Anyone added or use the Altel EVO? I've been reading how many think the camera is an improvement over the MP-MA, several stated better than M2P but I'm passing that one off as pride of their EVO.
Yuneec or DJI
- Thread starter Tom Chastain
- Start date
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
I own a dji product (a Phantom) as well as a TH. My TH has a better range than my Phantom and is good to the limit of my VLOS. I have no desire to fly beyond my VLOS and to be honest, I don't see what the attraction is to go beyond VLOS. It's illegal unless you hold a BVLOS permission.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 660
@RPR with your construction flights... or other, any concern for the chatter on the I2's Arm-Motor issues?
It's not advertised like it was previously, but I haven't found any DJI notice indicating a correction applied either. I communicated with a DJI Tech and he indicated it's a good "piece of mind" component that doesn't effect the I2's operation (kinda a warm acceptance). I'm normally not one for hype junk or clutter on the platform... but the Ultimadrone's Rotor Arm kit looks OEM and no clutter or interference. I installed one and an any other type Insurance, to reduce / transfer of risk... for $180 it provides verified performance and peace of mind. Seems to be a popular add-on with I2 crews.
Inspire 2 Ultimadrone Rotor Fix Kit | Ultimadrone | ATELLANI
Ultimadrone’s Rotor Fix Kit prevents motor detachment, prevents the rotation of the motors and adds stability to DJI Inspire 2 Drone.ultimadrone.atellani.com
Ultimadrone for DJI Inspire 2 | Motor Safety Kit
Ultimadrone’s for DJI Inspire 2 motor safety kit prevents motor detachment, prevents the rotation of the motors and adds stability to the DJI Inspire 2 Drone by keeping propellers in a synced position and reducing vibrations and stress to the craft.atellani.com
I got that John. Although, I did not have any issues during my break-in period. I received the Jan. 2018 batch directly from DJI. There where also issues reported, with the red prop during this timeframe. Mine did not came a slack in the red QR, but I did not had the chance to find out. I outfitted mime Xoar props to match my i1, and fitted my i2 with Atellani as it became available.
I sparingly fly my i2, only use it when I am mapping. I heavily fly the i1, M2P, and TH Plus.
It's got nothing to do with flying beyond LOS. It has everything to do with better signal quality. Dont know if you have an older phantom as it doesnt make sense to me why you couldnt go the same LOS as the H unless some interference cropped up that the H didnt have. Have yet to see any comparison where the lighbridge tech doesnt blow away Yuneecs.
I like some of the DJI products I just dont like big brother DJI.
I also have 2 nice VTOL drone/planes that fly great. An xk x420 and x520. They definately add a new dimension to flight with as much stability as you want. My highest recommendation.
I like some of the DJI products I just dont like big brother DJI.
I also have 2 nice VTOL drone/planes that fly great. An xk x420 and x520. They definately add a new dimension to flight with as much stability as you want. My highest recommendation.
Last edited:
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
My Phantom is range locked to 1200' My maximum VLOS for that aircraft. I can't see it well enough beyond that to claim I have effective VLOS. The TH is bigger so I can see that further out. Hence my TH has a better range than my Phantom. For me, effective VLOS is my range limiter.
I understand your argument for having a better signal strength but if you keep within VLOS and away from things that could reflect or block the signal the standard signal strength shouldn't be an issue...it isn't to me anyway. But if it's just enhanced signal you are after and not distance BVLOS flights then who am I to argue with that? A better signal quality is no bad thing at the end of the day.
Edit to say that one can go BVLOS at short distances...by flying behind a tree by accident, say. I fully agree that a better signal strength would be invaluable in such a scenario. May make the difference between an RTH event and being able to recover VLOS yourself.
Last edited:
Exactly. I dont understand why yuneec doesnt go that route. There are other brands that can go out about as far as DJI so it cant be some kind of proprietary thing.
I WANT other manufacturers to get more control of market share. I dont see how that is going to happen without matching specs and undercutting their price. I find some of yuneecs choices odd like they just dont get it.
The mantis Q is a prime example. Why release it at a premium over the spark with basically the same camera as the now $150 breeze? There never should have been a Q version. They should have released the upcoming G because in that configuration it should be better than the spark. In 2019 a mechanical gimbal should come with a $500 drone.
I wish yuneec would do a better job position holding. I've seen lots of videos comparing battery life between different companies and the H drifts around like my breezes do. Odd considering my $100 telli is basically rock solid. RTH never seems to fair as well as DJI stuff either.
Now that last paragraph doesnt contain deal breakers but reviewers talk and show these things and tend to make a big deal out of them. It matters because if you are researching what to buy others told you it does so it's hard to ignore. All those little niggly things add up to a product that just doesnt appear to be as refined.
I REALLY want Yuneec to get serious and fix that stuff. I want them to be able to brag about their customer service. I want them to represent themselves here in the forum to show they listen and care about what we have to say and I think they absolutely need a defining product that hands down is better than DJIs offering at the same or lower price point.
As far as I'm aware their next release will be the mantis G so start there. Drop the Q price to $100 less than the G but the G cant cost cost more than the Spark unless it's absolutely justified but still shouldn't be over $50 more and come with 2 batteries. If yuneec is still going to fight it out with consumer grade products then make the price reflect that and make your money by sales numbers and not low sales high price. Low sales high price doesnt work in this market in this price range.
I have started watching some reviews on the XDynamics Evolve which to my eye looks great and is quite powerful. I am bothered that for $2500 it cant do 4k at 60fps when others can at $1500 less. It can however do a hot swap with 2 other cameras so that's really nice. The gimbal cant free spin like the H. It's got what appears to be a really nice dual screen controller.
I WANT other manufacturers to get more control of market share. I dont see how that is going to happen without matching specs and undercutting their price. I find some of yuneecs choices odd like they just dont get it.
The mantis Q is a prime example. Why release it at a premium over the spark with basically the same camera as the now $150 breeze? There never should have been a Q version. They should have released the upcoming G because in that configuration it should be better than the spark. In 2019 a mechanical gimbal should come with a $500 drone.
I wish yuneec would do a better job position holding. I've seen lots of videos comparing battery life between different companies and the H drifts around like my breezes do. Odd considering my $100 telli is basically rock solid. RTH never seems to fair as well as DJI stuff either.
Now that last paragraph doesnt contain deal breakers but reviewers talk and show these things and tend to make a big deal out of them. It matters because if you are researching what to buy others told you it does so it's hard to ignore. All those little niggly things add up to a product that just doesnt appear to be as refined.
I REALLY want Yuneec to get serious and fix that stuff. I want them to be able to brag about their customer service. I want them to represent themselves here in the forum to show they listen and care about what we have to say and I think they absolutely need a defining product that hands down is better than DJIs offering at the same or lower price point.
As far as I'm aware their next release will be the mantis G so start there. Drop the Q price to $100 less than the G but the G cant cost cost more than the Spark unless it's absolutely justified but still shouldn't be over $50 more and come with 2 batteries. If yuneec is still going to fight it out with consumer grade products then make the price reflect that and make your money by sales numbers and not low sales high price. Low sales high price doesnt work in this market in this price range.
I have started watching some reviews on the XDynamics Evolve which to my eye looks great and is quite powerful. I am bothered that for $2500 it cant do 4k at 60fps when others can at $1500 less. It can however do a hot swap with 2 other cameras so that's really nice. The gimbal cant free spin like the H. It's got what appears to be a really nice dual screen controller.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Big difference between 900MHz and WiFi in useful range. Either way, if the drone is too far away to see it the act is illegal, and arguments about having a stronger signal do nothing to mitigate the illegality of the act.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 660
I was going to go, with Koptermax, I’m glad that I didn’t go that route, because I hate cutting into the foam. And I agree cheap insurance, with a peace of mind.
Who is arguing about having stronger signal strength for illegal flying? Stronger better quality signal strength period.
I realize that this website needs to be protected just as the laserpointerforums did that I belonged to and was the top repped member until I got bored and needed a different hobby. That being said, we didnt call out people for potential illegal activity unless it was hinted at in some way.
I realize that this website needs to be protected just as the laserpointerforums did that I belonged to and was the top repped member until I got bored and needed a different hobby. That being said, we didnt call out people for potential illegal activity unless it was hinted at in some way.
I can vouch for @Pman as far as remaining legal in his flying. He is shopping for a 4K camera platform and likes the Yuneec hexes, but sees a lot of posts here and on other forums about laggy video feed. Of course there are a lot of the same on YouTube.
From his posts you can see he is comparing good and bad of several different platforms and is voicing a lot of the same concerns as many of us about Yuneec upping their game in product quality, customer support, and more cutting edge technology.
What could be constructive here is real feedback from those that fly different brands and models citing good and bad points of each. I think that is what @Tom Chastain started this thread for, until it got side tracked by a “7 mile flight” using a Typhoon H.
From his posts you can see he is comparing good and bad of several different platforms and is voicing a lot of the same concerns as many of us about Yuneec upping their game in product quality, customer support, and more cutting edge technology.
What could be constructive here is real feedback from those that fly different brands and models citing good and bad points of each. I think that is what @Tom Chastain started this thread for, until it got side tracked by a “7 mile flight” using a Typhoon H.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I’ve owned 4 Yuneec systems, Chroma, Typhoon H (2), and a 920+. All employ WiFi. With only two exceptions I have never experienced signal interruptions at distances I could see the aircraft at, including periods the aircraft was occluded by heavy foliage as long as the antennas were oriented correctly. The two exceptions were operating near HAM radio antennas.
When operating behind trees that completely blocked my view both RC and video remained good. There have been a couple times the ST-16 video has frozen but aircraft control remained good and card recorded video was continuous with normal resolution. I have also experimented with long range operation in a non populated environment and went further out than I would ever be comfortable with again.
Using my experiences as a baseline I just don’t see any validation for a more powerful signal. It’s limited in order to restrict users from operating at long distances and circumventing the design defeats the built in range limiting safety factor, which helps keep people within the law.
I’ve seen the stronger signal for better video posture proposed many times and just don’t buy it. I feel the argument is usually disingenuous in its presentation and and a subterfuge to conceal illegal operational intent. If a stronger signal was provided many or most would exploit it. The proof of that can be found in every DJI, Anafi, Autel forum, and they are aware of the legal distance limitations too.
Personally, I think all of them should get reigned in with mandatory built in range limitations. Until a GPS distance from the controller is used to restrict range I just don’t see people following the rules, and providing them the ability to violate them they will continue to do so.
But that’s just my opinion and I don’t have a legal basis for operating beyond line of sight. If I did I certainly wouldn’t use a device as power/flight time limited as a multirotor.
When operating behind trees that completely blocked my view both RC and video remained good. There have been a couple times the ST-16 video has frozen but aircraft control remained good and card recorded video was continuous with normal resolution. I have also experimented with long range operation in a non populated environment and went further out than I would ever be comfortable with again.
Using my experiences as a baseline I just don’t see any validation for a more powerful signal. It’s limited in order to restrict users from operating at long distances and circumventing the design defeats the built in range limiting safety factor, which helps keep people within the law.
I’ve seen the stronger signal for better video posture proposed many times and just don’t buy it. I feel the argument is usually disingenuous in its presentation and and a subterfuge to conceal illegal operational intent. If a stronger signal was provided many or most would exploit it. The proof of that can be found in every DJI, Anafi, Autel forum, and they are aware of the legal distance limitations too.
Personally, I think all of them should get reigned in with mandatory built in range limitations. Until a GPS distance from the controller is used to restrict range I just don’t see people following the rules, and providing them the ability to violate them they will continue to do so.
But that’s just my opinion and I don’t have a legal basis for operating beyond line of sight. If I did I certainly wouldn’t use a device as power/flight time limited as a multirotor.
Last edited:
I agree with almost everything. I would say better signal quality with a geofence then that conforms to VLOS. Of course that leads to discussions/arguments on how far someone claims they can actually see.
I think that the system that is implemented now could use external antennas. I saw a video yesterday on YouTube showing a couple mods that I think are from Carolina dronz that were simple and effective changes. One was removing the drones internal antennas and just clipping in adapters through the body to screw in aftermarket ones on the outside of it. Another was a new camera lens. Of course if you do the mod your warranty goes away.
I've done a lot of controller antenna mods that were just like that on probably 10 of my drones. Yes the signal is more directional but since you need to keep LOS it shouldn't really matter.
Even if there wasnt a VLOS rule I wouldnt fly beyond it because I would be afraid of something happening and I dont have the funds to throw away. I'm taking my time with my purchasing decision as I cant buy multiple units unless they are used or refurbs.
Almost bought a used H pro last week but my gut told me to wait. It's not like I dont own lots of stuff to fly already and i dont "need" a nicer one. It's a want and at 54 I listen more to my smart than my heart.
I think that the system that is implemented now could use external antennas. I saw a video yesterday on YouTube showing a couple mods that I think are from Carolina dronz that were simple and effective changes. One was removing the drones internal antennas and just clipping in adapters through the body to screw in aftermarket ones on the outside of it. Another was a new camera lens. Of course if you do the mod your warranty goes away.
I've done a lot of controller antenna mods that were just like that on probably 10 of my drones. Yes the signal is more directional but since you need to keep LOS it shouldn't really matter.
Even if there wasnt a VLOS rule I wouldnt fly beyond it because I would be afraid of something happening and I dont have the funds to throw away. I'm taking my time with my purchasing decision as I cant buy multiple units unless they are used or refurbs.
Almost bought a used H pro last week but my gut told me to wait. It's not like I dont own lots of stuff to fly already and i dont "need" a nicer one. It's a want and at 54 I listen more to my smart than my heart.
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
I have the external antenna mod on one of my H’s. I haven’t noticed much, if any, difference between the stock one and the modified one.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 660
@Pman
You are making a lot is sense, and the problem is not you, this forum is anti DJI.
Yuneec is incompetent and cannot hold a candle to DJI. Once that is understood, we start to hold them liable for their shortcomings.
This talk about VLO, BLOS.. Is amateur.
You are making a lot is sense, and the problem is not you, this forum is anti DJI.
Yuneec is incompetent and cannot hold a candle to DJI. Once that is understood, we start to hold them liable for their shortcomings.
This talk about VLO, BLOS.. Is amateur.
Hi Flush, and anyone else thinking the same thing!
Preface: I do not practice, and do not advocate flying beyond line of sight, at least not without waiver or visual observers.
But in response to the statement “I don’t see what the attraction is to go beyond VLOS.” It seems very simple:
“To go where one has not gone before,” along with “testing the limits of one’s skills and tools.”
In my own experience, I can easily understand how easy it is to be tempted to go beyond line of sight. There have been times when I am on a “good” flight where I still have control and video, the subject is still interesting, and continuing to fly further away would not be too risky (i.e. return flight time not a concern). The other factor in play in such a scenario is the impracticality of returning home, packing up, moving the take-off point, and resuming to shoot. Not always an option especially if time, relative to the subject, is an issue.
Again, I am not advocating against flying “outside the rules.” I’m just saying I can understand the desire. It is not always an option to “pre-plan” every flight (I.e. bring along visual observers.). Sometimes, just like photography “on the ground”... being at the right place at the right time can be more luck than skill. In unmanned aerial, we have a great advantage regarding how much ground we can cover. Sometimes we want even more!
Happy flying!
Jeff
Own multiple brands: DJI, Yuneec, PowerVision & Autel, and platforms ranging consumer to enterprise.
All have their strengths and some have more prominent points to greatly improve. As @Fred Garvin also have some toys for indoor and office desk for the entertainment side.... do we call those drones or toys?
I fully support multiple platform viewpoint, it's a tool... use the one that meets your budget, requirements or personal preference. Don't look at just the platform, look at what it supports for payload, software, 3rd party software and various tools you may want depending on your intentions. I'm also one not to hurry out and purchase the newest platform, I'm more of a Recycler, enjoy the 2nd hand market... searching for a practically new platform at big cost reduction is a personal challenge in both platform and payloads. The sUAV environment has many ebs & flows as people try a product & sell products; provides a ample supply of great product in resale... I've personally noticed dead of Winter & Fall best time to hunt for the treasures... but I hate garage sales!
My 1.5 cent Frequency opinion:
As @Pman has expressed, I've experienced irritating video glitches & video freeze and agree it's likely not effecting the RC control, nor the recording but it does interfere if needing a fluid video to navigate or get close to a tower, bridge, or object. Plus it gives the feeling of concern if control could be compromised.
As often incorrectly focused on distance; This hasn't been at extreme distances, could be hovering over roof inspecting gutters 1-2ft above, up near a tower's components, near Ag silo control systems, medical building, or simply within a community that may be saturated with Routers & Wireless hardware or a home with unknown additional equipment heavily using 2.4 or 5.8 freq, or here in mid-west near a power substation in the country with tall emitting electrical towers within substation. Even in my driveway at times, 60' height and 150' up street can experience video glitches or freezes... time of day, weather, etc.
I think all the crafts discussed are using 2.4, 5.8 Ghz freq within WiFi or FM transmitted, keeping it brief; have their differences in protocol and communications but they're still all being transmitted on 2.4 or 5.8ghz freq; doubt any are using the 900mhz. The Yuneec products tend to use 2.4 for RC and 5.8 for video within a WiFi typology. Both are spec'ed at 1.6km / 1 mile. This is the lowest of all the brands I've personally experienced.
As we all know: The primary differences between the 2.4 and 5GHz wireless frequencies are range and bandwidth. 5GHz provides faster data rates at a shorter distance. The 2.4 ghz offers coverage for farther distances, but may perform at slower speeds. The 900mhz is further down the spectrum with improved distance.
WiFi affects transmission reliability or stability due to it's communication requirements, 802 timing & packet specifications; and not necessarily the 2.4 or 5.8ghz infrastructure signal unless low transmission power.
That basically states all the discussed platforms use the same primary frequencies: 2.4 & 5.8, the difference is the method, typology & protocols within the transmission, sensitivity of hardware, antenna design (gain & projection) and to a very minor degree the transmission power limited by FCC (legal, out of the box).
My limited experience places Yuneec at the weakest end with greatest occurrence of video instability issues, and DJI at the other end with the least video instability issues. DJI uses proprietary protocols & methodologies: WiFi ( 2.4), Lightbridge (v1 & v2), OcuSync (v1 & v2). They seem to be the only ones constantly working on designs to improve transmission & video quality while staying within the 2.4 & 5.8 specifications. The LB2 improved and the OcuSync improved more. I have had Inspire 1 using LightBridge1 experience video glitches & freezes in neighborhoods, similar the H480. In same locations, haven't experienced any with LB2 or OcuSync platforms. In my opinion this is an easy variable for ANY brand; improve Video quality & fluid transmission and product opinion goes upward.
I'd agree, we don't need to be using hi-amped freq transmissions, regardless of FCC legality... although I do understand how a small amp will improve signal in high noise / clutter environments. But if all platforms are using the same frequency foundation and 1 brand finds ways to improve the stability... regardless of the distance argument, the other brands should be able to provide improved video stability too.
On the distance argument; at least in open country or mid-west with a large M600Pro platform and positioned above fields. I can easily exceed 1-2.5 miles and maintain VLOS for an autunomous flight... one advantage to using large platform; when fields are 1 to 3 mile sections of land it's easy to determine location. The M2P... size & color... Old Eyes... I can loose it at 1/2 mile if I look down, focused on screen then look up.
My viewpoint, continue to "improve" product not "justify" why it's not needed. To me that's low effort, poor excuse for not being within other brands specs. I don't really buy the distance argurment all the time... there are Hotdog's that want to challenge the distance, but as an idiot's challenge or play.... not work tools. I don't think majority of those using their platform as a tool is actually intending BVLOS for the platforms in discussion. The majority that touch this subject normally sight poor video, and I personally agree video could always be improved, so improve it... compete in the market!
Agree with @PatR, could easily add a distance limiter... to my recall, almost every RC shows the "Distance Out"... wouldn't be difficult to code in a maximum allowed value similar to altitude.
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
Noted Jeff. I understand where you are coming from and agree that it can be very tempting to go BLOS to get that un-missable shot. I've been tempted too but have managed to resist the temptation so far.
But to set out in the first place with the intention to go BLOS I can't agree with. I've only ever flown up to 500m away on very few occasions (500m is max allowed in the U.K.) and for my eyes that was right at the edge of my VLOS for my TH and possibly pushing it a bit at that. It's not about whether my TH can go further, I know it can because my video and control signals at that distance was rock solid. It was just that I NEED to be able to see my aircraft. For me, not seeing my aircraft simply means that I'm not in effective control of it.
