Noob setup and questions...Help!

M

madgolfer90

Member
tstrike said:
I think any board camera will fit on the disco. One thing to understand with that ship is you'll be limited to the size battery you can squeeze into the batt bay, I could barely fit a 4000mh zippy c in there and even then, it was tail heavy. I guess you could strap your batt on the top plate if you were so inclined.
Click to expand...

when you had your disco how did you like it?
 

T

tstrike

pendejo grande
I'm probably not the guy to ask, I only had it because it was a matter of convenience. A member here (kloner) had one that shorted out and so I bought the frame plates from him, already had arms from an old 450. I like the more classic style quad, they just seem to suit my old man style of flying, plus I don't care for the plastic dji arms, they're wiggly. I cut the front off to fit a different kind of gopro mount-
View attachment 11943
The frame and motors/prop setup is probably gonna go up for sale soon since I don't need them anymore. Look up Kloner's disco build log he has here, he's the disco king.
 

Attachments

  • disco3.jpg
    disco3.jpg
    145 KB · Views: 195


M

madgolfer90

Member
Can someone please explain EzUHF transmitters and receivers? And how they tie into regular RC transmitters and receivers? (futaba, spectrum, etc..) Why woulld you want one?
 

E

Electro 2

Member
All LRS, (Long Range Systems), EzUHF included, intercept the stick position data from an existing RC system TX as a PPM encoded data stream and transmit it on a Ham band UHF frequency (70cm band, usually around 433 MHz), to a proprietary companion RX. Most of these receivers have provision for dual-diversity reception as well. The TX modification to grab the data is usually simple. The advantage is range. A conventional 2.4 GHz RC system tops out at about 3-4 or so miles under ideal conditions. The LRS properly set up can hit 10-15 miles, or more, with no issues. Note that an amateur radio licence is required in all countries for these, US included. Personally, I'm of the opinion that unless you're planning on doing super long-range, all-FPV flights, it's simply not necessary. (I am already a licensed amateur radio operator, so that's not an issue for me either.)
 

M

madgolfer90

Member
Electro 2 said:
All LRS, (Long Range Systems), EzUHF included, intercept the stick position data from an existing RC system TX as a PPM encoded data stream and transmit it on a Ham band UHF frequency (70cm band, usually around 433 MHz), to a proprietary companion RX. Most of these receivers have provision for dual-diversity reception as well. The TX modification to grab the data is usually simple. The advantage is range. A conventional 2.4 GHz RC system tops out at about 3-4 or so miles under ideal conditions. The LRS properly set up can hit 10-15 miles, or more, with no issues. Note that an amateur radio licence is required in all countries for these, US included. Personally, I'm of the opinion that unless you're planning on doing super long-range, all-FPV flights, it's simply not necessary. (I am already a licensed amateur radio operator, so that's not an issue for me either.)
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the reply! helped me understand that i really wont be needing it for distance since regular 2.4ghz systems cover the distance in shooting for as you explained. video transmission however is something i dont think a regular fat shark predator will handle right? im looking to get around 2 miles or so. is this feasible?
 

E

Electro 2

Member
No experience with the FS stuff but, based on what I read, yes. That said, all radio range questions depend heavily on how clear the LOS is between the TX and RX antennas. This is even more true as one ascends in frequency, i.e. 900M vs 1.2G vs. 2.4G vs. 5.8G. This how FRS handi-talkie manufacturers even remotely justify their claims of a "23 mile range" (Yes, I've seen this in print!) FRS radios are 500mW power, yep, one half of a watt, with a garbage antenna system to boot! 23 mile range ??? Maybe between the top of the Matterhorn and a neighboring peak, but certainly not even remotely at ground level with trees, buildings, and other obstructions. It ain't gonna happen, not in a real world environment. So your FS goggle set-up may work like a champ at 5 miles as long as there's a clear LOS between you and the aircraft, yep, very believable. But, duck your bird behind a row of trees, or a building, and *boop*, no pic, and you're flying blind. All the hoopla about CP antennas, (IBCrazy, etc.) is to help fight this very thing. Does it help ? Probably, but it's no magic bullet. The sheer physics of the situation wins everytime.
 

M

madgolfer90

Member
Electro 2 said:
No experience with the FS stuff but, based on what I read, yes. That said, all radio range questions depend heavily on how clear the LOS is between the TX and RX antennas. This is even more true as one ascends in frequency, i.e. 900M vs 1.2G vs. 2.4G vs. 5.8G. This how FRS handi-talkie manufacturers even remotely justify their claims of a "23 mile range" (Yes, I've seen this in print!) FRS radios are 500mW power, yep, one half of a watt, with a garbage antenna system to boot! 23 mile range ??? Maybe between the top of the Matterhorn and a neighboring peak, but certainly not even remotely at ground level with trees, buildings, and other obstructions. It ain't gonna happen, not in a real world environment. So your FS goggle set-up may work like a champ at 5 miles as long as there's a clear LOS between you and the aircraft, yep, very believable. But, duck your bird behind a row of trees, or a building, and *boop*, no pic, and you're flying blind. All the hoopla about CP antennas, (IBCrazy, etc.) is to help fight this very thing. Does it help ? Probably, but it's no magic bullet. The sheer physics of the situation wins everytime.
Click to expand...

Thanks electro, been doing a ton of research and finally have an idea of how this stuff works.. pretty much got all my gear ordered. Everything except for my goggles. not sure what to get. got a law mate 2.4 rx and tx so it would make sense to get plain fat sharks (no rx in them) since im running all my own video gear right? just a set of goggles that have a video in port coming from my rx?
 

E

Electro 2

Member
If you're running an external video backhaul TX-RX combo, yes, plain old googles will do. I wouldn't want to be locked into the googs internal RX anyway, no flexibilty in changing video TX-RX setups or antennas, etc. I bought a 900 MHz setup, but haven't used it on the current bird, It'll get pressed into service for the next machine. I'll fab my own antenna design on this when it happens, the ones it ships with ain't no great shakes. Needless to say, I have some tricks up my sleeve on the antenna side. Also, these China-made video setups don't have any harmonic filters of any sort in the TX PA either, be sure to add one. All manner of interactive issues with other on-board systems, (2.4 GHz RC system, 1.5 GHz GPS RX, etc.), could happen. Ugly things could result. Not good. Range Video in Miami has genuine, US made, Mini Circuits brand filters, for a resonable cost.
 

M

madgolfer90

Member
Yeah I bought an LPF for my vtx to try and filter out any noise that I heard may come from the GPS and EzUHF systems. I also read that putting a vibration dampener under the vtx can help as well. What are the fatsharks that are just plain? The dominators?
 

gtranquilla

gtranquilla

RadioActive
5.8Ghz question: I am seeing a 5.8 Ghz video downlink system that does not advertise transmitter power output in dBm, i.e., 24 versus milliwatts and a range of 1.2 kilometers. How do I compare this system with another that is advertised with a transmit power of 6 milliwatts? I realize that receiver sensitivity also plays a big role with respect to range but even advertised ranges can be quite ambiguous. Also it seems that the legal upper limit for 5.8Ghz tx power output is 6 milliwatts in many countries. What kind of clear LOS range can one expect with this on a clear and low humidity day?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Top