Uneven Evo II Enterprise Airframe.

[Deleted member 8818]

The arms on on my EVO II Enterprise are not even and level.
Two are spaced differently and are further from the frame in both folded and extended states.

I've attached photographs of this issue and here's a link to the videos showing the un-levelness.

Anyone else notice this on theirs?

I've chatted with Advexure (my source for this airframe) and they've said "they don't think this little amount of difference will cause an issue" and to contact Autel directly to log this issue and inquire about a warranty replacement.

I have not noticed any issues in flight, but I'm wondering if this will have any effect on overall longevity or frame stress?

- Hal

Link to pictures and videos: Warranty

 

[nh phantom]

Mine are uneven distance when folded. But open to hit the stops. mine sits flat on all corners

 

[Deleted member 8818]

Mine are uneven distance when folded. But open to hit the stops. mine sits flat on all corners

First gen fitment problems with the carbon fiber arms.
Likely a QA thing where they said, "it's not going to affect performance"... and let it go.

No the QA level I'd like, but likely the best it's going to get.
Pictures from Advexure of theirs show a very small difference in folded distance from frame to arm, waiting on if it sits level.

I'll bet these are either all the same way to a great or lesser extent with the same two arms being off by a little or a lot, or they're all over the map.

Depends on how the arms were manufactured. The airframe is more than a year old, so its not likely to be that, unless they changed a hard-mount point.

 

[nh phantom]

looking at your pics the arm on the right is further away than the one on the left. On mine the one on the right actually touches the gimble guard and the one on the left is about 1/4" away

 

[Deleted member 8818]

looking at your pics the arm on the right is further away than the one on the left. On mine the one on the right actually touches the gimble guard and the one on the left is about 1/4" away

Right, so all over the map.

 

[nh phantom]

These are mine

 

[Deleted member 8818]

These are mine

Could be a frame or arm stop finish issue... like the pivot stop is trimmed differently.
Unless there's arm warp?

 

[nh phantom]

The front arms

 

[Deleted member 8818]

The front arms

Yea that's a pretty big difference.
On a $4k package, that seems like it should be better.

 

[Troff]

Mine is the same. Not a 1/4" difference but the arms fit and the airframe sits flat when on a level surface. What to do?

 

[nh phantom]

Yea that's a pretty big difference.
On a $4k package, that seems like it should be better.

Any new word on this issue?

 

[edgardcafe]

Any new word on this issue?

I flew my Enterprise for the first time yesterday and no issues, but around 4 k feet the SC screen started glitching and lost signal. Then I tried my V1 Evo 2 Pro with standard controller, it got little more than 10k feet with no issues. Anyway, need to do more test with the Enterprise. ( all test was with the same location).

 

[SARty]

I flew my Enterprise for the first time yesterday and no issues, but around 4 k feet the SC screen started glitching and lost signal. Then I tried my V1 Evo 2 Pro with standard controller, it got little more than 10k feet with no issues. Anyway, need to do more test with the Enterprise. ( all test was with the same location).

Thanks for this feedback. Given that the SC (and sometimes the dual band of the V2) should be improving signal, this is disappointing to hear.

Would you be willing to setup waypoint missions and fly both airframes in the same conditions to test further?

 

[nh phantom]

I flew my Enterprise for the first time yesterday and no issues, but around 4 k feet the SC screen started glitching and lost signal. Then I tried my V1 Evo 2 Pro with standard controller, it got little more than 10k feet with no issues. Anyway, need to do more test with the Enterprise. ( all test was with the same location).

Did you check to see what band you were using or was it on auto?

 

[edgardcafe]

Did you check to see what band you were using or was it on auto?

It was in auto.

 

[edgardcafe]

Thanks for this feedback. Given that the SC (and sometimes the dual band of the V2) should be improving signal, this is disappointing to hear.

Would you be willing to setup waypoint missions and fly both airframes in the same conditions to test further?

I could try to do it next time, thank you

 

[Deleted member 8818]

I'm testing waypoint missions now...
Still figuring out how to get the camera working... think I got it...
Wish where was a way to get the waypoints to be smooth transitions rather that sharp pause, hover turn and resume points... which look terrible on film.
but perhaps I'm expecting to much consumer functionality in my enterprise drone.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm testing waypoint missions now...
Still figuring out how to get the camera working... think I got it...
Wish where was a way to get the waypoints to be smooth transitions rather that sharp pause, hover turn and resume points... which look terrible on film.
but perhaps I'm expecting to much consumer functionality in my enterprise drone.

Sounds like it needs programming help. Round turns should be the default operation. Not for cinema effects but for less stress on the aircraft.

 

[Deleted member 8818]

Sounds like it needs programming help. Round turns should be the default operation. Not for cinema effects but for less stress on the aircraft.

I'd think for efficiency too as flying uses less power than hovering. And it shouldn't be a hard change, it needs to spline curve the waypoints and adapt to the heading selections rather than the stop and pivot movement. In CNC terms it should be able to interpolate the transition from one heading to the next and it could even show this to the user and let them see how their waypoint positioning will affect the corner radius for turning.

The Mission planner should offer both behaviors, in case that stop, hover, pivot, resume is the desired behavior instead of fly-through without stopping or hovering.

Could call it something like "smooth corners" or "continuous path" or something that indicates that the aircraft will not stop and hover at any waypoints.

Hell it could simply be a behavior option that's added to "Fly Over" "Hover" "Continuous"

If there's some limitation to the turn degree or velocity that could be limited during mission planning like forward speed, gimble angle and the rest.

This all seems doable and it would make manual mission planning a lot more versatile.

The goal (AUTEL IF YOUR LISTENING) is to provide a way for users to create a manual mission with smooth, non-stop waypoints that transition one to the other that have all headings, gimble movements, bearings and all other aspects of the flight smooth. Perhaps consider leaving the existing manual mission plan alone and adding a "Cinematic Mission" that has all these features bundled together... that way people who are used to the existing methods in the current missions won't have to change but all the users who want a cinematic and smooth flight path get that as a separate mission type.

For example, I'd like to be able to follow a river with all it's bends using a Cinematic Mission type where I can use the waypoints to map to the river's natural bends, and when I set the way points maybe even be able to adjust the curve between them for complete detail accuracy. Even if each waypoint performed a smooth rounded non-hover transition I could still accomplish this goal.

This would make flying longer mapping and filming missions where the targets are organic and curvy so much easier than manual flying which requires multiple runs to get the corners and angles right.

- Hal

 

[elistechnology]

Autel EVO II PRO is based on Adrupilot for copters (mavlink protocol). I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the possibilities of this platform on the adrupilot website (quite "archaic" outdated solutions).
The rescue for our drones in terms of the smoothness of the planned missions is the thoughtful implementation of the MAV_CMD_NAV_SPLINE_WAYPOINT command, which I would not expect from Autel after such a long time from the moment of reporting this problem (from the beginning of evo and evo ii pro).

I am currently working on not stopping the drone at each point, which requires changing 2 variables in the code (CameraActionTime, HoverTime in com.autel.modelblib.lib.domain.core.database.newMission.model.CameraActionItem. and WaypointModel) in the Autel Explorer mission planner . Unfortunately, the chances are close to zero that something will come out of it.