Wow is there a lot of fpv stuff to choose from

tylorwashere

tylorwashere

Well-Known Member
So today I went to my local hobby store (big mistake). While I could never justify dropping 200-400 dollars in one go on a pair of goggles, I can justify putting a pair of dominator v3's on lay-a-way and slowly paying them off till its nice enough to fly outside ;p.

Now trying to research transmitters/cameras is a nightmare. Some run on 5v, some 12, some 5-16 etc. And its making me dizzy. Not to mention differences in milliwatts.

I think I found a decent transmitter here

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00M...1_1?colid=2M9DQA333XBVV&coliid=I12IVETBQWT9SC

My logic being if 200mw is meh, and 250 is better, then 600 should be great, right?

I'm also thinking about going with a mobius so I can get my HD recording and fpv camera all in one device, not to mention its a pretty common application for that camera, and there's plenty of info about it out there.

So yeah, any suggestions or a push in the right direction would be great, thanks!
 
Welcome to the FPV world!

What aircraft are you working on? Most of the time it is best to use 2 dedicated cameras. One for fpv, and one for video.

I used immersion 60omw vtx with the fatsharks I used to own. (Moved to headplays) Make sure the one you chose is compatible with fatshark since some are not.

Mobius is a good light weight camera so a good choice imo for recording, but I have never used mine for fpv.

Not sure what your budget is, but I really like the Turnigy ic-120nh the best out of all I have had so far. The cmos fatshark 600tvl is really good for the price.
 
When I look at this vid using a $27 complete setup, it looks very acceptable.


If you skip ahead ~ 7 minute mark you'll see a comparison to a much more expensive Sony camera.

I don't know how much range you need but this is from the annoying, Dubai Dwarf's testing of a 200mw unit.

Aomway_stock.jpg

http://www.banggood.com/AOMWAY-FPV-...CMOS-HD-Camera-For-Aerial-Photo-p-989258.html

It also looks quite nice.


Just saying. :)
 
10mw, 25mw, 200mw, 600mw....etc......

If you have a quad that has a 100m range then a 600mw fpv is way over kill..Determine the power you need based on the range of your quad is what i go by...you will typically run out of quad range before you will fpv range unless you have a long range flyer...25mw is good for around 200m or so.
 
ringolong said:
Welcome to the FPV world!

What aircraft are you working on? Most of the time it is best to use 2 dedicated cameras. One for fpv, and one for video.

I used immersion 60omw vtx with the fatsharks I used to own. (Moved to headplays) Make sure the one you chose is compatible with fatshark since some are not.

Mobius is a good light weight camera so a good choice imo for recording, but I have never used mine for fpv.

Not sure what your budget is, but I really like the Turnigy ic-120nh the best out of all I have had so far. The cmos fatshark 600tvl is really good for the price.
Click to expand...

I'm going to put my setup on a scratch build 250, maybe I'll take some pictures when I get home from work, and I'm thinking about switching my lay-a-way to some attitude v3's instead, I didn't realize that everything was modular with the dominators, they don't come with a built In reciever
 
Mike H. said:
10mw, 25mw, 200mw, 600mw....etc......

If you have a quad that has a 100m range then a 600mw fpv is way over kill..Determine the power you need based on the range of your quad is what i go by...you will typically run out of quad range before you will fpv range unless you have a long range flyer...25mw is good for around 200m or so.
Click to expand...

Good to know, so at close ranges (200m or less) signal power doesn't matter that much?
 
Jackson said:
When I look at this vid using a $27 complete setup, it looks very acceptable.


If you skip ahead ~ 7 minute mark you'll see a comparison to a much more expensive Sony camera.

I don't know how much range you need but this is from the annoying, Dubai Dwarf's testing of a 200mw unit.

Aomway_stock.jpg

http://www.banggood.com/AOMWAY-FPV-...CMOS-HD-Camera-For-Aerial-Photo-p-989258.html

It also looks quite nice.


Just saying. :)
Click to expand...

I might end up going with a cheaper camera, I wanted the mobius for 16:9, but I think I'm going to switch to the attitudes which use a 4:3 instead
 
I ha e an fpv set up planned tha
tylorwashere said:
Good to know, so at close ranges (200m or less) signal power doesn't matter that much?
Click to expand...

You either have signal or you dont....i just dont get having a signal you can use for 1 mile down the road when you fly 100m away from you..I never understood it as the more Mw you have the clearer the picture within x amount of range unless you use that range...200mw is a pretty common "choice" rather you can use the distance or not.

Im planning a simple super light weight 25mw fpv set up for a build pretty soon and shouldnt have any signal issue within 200m or more which is farther than i plan to fly the quad.

Also consider the frequency range of the fpv set up( with 5.8g being most common) has alot to do with how well you can obtain a signal when the quad is behind a building or in a forest of trees..A certain amount of height the quad needs to be in also a factor..Im still reading up on this but with a 5.8g system, its a pretty basic set up.
 
Mike H. said:
I ha e an fpv set up planned tha


You either have signal or you dont....i just dont get having a signal you can use for 1 mile down the road when you fly 100m away from you..I never understood it as the more Mw you have the clearer the picture within x amount of range unless you use that range...200mw is a pretty common "choice" rather you can use the distance or not.

Im planning a simple super light weight 25mw fpv set up for a build pretty soon and shouldnt have any signal issue within 200m or more which is farther than i plan to fly the quad.

Also consider the frequency range of the fpv set up( with 5.8g being most common) has alot to do with how well you can obtain a signal when the quad is behind a building or in a forest of trees..A certain amount of height the quad needs to be in also a factor..Im still reading up on this but with a 5.8g system, its a pretty basic set up.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about looking into a diversity controller that will fit on my goggles, maybe fatshark has some sort of kit? You should look into it. In theory if you planned to stay pretty immobile while you were flying (like sitting in a chair or something) you could set up two antenna towers and a diversity controller and have almost no blind spots
 
I can have partial signal and partial static. I can fly with some static. It's not an all or not type of thing unless you have blue screen equipment, and in that case I would want the higher mw.

600mw has more punch through trees so if you plan on flying through stuff you may want to think about higher mw.
 
ringolong said:
I can have partial signal and partial static. I can fly with some static. It's not an all or not type of thing unless you have blue screen equipment, and in that case I would want the higher mw.

600mw has more punch through trees so if you plan on flying through stuff you may want to think about higher mw.
Click to expand...

Alright, so higher Mw DOES affect signal power at closer range, and not just your total range? I want to be able to fly around some trees and stuff without going total static
 
I lovehow the immersion rc 600mw transmitters are 70 bucks, but off brand ones are 20. I'll have to do some research and figure out if there's any secret Chinese transmitters that will work with the fatshark reciever
 
Jackson said:

Note the unit he is using looks identical to this one.
http://www.banggood.com/Eachine-TS832-FPV-5_8G-32CH-600mW-Wireless-AV-Transmitter-p-975425.html

This is worth a read.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=30809883&postcount=74
Click to expand...

I've been doing a little research since I woke up, seems like fatshark recievers use the "airwave" band. (apparently it's called the "F" band? I'm not sure) so theoretically any transmitter that can transmit on that band, and within the channels that the reciever picks up should work right? This is the transmitter I'm looking at

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B016...etailBullets_secondary_view_div_1455821930138
 
Indeed alot of nice fpv cameras and receiver kits...Too bad a decent monitor costs an arm and a leg...then you need a battery to power the monitor and have to buy a separate receiver and rca cables.
 
Mike H. said:
Indeed alot of nice fpv cameras and receiver kits...Too bad a decent monitor costs an arm and a leg...then you need a battery to power the monitor and have to buy a separate receiver and rca cables.
Click to expand...

Unless you get a black pearl ;)

They are expensive, but all you need to do is connect antennas, pick the channel, and then fly.
 
tylorwashere said:
Alright, so higher Mw DOES affect signal power at closer range, and not just your total range? I want to be able to fly around some trees and stuff without going total static
Click to expand...

Rewinding this conversation a little bit, here's my two cents ...
VTX power considerations for proximity FPV are more to do with "punch through ability" than distance, so imho, more is always better when it comes to any TX power for several reasons. First understand that TX power is logarithmic in nature so twice the power does NOT mean twice the distance. If 100mW gets you a 400 M distance then you will need 400mW to double that distance. In other words, to double the range you must QUADRUPLE the power, OR increase the antenna gain by 6dB (Again, I'm only using "distance" as a convenient reference for simplicity's sake here, that's NOT necessarily what we're after).
So, here we are treebashing and our signal is ricocheting around to get back to us ... 5.8 Ghz is very reflective in nature, so it's not so much "penetrating" anything to get to you, it's more like bouncing of of everything it needs to in order to reach you. Every time the signal "bounces" it gets attenuated. If you're being separated by too many trees then the signal eventually attenuates too much to be useful, soooo the more powerful the signal you start with the better performance you'll get when flying through all those trees ;)
 
Back
Top