Typhoon H+

[Ty Pilot]

@Peggy thank you for that honest review, this is the kind of stuff I have been hoping for. A couple questions if I may: you mention the abruptness and similarity to the 520 - I came to Yuneec from DJI and found the the 480 was (and sorta still is) a little rough around center, how would you compare the Plus to the 480 in terms of abruptness? Second Question: when you say distortion, do you mean lens distortion as in "Fisheye" or are you seeing something else? I do see a little curvature in some of the footage but it is nowhere near as bad as what we have on the 480. TIA.

 

[Peggy]

@Peggy thank you for that honest review, this is the kind of stuff I have been hoping for. A couple questions if I may: you mention the abruptness and similarity to the 520 - I came to Yuneec from DJI and found the the 480 was (and sorta still is) a little rough around center, how would you compare the Plus to the 480 in terms of abruptness? Second Question: when you say distortion, do you mean lens distortion as in "Fisheye" or are you seeing something else? I do see a little curvature in some of the footage but it is nowhere near as bad as what we have on the 480. TIA.

I have never owned or flown a 480, I came from dji straight to the 520. In short I was tossing a coin on an inspire 2 or the 520. I waited for the anticipated launch of the 520 for months and was about to buy the i2 just as the 520 launched. I wanted to get away from dji so after reading the gumpf on the 520 it seemed the perfect solution. Oh how I was wrong.
So that’s my story Ty so I can’t compare the H+ to the H unfortunately but what I can compare it to is the 520.

Distortion: yes fish eye, the horizon and bottom corners are curved but as I said earlier no where near as bad as the E90 was when it first came out. The C23 is a lot better than then at this stage but does need sorting still.
There is also no manual (atti mode) either on the H+ but I am led to believe that will be coming in an update as that is ridiculous to have that as auto like the Mavic pro. It needs a switch like the 520 for indoor flying, especially in metal hangers.

Hope that answers your questions buddy

 

[Ty Pilot]

That does answer a lot, thank you. As I mentioned I came from a Phantom and the abrupt off-hover motion was something I had to get used to and even remedied a little, but in the meantime just learned to work around it with the 480. I suspect the plus is therefore about the same as the 480, not having flown the 520 but from what I see from many videos, it looks about the same. Thanks for the report and discussion, here's to hoping everything else goes well.

 

[PatR]

One thing relative to that abrupt response coming off center, it is never telegraphed to the video through the gimbal. Yuneec’s gimbals cancel all of it out, unlike others. You’ll never see a yaw jig with Yuneec’s stuff. The drone may act a little jumpy but the video never does.

 

[YuKay]

Perhaps where you are this is true, but for here our military recently grounded all consumer drones doing work for them having direct linkage, or the ability to direct connect with the manufacturer. In fact, they grounded all COTS drones. Those currently maintaining their ability to do business with government agencies all design their own versions of code, the majority without flight restriction software.

Well, from all that I have read on the upcoming raft of new drone regs, forced updates will be with us as soon as new drones support them, whether via OTA or another route.

This blog about the Typhoon H v3.0 firmware update also says that all future updates will be pushed automatically over the air.

Big Brother was also throwing his weight around last year when DJI announced they would cripple drones which weren't running the latest firmware.

Maybe the regulators will find it tougher to restrict the self-build electronics boffins but the major manufacturers are easy targets for them as they will have to fall into line if they want to get approval to sell their merchandise.

Big Brother is coming - and most amateur pilots won't even notice!

 

[Kev Waite]

Well, from all that I have read on the upcoming raft of new drone regs, forced updates will be with us as soon as new drones support them, whether via OTA or another route.

This blog about the Typhoon H v3.0 firmware update also says that all future updates will be pushed automatically over the air.

Big Brother was also throwing his weight around last year when DJI announced they would cripple drones which weren't running the latest firmware.

Maybe the regulators will find it tougher to restrict the self-build electronics boffins but the major manufacturers are easy targets for them as they will have to fall into line if they want to get approval to sell their merchandise.

Big Brother is coming - and most amateur pilots won't even notice!

Yuneec have always made a thing of they will never force an update on you. OTA was introduced to make update easier via wifi but does not force you to update, unlike some other makes.

 

[YuKay]

Yuneec have always made a thing of they will never force an update on you. OTA was introduced to make update easier via wifi but does not force you to update, unlike some other makes.

Not yet maybe but the times they are a-changing and all manufacturers will have to play ball. This is the price to be paid for "soft" new upcoming regulations which don't require every amateur pilot to undergo practical training and testing.

For example, the upcoming draft EU legislation states:

"Manufacturers shall ensure that procedures are in place to
ensure that software upgrades taking place after the placing
on the market do not alter the compliance of the product."​

That must include making their software tamper-proof.

The UK CAA goes further in its consultation response, stating several times that drones should:

"- be equipped with a system which limits/prevents the UA
from operating if the software is not updated regularly (time
duration between updates to be determined based on the risk
and level of reliance on technical systems)
- be manufactured in a way so that the systems necessary
for safe flight and maintaining classification limits cannot be
tampered with".​

…which would have to mean forced software updates, either OTA or by restricting flight functionality until updates are manually installed.

Meanwhile, Yuneec have already stated:

"So that updates are even easier to install, we have also
introduced an OTA update function. That means that all
future updates will be downloaded simply via Wi-Fi using
the ST16 and automatically installed on the remote control,
camera and hexacopter."​

It may be a translation thing but the key word there is "will". They don't say that future updates "can" be automatically installed.

All will become clear over the next few months as the drone laws are updated across Europe, and presumably elsewhere; but it does look as though we will soon be under the control of Big Brother - and that no manufacturer will be able to opt out. Many will consider that a good thing of course, albeit competent pilots may not.

 

[Tuna]

That blog is a bit misleading - it's dated recently, but the 3.0 update came out last year, and we've had OTA upgrades for the H480 for a long time now. Yuneec do *not* push OTA upgrades, and have made a point that the ST-16 does not connect to the internet for anything, unless you explicitly ask it to do so. This is a big selling point for them when large American companies are introducing policies to stop using *** drones for exactly that reason.

The CAA position is a little silly - if your firmware is stable, you should not be pushing updates out for the sake of meeting some schedule. It's like demanding that airplane manufacturers redesign their planes every six months. Changes increase risk.

At present, I'm not optimistic about drone laws, but the latest advice is that the laws themselves are not going to be very complete, so to avoid them getting stuck in parliament. In the UK, the consultation on the proposed laws are due in a few months' time.

 

[YuKay]

My logic is that geo-fencing would be a half-baked safeguard if drone owners were allowed to skip firmware updates containing the latest NFZs. I assume that's what the CAA wants to legislate for.

And whatever Yuneec's stance has been to date, they will change their tune if they need to in order to get products certified. The facility to push firmware updates may already be built in but they would hardly pre-announce such a "feature" until they had to. Accredited pro operators will be able to unlock barriers of course while emergency services, the military, etc will presumably be able to go wherever they need to.

But time will tell.

 

[PatR]

The E.U. and U.S. are very different places. I don’t want to go into this too deeply but DJI has been lobbying governments around the world to adopt their geo fencing as part of legal policy. There’s a whole lot of financial reasons for DJI, or anyone else, to do that as it forces licensing agreements payable to the software developers. It appears the E.U. fell for it while the U.S has steadfastly rejected it. For it to happen in the U.S a domestic corporation will have to develop one specific to here. Rumor has Honeywell going that direction...

 

[NorWiscPilot]

One point to keep in mind... “updates via WiFi and automatically transfer to the UAV” is not the same as “updates applied that were not un by the user”.

The former, as is current with the H480, means the user elects whether or not to ask for an update. Once initiated, the actual update should be relatively hands off.

The latter means “whenever a new version of software/firmware is loaded to a distribution facility/server, each qualifying UAV will have no choice but to be updated.

It is the latter we should not allow to be a requirement as it has all kinds of implications, some already voiced and others still silent or yet to be discovered.

There is and can be a difference between the UAV operational software/firmware and any geofence/no fly zone “patch”. As Tuna suggests, a perfectly good and reliable flight control system should not require a mandatory update schedule. “If it works, don’t mess with it.” Any NFZ stuff, while still problematic, should be considered totally separate and on its own merits as to mandatory update provisions or electable.

One point of view, anyway.

Jeff

 

[PatR]

Something to consider with auto updates is the quality of the new code. As has been demonstrated many times over, consumer drone companies are not noted for fully vetting their new firmware. To mandate an upload of unproven, often faulty, code would put a lot of people and property at risk.

 

[YuKay]

Something to consider with auto updates is the quality of the new code. As has been demonstrated many times over, consumer drone companies are not noted for fully vetting their new firmware. To mandate an upload of unproven, often faulty, code would put a lot of people and property at risk.

I don't envisage forced/pushed updates of the whole operating system (although I do see it being compulsorily tamper-proofed). The forcing, if there is to be any, would be of updates to the geofencing module only (which may or may not require a concurrent modification to the OS firmware as I'm no boffin).

But while I'm convinced that Big Brother isn't going to allow us to ignore NFZ updates, there may be other solutions. This just-granted IBM patent is an interesting read and indicates that centrally stored NFZ data could be automatically downloaded before every flight - or that the NFZ data depository could be continuously accessed live and on-the-fly during every flight.

There's other interesting stuff in there, such as using the geofencing data to reduce camera resolution on-the-fly. They also imply that it is possible to dynamically alter NFZs so that they can be different shapes at night for example, or change the restrictions/permissions depending on the time of day or the type of operator. "Alternatively or in addition, the geo-fence may be configured dynamically [in real time] based on attributes and capabilities of the drone." IBM also say that drone noise levels can be monitored and geofencing restrictions adjusted in real time to limit disturbance.

 

[PatR]

I get a kick out of the noise level monitoring concept. When we consider the sound generated by motorcycles, over powered car stereos, passenger jets, police helicopters, loud auto exhaust, lawn mowers, and other “acceptable” societal noise polluters the desire to monitor electric powered drone noise seems laughable.

 

[YuKay]

Aye, but you're making a case for more noise monitoring, not less.

 

[robport]

Don't know about you, but we are all using our drones to spy on people, like the news says, so quiet is better. Next, stealth technology. I hope you detect a hint of sarcasm...well more than a hint.

 

[Mickeyboo]

I remember fondly when someone was operating a table saw outside and they came up to me and said my drone was making too much noise.

 

[Richk]

Does anyone know the details of the flight controller? Is it the same as the Pixhawk 2.1 with triple IMU dual Baro and compass? If it does it would make it one of the safest flying machines out there

 

[rdonson]

This is the joke that US Yuneec calls a manual for the H+

http://us.yuneec.com/files/downloads/typhoon-h-plus/Typhoon_H_Plus_Manual.pdf

 

[Mickeyboo]

I would be willing to bet my house it is nowhere near as good or similar to Pixhawk....at this point with the exception of the camera having higher resolution I don't think it's as good as the ST16.