@@Kai-P you don't need to doubt, the proof of concept is there and someone will make it a product. If thats going to be openipc or someone else doesn't matter
@@thirdpartycookie That makes no sense, there are millions of concepts that don't get made, especially if they need expensive custom hardware to function properly.
This is the best idea in FPV for a long time, please make it real. I would love to buy new IR camera system from walksnail only I own DJI system and buyng everything new googgles including camera is a bit expansive so this may solve similar problems in future and make FPV life much easier.
RC and HD video are completely different levels of complexity. We all have cars but no spaceships. That's also not because of will. Maybe someday far in the future
I would immediately buy a digital module for my Fatshark HD0 (970x720) that could run openIPC today as the ground station. It seems feasible that you could fit a standard wfb-ng transceiver, mcu and decode chip into that form factor. Any other electronics hobbyists want to talk more about it?
Can the open standard be used like video game emulators maybe? Like we'd buy a dji 03 and goggles or whatver and just hack it and load the open fpv software...
@@FPVBites the air unit is already here BUT the ground unit + high level of techincal know how is where openIPC flounders , last I heard happymodel was in contact with the dev's and the dev's are working on a simpler setup process but still progress on the ground station side of things is still lacking , also there is openHD , those guys have a air unit as well but i don't know about them so much.
@@FPVBites There is some "standard" hardware available, like this cheap DVR Board running the OpenIPC RX. But too big to goggle mount it. And on Air side, the cams are ok-ish. Still big, Wifi Module has to be wired, it's like in 2010 analog time. There is a nice Airunit in Preorder, looks promising.
@@notsogood4321 It's stange, that we had a good starting point (Wifibroadcast), but from there at least three Projects started (OpenIPC, OpenHD, Ruby), and all of them are incompatible to each other. It would be a benefit already, if they could agree on the same hardware, so a supporting company has the userbase of all the three projects. But currently it's a mess.
There are probably people in FPV who could get R&D/prototype silicon fabbed - e.g. some universities have micro fabs. There are people in FPVwho probably would crowd source it. All it needs is a figure head with an unstoppable 'wont take "no" for an answer' personality.
At least it would be a step forward, if vendors would stick to same VTX channels - Right now you need to have a university degree to fly mixed with Analog, Dji V1, O3, DJI Camera Drones, Walksnail. But they dont manage even that, not even within 1 single company (Dji V1 vs O3 channels). And this could be decided in just one meeting between them, but they simply do care shit about that. Only vendor, who sticks to the Raceband is HDzero, all others try to invent the wheel again :( This really sucks for me the most, that they can´t even manage the bare minimum of cooperation. There should be at least some regulations to have common channels and Bandwith definitions per channel.
I think the technology is still too young for a company like DJI to open it up to OEM 3rd party compatability. Remember this isn't just tech used by hobby FPV drones but also in the industrial UAS spaces as well as wireless monitoring for professional video production. DJI don't make their main money on the hobby side of their products. They would need to be at least two or three generations ahead of an open platform to even entertain the idea of facilitating such an idea. Considering digital video transmission has only had a couple of generations over the last decade or so, I think it will be a long while before we would see something like that happen. Alternatively, it would take a separate company to start that open source effort from scratch, without breaking any patents, and somehow still monetize something in that system enough so that they don't go bankrupt. Really, that's why analogue is still being used today in some spaces.
Great video. It seems hdzero, as the smallest ‘big’ player in a small market would have the most to gain if they opened up their standard as they could easily start selling much more hardware on the rx end and the competition would increase innovation on the goggle side imo. That would be a win win then. But you could argue that hdzero isn’t the digital experience most people want. Its not DJI 🤷♂️
All analog RXes use the same single chip to decode the signal. It's a standard and any one can buy the chip and use it in their hardware. Of course. But how is it different (in practice) from Divimath chip that does the HD transmission? Most of the HDZero is open source, the chip is not, but in analog world even though anyone can make the chip, everyone still uses this single chip. So you can add HDZero to your goggles that you make, by adding their chip to decode the signal. For the system VTXes are already made by at least one other company (Foxeer?). I think that the biggest blocker is still the price. Analog is dirt cheap since this technology used to be very common and now is old and nobody wants it other than FPV pilots. Your price is then all the other components of the goggles + your premium. The other thing is image quality - it's had to reach the masses with HDZero when you have DJI around.
Perhaps there is a genius out there that can produce an operating system and digital receiver that also has a plugin for the decryption code. Then the DJI/WS/HDZ vendors could sell their algorithms as a plugin to the code as a library.
Openipc - first step in that way
I doubt that toxic misleading project is going anywhere.
@@Kai-P you don't need to doubt, the proof of concept is there and someone will make it a product. If thats going to be openipc or someone else doesn't matter
@@thirdpartycookie That makes no sense, there are millions of concepts that don't get made, especially if they need expensive custom hardware to function properly.
@@Kai-P no, there is no custom hardware necessary for openipc, just a custom PCB that you can also make yourself if you'd want to.
@@thirdpartycookie Openipc does not function properly. It's horrible quality with high latency and horrible breakup if it works.
Yep, absolutely agree, Pawel. I'd love to see a digital VTX from Rush, for example.
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
This is the best idea in FPV for a long time, please make it real. I would love to buy new IR camera system from walksnail only I own DJI system and buyng everything new googgles including camera is a bit expansive so this may solve similar problems in future and make FPV life much easier.
Openhd is a good step in this direction. I fly with openhd since 4 years.
ELRS works well, so I think this also will
RC and HD video are completely different levels of complexity. We all have cars but no spaceships. That's also not because of will. Maybe someday far in the future
I would immediately buy a digital module for my Fatshark HD0 (970x720) that could run openIPC today as the ground station. It seems feasible that you could fit a standard wfb-ng transceiver, mcu and decode chip into that form factor. Any other electronics hobbyists want to talk more about it?
Can the open standard be used like video game emulators maybe? Like we'd buy a dji 03 and goggles or whatver and just hack it and load the open fpv software...
Nobody is interested but We are interested :)
ELRS and Betaflight is a great example of open sauce tech. If something like Open Tx happens for goggles, who knows.
ELRS and Betaflight run on cheap off the shelf components. Digital HD FPV system don't. That's the difference
I'm missing Grzepnica, and nice Halation Effect i see here :)
Thanks for this Vid
I try to improve my color grading skills a bit 😂
@@FPVBites im doing the same thing 😂 got some new skills in DaVinci, I like Galatians as well and used it in my last video :)
Will have to give it a look
Next we will be asking Apple to not be so proprietary 😂
OpenIPC is a good base. Hardware sill a bit missing, but it has good potential. This can be the ExpressLRS for Video of the future…
"hardware is still missing" is the essential part. Without hardware it will never happen
@@FPVBites the air unit is already here BUT the ground unit + high level of techincal know how is where openIPC flounders , last I heard happymodel was in contact with the dev's and the dev's are working on a simpler setup process but still progress on the ground station side of things is still lacking , also there is openHD , those guys have a air unit as well but i don't know about them so much.
@@FPVBites There is some "standard" hardware available, like this cheap DVR Board running the OpenIPC RX. But too big to goggle mount it. And on Air side, the cams are ok-ish. Still big, Wifi Module has to be wired, it's like in 2010 analog time.
There is a nice Airunit in Preorder, looks promising.
@@notsogood4321 It's stange, that we had a good starting point (Wifibroadcast), but from there at least three Projects started (OpenIPC, OpenHD, Ruby), and all of them are incompatible to each other. It would be a benefit already, if they could agree on the same hardware, so a supporting company has the userbase of all the three projects. But currently it's a mess.
There are probably people in FPV who could get R&D/prototype silicon fabbed - e.g. some universities have micro fabs. There are people in FPVwho probably would crowd source it. All it needs is a figure head with an unstoppable 'wont take "no" for an answer' personality.
We live in hope
At least it would be a step forward, if vendors would stick to same VTX channels - Right now you need to have a university degree to fly mixed with Analog, Dji V1, O3, DJI Camera Drones, Walksnail.
But they dont manage even that, not even within 1 single company (Dji V1 vs O3 channels). And this could be decided in just one meeting between them, but they simply do care shit about that. Only vendor, who sticks to the Raceband is HDzero, all others try to invent the wheel again :(
This really sucks for me the most, that they can´t even manage the bare minimum of cooperation. There should be at least some regulations to have common channels and Bandwith definitions per channel.
If I win the lottery, I’ll make it happen😊
I think the technology is still too young for a company like DJI to open it up to OEM 3rd party compatability. Remember this isn't just tech used by hobby FPV drones but also in the industrial UAS spaces as well as wireless monitoring for professional video production. DJI don't make their main money on the hobby side of their products. They would need to be at least two or three generations ahead of an open platform to even entertain the idea of facilitating such an idea. Considering digital video transmission has only had a couple of generations over the last decade or so, I think it will be a long while before we would see something like that happen. Alternatively, it would take a separate company to start that open source effort from scratch, without breaking any patents, and somehow still monetize something in that system enough so that they don't go bankrupt. Really, that's why analogue is still being used today in some spaces.
This won't happen without the same ASIC chip on all those different boards.
Great video. It seems hdzero, as the smallest ‘big’ player in a small market would have the most to gain if they opened up their standard as they could easily start selling much more hardware on the rx end and the competition would increase innovation on the goggle side imo. That would be a win win then. But you could argue that hdzero isn’t the digital experience most people want. Its not DJI 🤷♂️
i might not be getting this the right way, english is not my first language.. HDZero is open source isnt it?
Cool video bro
All analog RXes use the same single chip to decode the signal. It's a standard and any one can buy the chip and use it in their hardware. Of course.
But how is it different (in practice) from Divimath chip that does the HD transmission?
Most of the HDZero is open source, the chip is not, but in analog world even though anyone can make the chip, everyone still uses this single chip.
So you can add HDZero to your goggles that you make, by adding their chip to decode the signal.
For the system VTXes are already made by at least one other company (Foxeer?).
I think that the biggest blocker is still the price.
Analog is dirt cheap since this technology used to be very common and now is old and nobody wants it other than FPV pilots.
Your price is then all the other components of the goggles + your premium.
The other thing is image quality - it's had to reach the masses with HDZero when you have DJI around.
what about 5g network for video. I think that would be the best, really fast network, especially for long distance flying
Latency.
Dreams dreams...
never say never
Perhaps there is a genius out there that can produce an operating system and digital receiver that also has a plugin for the decryption code. Then the DJI/WS/HDZ vendors could sell their algorithms as a plugin to the code as a library.
It will never happen 😉
Subbed