob Lefebvre, a former 3DR dev who helped me out a lot in the early days getting my big bird off the ground, said about PX4 vs Ardupilot.

PX4 vs ArduPilot - when to choose what


The custom/easy mixer in PX4 is both a strength, and a massive weakness. It makes it quick and easy to get new vehicle types flying. But it also means that PX4's flight controls are nothing more than really simple PID loops. This is highly over-simplified. This is why you will usually only see PX4 flight video in a laboratory, or on a windless days, and at low speeds, etc. Generally low performance flight.

Ardupilot has extremely sophisticated control systems. This prevents using flexible mixers. But, results in high performance flight.

Here's a clear example of the relative performance. Here's the state of the art flight performance for PX4 on a helicopter:


And here's what Ardupilot is doing:

Basically, PX4 gets you little more than a basic UAV operating system. Ardupilot, is ready to go to work. Just that simple.
So what should we glean from that? The Yuneec rep says he can fly the 520 in 50 mph winds. That is more than impressive and implies Yuneec has put considerable development time into the basic flight characteristics.So they must have drastically altered the PX4 flight controls. However at the moment the 520 appears to be sorely lacking in advanced flight modes/features that are in the H 480. Would that be accurate?


I think what you said is right and what Rob said in March was right then, too. Now I don't think it's true because a lot of work has been done since then and it's still going on. I would also have liked it if the firmware had been Ardupilot, I'm used to fighting with him :D

But after what I said in the previous post, I think that Ardupilot is going to have a very serious competitor and this is something that benefits us all.
 
Glider,

There is nothing the 520 does aside from using DataPilot that could not be done with APM or Pixhawk. In fact, from everything I’ve read the 520 falls far short in functionality compared to APM and Pixhawk. Both can be user configured to do pretty much anything you want and using telemetry radio have much longer ranges. The only benefit of the 520 seems to reside in having a live video feed at the RC controller. As Ardupilot reached such level of refinement long ago Yuneec needs to bust some butt just to play catch up. Unfortunately Yuneec has not been noted for their agility.
 
Glider,

There is nothing the 520 does aside from using DataPilot that could not be done with APM or Pixhawk. In fact, from everything I’ve read the 520 falls far short in functionality compared to APM and Pixhawk. Both can be user configured to do pretty much anything you want and using telemetry radio have much longer ranges. The only benefit of the 520 seems to reside in having a live video feed at the RC controller. As Ardupilot reached such level of refinement long ago Yuneec needs to bust some butt just to play catch up. Unfortunately Yuneec has not been noted for their agility.

Disclaimer: The first part of this post is not directly related to the 520.

The interesting part of all this is PX4 and Ardupilot worked together during 3DR's involvement.

When 3DR split the consumer drone scene, they threw the Ardupilot devs under the bus. That's how I remember it. Look at what Arducopter can do now though. It's amazing.

Rob Lefebvre can be a cantankerous sort, but tells it like it is.
APM stack question, APM vs PX4

Hopefully the end user will benefit from all this.
=======================================================================================

This is the latest video discussion with a Yuneec rep I could find on YT concerning the 520. That was over 2 months ago. For those that own the 520, are the features pretty much how they are described in the video or have there been updates with lots of new features (unnamed)? Yuneec seems to have concentrated on the construction site/surveying uses, but not much to offer yet in the videographic market feature wise. Is that fair to say?
 
No update regarding the features. It is still rough release.
According to Yuneec:
PHOTOS & MOVIES
The production of aerial video requires a clear image, precise movements and the ability to make another shot quickly. At the production site, every second wasted costs money. The H520 allows a producer to pre-schedule shots and various aerial video movements, which can be easily stored and recalled for additional shots. You need to slightly change the air video movement on the spot? Remember a pre-planned shooting and update the plan quickly on site with the ground station ST16S, then repeat the flight within minutes.
YES everything except that. Videos ???
Unable to follow a subject, makes turns to cut with a knife, abrupt stop at each turn to believe that he is afraid to hit the wall.
This section of photo and films should not have appeared in their Pub. He is unable to do it properly. You feel cheated in the story.

And this death silence from yuneec concerning hypothetical improvements to come.
 
I've used UgCS with Pixhawk so am aware what it's used for. It's an alternative to Mission Planner.
Exactly. Yuneec h520 is a drone capable for diverse tasks but doesn't have rich ground station software. Now all functions of UgCS available to Yuneec customers. Of course with limitations of h520...
 
Some new mission features? Looks like the software team is working on some updates.
894fec204215b1a543d0c77990597eea.jpg
b2eee16e31f91d7af4c25643cd119b30.jpg
 
There is a lot of discussion about the PX4 controller but unfortunately Yuneec couldn't even get the ST16s software right, you can't change mode (mode 2 only) and you can't setup exponential or rates on the controls, these are basic TX functions
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,285
Latest member
hendrtiz