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

Update 1.3 - 1 March 2018

Looking forward. Ha. We have been looking forward for 6 months now with NO real improvement. The H520/E90 machine and Camera is a joke. It is not even funny now. Complete waste of time. I feel sick to my teeth with this piece of scrap. That's all this machine is good for right now. Unless it sees a massive improvement very soon, I will be done with Yuneec for good. It's a heap of Junk.

With all due respect, RG,

I was responding to PatR's closing line: "The technology is available it’s just a matter of properly employing it."

I chose to interpret Pat's statement as something more forward looking, not necessarily saying everything is "performing properly right now".

I understand the concerns and frustrations with the current state of "things". I am involved in my own. I am simply trying to focus on the positives and make the best of what I can obtain, rather than continue to dwell in the negativity and thus become paralyzed by it.

Sorry to be reading of all the frustrations and disappointments. Still "looking forward" to improvements in many facets, not just with the H520 and not just with Yuneec, but rather the industry as a whole.

Jeff
 
There seems to be a pattern on this forum... namely people come here with questions and to share insights and then a small number of people repeatedly say the same things about the E90 and PX4.

It's slightly painful to wade through the same comments from the same people EVERY DAY in order to find useful information. Just my two cents but I think it's kinda driving people to not post here.
Good. Maybe if we weren't having problems, we wouldn't be posting them. If it was such an amazing machine, we would all be posting about how good it is. But unfortunately it is not. And this is why you are seeing the negative posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CEWC
What I meant was that there are even sites that sell it with RealSense. Deceptive sale.
I even saw another sales site, but I can not find it, who sold it touting all flight modes, orbits, follow-me etc ..., which he absolutely does not have.
Hey, I just found him, take a look at the link, you're going to be flabbergasted, stay seated. We really live in a rotten world.
The Link : https://www.tienda24hs.com/epages/6...ath=/Shops/62148069/Products/1747-Yuneec-H520
 
With all due respect, RG,

I was responding to PatR's closing line: "The technology is available it’s just a matter of properly employing it."

I chose to interpret Pat's statement as something more forward looking, not necessarily saying everything is "performing properly right now".

Jeff

I can be positive or negative depending on the moment but your post captured exactly what I implied.

Those that are pragmatic understand that levels of sophistication have associated levels of cost, and as we strive for more capability and accuracy the cost to provide them rises exponentially. All manufacturers run up against a wall built around what will customers be willing or capable of paying for better technology, which in turn determines what they will ultimately be provided. Only one manufacturer has the ability to repeatedly “dump” their products after a relatively short marketing run in order to clear inventory for the next marginally improved release.

Yuneec has experienced some difficult situations in the last year or so and we don’t know what they have done or doing to mitigate them. Staffing is lower, capital resources have been reduced through no fault of their own, so focus for each platform or component may be more limited than previously. If staffing is such that only a couple of items can be worked on at a time the product development process would end up slower with releases less complete in development due to those time and labor constraints. What happens between now and June will tell us much as development of the H Plus may well generate and incorporate all the “fixes” needed for the E-90, which could in turn provide the next 520 update for camera corrections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorWiscPilot
If you dig past the negative comments posted exclusively by three or four people there are people posting helpful and positive comments. For example, good looking, detailed maps, which shows that people can indeed map with it, despite others' insistence that the H520 and the E90 are completely incapable of doing so. Posts about someone using the sdk to make an orbit flight planning software, etc.

**Edit** All I'm saying is this is a great forum, let's not get bogged down repeating the same complaints on every single thread.
 
If you dig past the negative comments posted exclusively by three or four people there are people posting helpful and positive comments. For example, good looking, detailed maps, which shows that people can indeed map with it, despite others' insistence that the H520 and the E90 are completely incapable of doing so. Posts about someone using the sdk to make an orbit flight planning software, etc.

**Edit** All I'm saying is this is a great forum, let's not get bogged down repeating the same complaints on every single thread.

Be aware that not everyone who is angry with the situation expresses it, simply because some do it already. I can assure you that I know a few who are very angry, who have trouble getting the jobs out with the H520 that don't say anything.

I would love to be the first to be able to put positive things in, I do it when they exist. The problem is that it's a lot more negative than positive. I'll repeat, it's in Yuneec's hand to solve it, not ours. We can only give our opinion and ask for what we would like this platform to be, which is supposed to be professional but which for now is not demonstrating it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGilmore
I can be positive or negative depending on the moment but your post captured exactly what I implied.

Those that are pragmatic understand that levels of sophistication have associated levels of cost, and as we strive for more capability and accuracy the cost to provide them rises exponentially. All manufacturers run up against a wall built around what will customers be willing or capable of paying for better technology, which in turn determines what they will ultimately be provided. Only one manufacturer has the ability to repeatedly “dump” their products after a relatively short marketing run in order to clear inventory for the next marginally improved release.

Yuneec has experienced some difficult situations in the last year or so and we don’t know what they have done or doing to mitigate them. Staffing is lower, capital resources have been reduced through no fault of their own, so focus for each platform or component may be more limited than previously. If staffing is such that only a couple of items can be worked on at a time the product development process would end up slower with releases less complete in development due to those time and labor constraints. What happens between now and June will tell us much as development of the H Plus may well generate and incorporate all the “fixes” needed for the E-90, which could in turn provide the next 520 update for camera corrections.
If you dig past the negative comments posted exclusively by three or four people there are people posting helpful and positive comments. For example, good looking, detailed maps, which shows that people can indeed map with it, despite others' insistence that the H520 and the E90 are completely incapable of doing so. Posts about someone using the sdk to make an orbit flight planning software, etc.

**Edit** All I'm saying is this is a great forum, let's not get bogged down repeating the same complaints on every single thread.



Well. Yes. It would be great to come on here with good things to say. I agree. It's actually very very sad we can't. And whilst some people are very happy with it and how they go about creating data for customers, I am not. The whole work flow with the data sets it produces is just a headache. Maybe the day will come where we can all post good news on it.
 
10-8,

Mapping software does use the totality of each image to generate a composition. They discard edges based on the established overlap. All the images are essentially cropped to match up adjoining frames. Because of that someone doing mapping would not experience the barrel distortion a person capturing stills or normal video would.

Yuneec certainly has the ability to produce a low to no distortion 1” sensor camera as they have already done so with the CGO-4. Photographers really should not be required to correct distortion every time they use a camera but it’s not easy to optimize a camera for multiple applications when it only has a solitary lens option. From what I’ve observed the E-90 seems to be optimized for photogrammetry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graham and 10-8
Be aware that not everyone who is angry with the situation expresses it, simply because some do it already. I can assure you that I know a few who are very angry, who have trouble getting the jobs out with the H520 that don't say anything.

I would love to be the first to be able to put positive things in, I do it when they exist. The problem is that it's a lot more negative than positive. I'll repeat, it's in Yuneec's hand to solve it, not ours. We can only give our opinion and ask for what we would like this platform to be, which is supposed to be professional but which for now is not demonstrating it.

Arruntus,

I believe you are missing the point as to what Panomapic is saying.

As to the shortcomings, faults, "not as advertised"... we see the posts. The point is, does every single thread, let alone every other reply in each thread, have to rant about the same thing over and over?

Doesn't matter if some are laying in the weeds and not speaking up. There are enough playing the broken record already, and not just in the dedicated "complaints" thread.

Does every question or every call for help have to contain responses repeating the same rants?

Just asking... (rhetorically)

Jeff

(By rants, I mean this: say something once or twice, good. Keep repeating the same thing as a response to everything - enter the "rant zone".

No offense intended, just voicing a concurring opinion with another member who has voiced a concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AK Vet and 10-8
10-8,

Mapping software does use the totality of each image to generate a composition. They discard edges based on the established overlap. All the images are essentially cropped to match up adjoining frames. Because of that someone doing mapping would not experience the barrel distortion a person capturing stills or normal video would.

Yuneec certainly has the ability to produce a low to no distortion 1” sensor camera as they have already done so with the CGO-4. Photographers really should not be required to correct distortion every time they use a camera but it’s not easy to optimize a camera for multiple applications when it only has a solitary lens option. From what I’ve observed the E-90 seems to be optimized for photogrammetry.


Tell that to the guys who are having issues with the Photogrammetric images.
 
Arruntus,

I believe you are missing the point as to what Panomapic is saying.

As to the shortcomings, faults, "not as advertised"... we see the posts. The point is, does every single thread, let alone every other reply in each thread, have to rant about the same thing over and over?

Doesn't matter if some are laying in the weeds and not speaking up. There are enough playing the broken record already, and not just in the dedicated "complaints" thread.

Does every question or every call for help have to contain responses repeating the same rants?

Just asking... (rhetorically)

Jeff

(By rants, I mean this: say something once or twice, good. Keep repeating the same thing as a response to everything - enter the "rant zone".

No offense intended, just voicing a concurring opinion with another member who has voiced a concern.



Jeff, can I ask then, please do tell us some of the positive findings you have and share your work with us, to help us see the good things. And your friend, tell him to join in and share all the positives. We are all open ears here.
 
Jeff, can I ask then, please do tell us some of the positive findings you have and share your work with us, to help us see the good things. And your friend, tell him to join in and share all the positives. We are all open ears here.

Sorry RG,

I don't have anything to share until I get a chance to learn more and experience/experiment more.

Waiting for my H520 to return home. Hopefully it will confirm the fix for some of our gimbal vibration issues may be a simple one and nothing to do with firmware. I will post when I can personally confirm.

Still trying to learn what "can" be done and how.

Also, not trying to incite a flame war with anyone, let alone you, RG. Just hoping for the best and choosing to stay positive for as long as I can. No ill will meant to anyone who chooses to lend less than positive perspectives.

Jeff
 
PatR,

(Disclaimer: my memories are mine; doesn’t mean they are fully accurate!)

I don’t recall reading anything hinting the H520 was to supplant anything. Instead, it was to be the flagship or at least the reason to create a Yuneec commercial segment.

The H Plus supplants the H480. To that I agree.

I never expected the H520 to replace the H480 (feature sets).

As you state, the H520 does what it was meant to do, though with some refinements still pending. The H Plus, if it lives up to its press clippings, compliments the line-up of the H480 lineage.

I am looking forward to having both in my fleet, for each to do what each does best. Just hope the revenue comes in to pay for both so I don’t have to take up residence in the garage!

Jeff

Fair enough. I only hope they live up to the expectations they've promoted at CES. The H Plus has tremendous opportunity to be a platform that allows them to at least catch up to the competition's video performance levels. Being a completely customer owned system it has the opportunity to surpass the competition if but a little advance planning and effort is expended in assuring everything works as advertised. Toss a little work into SDK apps and they could have a killer machine. But if they remove any of the H-480's functionality they will have taken a step back for every one forward.

Make no mistake, my hopes are that Yuneec does things right. They're due.
 
RG,

As I elected not to buy a 520 due to the obvious differences between the beta versions that were widely touted and the actual production version that hit the streets I don't have "hand's on" data for a reference comparisons. What I see with the product posted by numerous people indicates the E-90 is far better for photogrammetry than it is for general video or stills photography. I won't even pretend to think the E-90 is a great photogrammetry tool because the published map images show it's not. It does okay for those that don't require high levels of accuracy but won't meet the needs of those requiring centimeter, or better, accuracy. What I'm saying is the 520/E-90 combination appears to be better for mapping rather than photography. It's not "the best" for either application. Not specifically directed at anyone in particular but I believe most multirotor users are somewhat naive where expectations versus equipment costs are concerned.

Realistically a reasonably well set up hex running Pixhawk with a fixed mount Sony or Canon point and shoot camera could (does) do better (and generally cost more), but people want relatively inexpensive, "simplified" mass produced COT's products that "average" everything out in order to minimize development and production costs, which permits maximizing retail pricing and unit profitability, which ultimately leaves specialized applications falling short of what they could have been. Producing for the masses and what they can afford always generates shortfalls in one or more areas.

The 520 and payloads certainly have room for improvement, the only question is will it be improved, how soon will it be improved, and will it remain a featured/centerpiece product long enough for it to achieve the level of sophistication it could achieve?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGilmore and 10-8
10-8,

Mapping software does use the totality of each image to generate a composition. They discard edges based on the established overlap. All the images are essentially cropped to match up adjoining frames. Because of that someone doing mapping would not experience the barrel distortion a person capturing stills or normal video would.

Yuneec certainly has the ability to produce a low to no distortion 1” sensor camera as they have already done so with the CGO-4. Photographers really should not be required to correct distortion every time they use a camera but it’s not easy to optimize a camera for multiple applications when it only has a solitary lens option. From what I’ve observed the E-90 seems to be optimized for photogrammetry.
Thanks Pat, That's exactly what I have been demonstrating. I, and others on other groups are getting very good results in mapping without touching the photos in post. I only post these examples because others have stated that the results are unacceptable, unusable or difficult to stitch. Which is not true at all. The overlap that all mapping survey incorporate regardless of platform/camera will take care of distortions visible in other applications, like videos.
 
RG,

As I elected not to buy a 520 due to the obvious differences between the beta versions that were widely touted and the actual production version that hit the streets I don't have "hand's on" data for a reference comparisons. What I see with the product posted by numerous people indicates the E-90 is far better for photogrammetry than it is for general video or stills photography. I won't even pretend to think the E-90 is a great photogrammetry tool because the published map images show it's not. It does okay for those that don't require high levels of accuracy but won't meet the needs of those requiring centimeter, or better, accuracy. What I'm saying is the 520/E-90 combination appears to be better for mapping rather than photography. It's not "the best" for either application. Not specifically directed at anyone in particular but I believe most multirotor users are somewhat naive where expectations versus equipment costs are concerned.

Realistically a reasonably well set up hex running Pixhawk with a fixed mount Sony or Canon point and shoot camera could (does) do better (and generally cost more), but people want relatively inexpensive, "simplified" mass produced COT's products that "average" everything out in order to minimize development and production costs, which permits maximizing retail pricing and unit profitability, which ultimately leaves specialized applications falling short of what they could have been. Producing for the masses and what they can afford always generates shortfalls in one or more areas.

The 520 and payloads certainly have room for improvement, the only question is will it be improved, how soon will it be improved, and will it remain a featured/centerpiece product long enough for it to achieve the level of sophistication it could achieve?

Well said. I have a pixhawk build that carries a Sony a6300 camera, which is an outstanding camera. And I can use it for other work as well as mapping. But the 520 is such an easier to move and carry/deploy than my larger machine powered with 2ea 10-16000ma batteries.
uc
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatR
RG,

As I elected not to buy a 520 due to the obvious differences between the beta versions that were widely touted and the actual production version that hit the streets I don't have "hand's on" data for a reference comparisons. What I see with the product posted by numerous people indicates the E-90 is far better for photogrammetry than it is for general video or stills photography. I won't even pretend to think the E-90 is a great photogrammetry tool because the published map images show it's not. It does okay for those that don't require high levels of accuracy but won't meet the needs of those requiring centimeter, or better, accuracy. What I'm saying is the 520/E-90 combination appears to be better for mapping rather than photography. It's not "the best" for either application. Not specifically directed at anyone in particular but I believe most multirotor users are somewhat naive where expectations versus equipment costs are concerned.

Realistically a reasonably well set up hex running Pixhawk with a fixed mount Sony or Canon point and shoot camera could (does) do better (and generally cost more), but people want relatively inexpensive, "simplified" mass produced COT's products that "average" everything out in order to minimize development and production costs, which permits maximizing retail pricing and unit profitability, which ultimately leaves specialized applications falling short of what they could have been. Producing for the masses and what they can afford always generates shortfalls in one or more areas.

The 520 and payloads certainly have room for improvement, the only question is will it be improved, how soon will it be improved, and will it remain a featured/centerpiece product long enough for it to achieve the level of sophistication it could achieve?

I'm not entirely sure why you say the E90 is unfit for photogrammetry. You should be able to easily achieve a GSD of a few centimeters and "centimeter accuracy" is tied to the accuracy of your ground control points; if your GCPs are not accurate, your map is not accurate. New standards from the ASPRS say that the accuracy of GCPs should be half that of the expected accuracy of x and y coordinates of an orthoimage, while they should be 1/4 for vertical map accuracy. In other words, if you expect centimeter vertical accuracy, your GCPs better be vertically accurate to 1/4 centimeter. Realistically, how many of us are tying GCPs that accurately? Realistically, map accuracy of a tenth of a foot or so is possible. Take a look and remember don't let processing companies oversell you and don't oversell your own map accuracy!

PE&RS April 2017 Public
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graham and 10-8
Agreed, but the majority of people that buy these things have zero knowledge of what is required to produce the best end result, expecting whatever software or cloud service used to overcome the deficiencies they induced and render a product better than the data provided. Pretty hard to turn out finish work when using rough tools.

That’s partially what I meant when I used the word “naive” earlier. Ignorant is a more accurate term but people get put off by the word as they believe it assaults their intelligence. It’s much too course in delivery for them. The more involved the activity the more ignorance of influences that impact that activity will affect the end result.
 
Things I want to comment about what you have written.

First: this is a forum where, if there is no disrespect and if certain minimums are met, anyone can say what they want. That's the way it should be. It's normal to find people who are angry. It is normal because after 6 months and having made a heavy investment, about 3000€, even though there are drones that cost 40.000€, it is not a negligible amount, many of the specifications that Yuneec initially told us when he bought the drone have not been met. This is the case and I do not believe that it is debatable. A camera with straight lenses without distortion was announced. Now I'm not going to look where I specifically put it. Now the advertising has changed to"low distortion" and still does not. These are facts. Now it seems that there is a desire to soften the debate by saying that things can be done with this distortion. What do we talk about, what do we have to do with it? Unfortunately not much of quality because the base, which is the camera does not have enough quality.

In photogrammetry, the basis of all good work, the fundamental thing, are quality images, contrasted, with definition and good details in shadowy environments. This is fundamental. With a 1-inch sensor, the E90 does everything right except for the lens, the base has quality but the distortion that the images have then has to be corrected by the photogrammetry program and that, however much we want is through an interpolation. That we see acceptable results is not because the E90 is doing well, it is because the programs are doing well. In fact, one of the most important photogrammetry programs in the world, Pix4D, has still not managed to correct 100% of the problems with the E90 images.

Notice that we are focusing on a specific problem, the lenses of the E90 and we are leaving aside other problems that the platform has. But the lenses problem affect all the uses we can make of the drone. In some uses this problem will be remarkable, as in image and video, and in others it will not be so much as in search and rescue or in photogrammetry, for example. But this does not eliminate the problem.

I'm not going to talk about the rest of the problems or shortcomings that the platform has because they are very detailed in the suggestion thread of the update 2.0.

Not everything is saying bad things, the H520 with the base it has can be a beast, I have no doubt. But it has to materialise in facts, not in promises, which at the present time will be late promises, although not unwelcome, quite the contrary. The stability of the H520 is very good, it defends against the winds in a remarkable way, it is a hexacopteral system that adds safety and confidence to not crash the aircraft, the gimbal rotates 360 degrees continuously, has retractable landing gear and weighs only 2 kg. I don't think I left anything behind. For me these characteristics are very good, but only they don't make a good drone.

I'm going to start imagining. Can you imagine that the distortion of the E90 is corrected, it doesn't matter if it is by software or by changing the lenses, to acceptable levels and on top of that the drone has the functionalities that a professional drone should have? What good machine would it make? Well, the latter is what we all want, those who are happy, those who are not very happy and those who are angry. We all want the same thing, and there are only two sides. On the one hand the buyers and on the other hand the manufacturer. The only one who can make changes is the manufacturer. Please don't forget, don't let this become a discussion between buyers.

P.D.: Do you remember that this thread was to talk about the update 1.3? It can be seen that in the end, despite a few improvements, they were not enough. I want, for once, that what has been announced will be fulfilled, and without any loss of time or delay there will be a continuous flow of updates that will improve the functioning of our little orange bird :D
 
Arruntus,

You are one of those that has far more cause to be upset with the 520 as your early promotion of it were in many ways the reason some bought one. I’ve mentioned before that you must feel you were betrayed by Yuneec, and I feel you are justified if you do.

FYI, the deficiencies you referenced in your last post, along with others, is exactly why I passed over the 520 for a 920. Obsolete platform that’s been discontinued but a far better camera than the E-90 or E-50 if not employed for photogrammetry. As I’ve said soooo many times, it’s all about the camera. The rest of the multirotor is just a means of transport.

I think Yuneec boxed themselves into a corner with the 520. For a lot less invested in upgrade development they could have added geo referencing to the CGO-4, developed a mapping app to provide extreme versatility in a single platform, selling for much the same price as the 520. If they elected to drop the Pro Action hand gimbal it would sell for less than a 520. You would even get the same amount of flight time.

Yea, my way of thinking would appear to imply people that bought a 520 got “hosed” but Yuneec can fix that, if they want to.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
21,327
Messages
245,661
Members
28,265
Latest member
webdronez