RTK Built into the H520?

[dsandson]

Given the product launch by the huge gorilla in the corner (P4P RTK & base station) I was thinking that this is likely to be something that Yuneec should really be getting into.

I am in the construction industry and my companyu has our own RTK base & rover setup. Combining that with RTK enabled position readings for the recorded imagery would be excellent.

The other take off I got from the promotional spiel was that each P4P rtk camera will be factory calibrated with the calibration encoded to the firmware and written to the image metadata. Something like this within an updated E90 with a leaf shutter would be fantatsic too.

I realise that Yuneec arent that large a company but these high yielding niches are where I reckon they should be making a play for before others fill them.

 

[airwojtas]

Yes indeed, RTK in P4Pro is a game-changer if we are talking about construction surveys (areas, volumes, map validation) using prosumer UAVs. It really reduces time for GCP measurement and ensure aeorotriangulation calculations. I would be very grateful if someone from Yuneec could say if they are working on such a solution for H520 or not.

 

[arruntus]

Do you already know the price of the RTK version? fear makes me think about it..................

 

[dsandson]

Arruntus, I beleive its around 4000 euro for the RTK P4P, or around 8000 euro for the P4P RTK & their D-RTK base station. Its actually less than I expected. For a matter of comparison the business I work for is an engineering consultancy and we've recently bought new TOPCON GNSS RTK base & rover setup for many times that.

The interesting thing would be an RTK H520 which could get its real time NTRIP corrections through an existing 3rd party base station, such as we already have. I'm sure that would be within Yuneec's development abilities.

Oh and an updated E90 with a leaf mechanical shutter and calibrated lense.

 

[arruntus]

Those prices you comment on, I guess they're not official, they can't be. I mean, the RTK base can't cost like the RTK rober + the drone.

The advantage we have in the H520, since it is based on PX4, I think it would allow to put a GPS RTK without much problem. Then it would be a question of a base. All L1 of course to give a resolution of 2.5 to 3 cm. The prices of both elements range between 800 and 1100 Euros. I'm talking about the H520.

If we talk about the P4P, given that the system is proprietary they can put the price they want, and if they go the way of the thermal cameras I think you have pointed low, I think they will be higher than that. Simple curiosity because in the end being the largest manufacturer can create trend despite what is already established in the market

 

[PatR]

Integration would not be difficult using PX4 if, and only if, users had the ability to access the PX4 module. As the number of sold 520’s is relatively few in number there is no financial impetus for app developers to invest the time and labor in developing coordinating software so whatever is needed would have to be handled by individual users or through a plea to the Dronecode community. Unfortunately, the Dronecode community is profit driven so it’s likely a considerable sum would have to be provided for them to act, or a clear path to a large and continuous follow on revenue stream.

 

[airwojtas]

Accodring to PX4 documentation, there are even Plug&Play RTK solutions that works with PX4 through QGroundControl (for example: Here+ · PX4 User Guide).

RTK setup and use on PX4 via QGroundControl is largely plug and play (see RTK GPS for more information).

Since the DataPilot is in fact personalized QGroundControl, and replacing GPS module in H520 is simply just plug in cables of GPS Here+ RTK (you can see scheme link above), my question is it possible to access RTK corrections with this setup in our H520? We would also need some post-processing software to do calculations. Mission Planner or QGC? Any ideas?

 

[dsandson]

Those prices you comment on, I guess they're not official, they can't be. I mean, the RTK base can't cost like the RTK rober + the drone.

I've just checked the news item and the P4P rtk is 5700 euro, and the kit is 7800 euro.

DJI Launches The Phantom 4 RTK Globally - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

 

[dsandson]

Accodring to PX4 documentation, there are even Plug&Play RTK solutions that works with PX4 through QGroundControl (for example: Here+ · PX4 User Guide).



Since the DataPilot is in fact personalized QGroundControl, and replacing GPS module in H520 is simply just plug in cables of GPS Here+ RTK (you can see scheme link above), my question is it possible to access RTK corrections with this setup in our H520? We would also need some post-processing software to do calculations. Mission Planner or QGC? Any ideas?

Not sure I'm up to modding our H520. In my best case I could use our existing base to transmit rtk NTRIP corrections in real time to the drone, possibly vie the ST16S. In a similar manner to how a GNSS rtk base and rover would work. Obviously that requires an RTK model for us to purchase. The fact it's apparently relatively easy to do is very encouraging though.

 

[airwojtas]

Why would you use real-time corrections? This is non-sense if you are just mapping terrain. Once you lost GPS singal you will not gain fixed solution to some images. Better solution is to use post-processing kinematic, preferably using L1/L2 RTK Receiver and instead using physical base station you can connect to RTK Network using NTRP Caster and then create virtual base stations (VRS) for processing . This is what I always do when flying professional survey drones.

 

[dsandson]

airwojtas, to be honest I have no experience with PPK. I know some basic theory about, but dont even know what software can do that. And that software is likely a further cost to the business.

To be fair I've never had a base station lack of satellite coverage. The main issue is normally cell coverage when using a network Rover. Never say never I suppose though!

 

[arruntus]

Why would you use real-time corrections? This is non-sense if you are just mapping terrain. Once you lost GPS singal you will not gain fixed solution to some images. Better solution is to use post-processing kinematic, preferably using L1/L2 RTK Receiver and instead using physical base station you can connect to RTK Network using NTRP Caster and then create virtual base stations (VRS) for processing . This is what I always do when flying professional survey drones.

I don't agree with that statement. It is true that in the end it is for tastes and taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of either PPK or RTK.

I prefer RTK over PPK because it is not necessary to do pros-processing and that takes time, and time is money. Considering that nowadays in a drone losing GPS positioning is very difficult, I'm not talking about hardware failures, saving you time is always desirable. Of course this depends on the area in which you work. Anyway practically all current systems allow to work in both ways so I bet on the RTK and if there are problems switch to PPK.

It is more likely to have problems to connect to a network or to a NTRIP server than to lose the satellite coverage. That's how I see it at least.

 

[dsandson]

It is more likely to have problems to connect to a network or to a NTRIP server than to lose the satellite coverage. That's how I see it at least.

Arruntus thats exactly my experience too. GNSS survey systems can be frustrating when they dont work. For me its usually been a system setting thats reset to the wrong value or inadequate coverage on the cell networks. Some days getting that magic 'RTK Fixed' notification is like getting blood from a stone, although as long as we're not under a tree canopy its nearly always cell related, or Rover to Server communications.

 

[arruntus]

as long as we're not under a tree canopy its nearly always cell related

and for those occasions a 5 meter USB cable is usually the solution

 

[Tuna]

It did occur to me that it should be possible to do PPK 'out of the tin' with the H520, but I've not had time (or a H520!) to look at the hardware and run any tests. No reason it couldn't be done as part of a batch uploader, so it wouldn't really add any time to the job.

 

[arruntus]

It did occur to me that it should be possible to do PPK 'out of the tin' with the H520, but I've not had time (or a H520!) to look at the hardware and run any tests. No reason it couldn't be done as part of a batch uploader, so it wouldn't really add any time to the job.

I don't have time for anything, have you checked if the functions are implemented in the SDK?

 

[terrence davidson]

well looks like ublox neo-m8p will function as ordinary gps until it gets a rtk signal then it switches to full rtk mode. now If only we can switch out the default h520 gps module and switch with the neo-m8p. info from GPS-RTK Hookup Guide - learn.sparkfun.com

 

[arruntus]

well looks like ublox neo-m8p will function as ordinary gps until it gets a rtk signal then it switches to full rtk mode. now If only we can switch out the default h520 gps module and switch with the neo-m8p. info from GPS-RTK Hookup Guide - learn.sparkfun.com

Physically I think it's possible but through telemetry we have to send another type of data that if the firmware does not have the appropriate programming I think you do nothing. I'm not very involved in that subject, but I think so.

 

[terrence davidson]

has any checked out the st16s mavlink in the hidden advance menu.

 

[arruntus]

has any checked out the st16s mavlink in the hidden advance menu.

I looked at it in its day and I seem to remember, I'm not sure, that they had everything blocked, as well as modify the value of the variables.