If you want the patch antenna connect to the transmit port, you can just cut/file a notch on the opposite side of the original notch on the upper side in the patch antenna case. Then free the cable in the patch from the silicone fix point and route it to the top. Easy fix
The first question we should be asking is, should we be using a directional patch antenna for transmitting from the goggles, and I think the answer is no. Why? Because the bitrate required for that back link to the VTX is likely to be very low since it's only re-requesting corrupted packets/frames. Low bitrate means less susceptibility to noise so you don't need as high a SNR as for receiving high-bitrate video data. Also, what happens when you fly behind yourself with a patch on the back link? The SNR will get much worse and you're likely to not re-request corrupted frames.
If you do long range the omni on the TX port will be useless obviously. And if you do long range you learn to turn your head towards the plane. So no, in this case you don't fly behind yourself
@@schwarzflieger you're missing the point, range isn't governed by antenna propagation alone, the channel bitrate plays an important part. The point I'm making is if the data rate requirements of that back channel to the VTX is low enough an omni might be sufficient to match the range of the directional receiving antenna (which has to support the significantly higher bitrate of the digital FPV feed). This is because the lower the bitrate requirements the more tolerance you have for noise, which is basically what Shannon's Theorm tells us.
Obviously, even Shannon's theorem can't help if antenna gain is not enough to rx/tx no matter what data put through you have. Because SNR will be too low to RX/TX even a single bit of info. @@kandredfpv
@@schwarzflieger we're talking about a 50-5Mbps video down link vs an up link of probably a few 100Kbps to re-request corrupted packets, so of course the gain of the receiving antenna would need to be in the order of magnitude at least 50 times the gain of the transmitting one. Do you really think the WalkSnail engineers are smart enough to engineer a digital VRX but not think about the antenna gain? Honestly....
to put it short - yes, according to the Shannon's theorem and Walksnail engineers kwad kiddies do not need any high gain directional antennas to fly in a park @@kandredfpv
Is there a follow-up video for this regarding antenna recommendations? I'm having issues with signal strength on my Goggles X. I only have 1-2 green channels and lose signal within about 300-400m ... and that's maintaining a line-of-sight...No obstacles, etc. Any suggestions on antenna recommendations for the Goggles X? Thank you in advance.
do you believe it's ideal to have the transmit antenna on the top as opposed to the bottom? I would assume the manufacturer has a method to their madness so to speak. Also, what benefit would the patch antenna have in general? Should I invest in it? Thank you for all your great content !!
If all omnis, then TX on top is ideal. If 2 patch and 2 omnis, ideally you want the omnis on the top for better positioning, and patches on the front for tx
You will even have to change the cables inside the goggles. OR: You take the Patchantennas and you change the cables there from the bottom to the top. And then you can add the connections of the Patchantennas on the top of the goggle. There fore it works. Greez
the face plate patch antenna both pointed slightly to left and right both. if one is TX and another is RX the receiving direction will be imbalanced (range reduce if my drone at another side?). I will prefer buy a wider patch for TX on top and keep bottom both RX.
You could put a third patch antena in the transmit port, isn´t? I won´t let a patch antenna for near / freestyle flights as the only transmiting, anyways. So, with the current layout, just need to swap from patch to omni.
Hello Ian, i'm asking for the VRX-modul: If i have two VRX-modules close to each other and i use LHP-antennas on one VRX (and corresponding VTX) and RHP-antennas on the second VRX (and corresponding VTX), then i should be fine regarding the two VRX-modules jamming each other in close spacing?
Well what would happen if you put high gain very directional antenna there? It could result in loss of signal if the quad bets out of the lobes of high gain
ebay has "UFL IPX Male To Female Cable" that are 60cm so way too long, could you use those or not enough space to hide 60cm curled up? edit *amazon has 5cm version Vecys 2PCS U.FL IPEX IPX Male to U.FL IPEX IPX Female Cable 2" /5CM U.fl/IPEX IPX 1.13mm Low-Loss Extension Cable, would they impair?
My question is, should you be changing it ..?...You think Walksnail don't know what they're doing?...My guess is that it's configured this way because most end users won't be range flying....🤔😳🇬🇧 Why not simply fit a patch antenna on the transmit port if you want range flying?..seems a better idea to me...🤔😏😏
If you want the patch antenna connect to the transmit port, you can just cut/file a notch on the opposite side of the original notch on the upper side in the patch antenna case. Then free the cable in the patch from the silicone fix point and route it to the top. Easy fix
Did a test flight and with the modified version i get double the range
The sma on the walksnail patch could reach up to the rx/tx port if anyone would want to do that.
The first question we should be asking is, should we be using a directional patch antenna for transmitting from the goggles, and I think the answer is no. Why? Because the bitrate required for that back link to the VTX is likely to be very low since it's only re-requesting corrupted packets/frames. Low bitrate means less susceptibility to noise so you don't need as high a SNR as for receiving high-bitrate video data. Also, what happens when you fly behind yourself with a patch on the back link? The SNR will get much worse and you're likely to not re-request corrupted frames.
If you do long range the omni on the TX port will be useless obviously. And if you do long range you learn to turn your head towards the plane. So no, in this case you don't fly behind yourself
@@schwarzflieger you're missing the point, range isn't governed by antenna propagation alone, the channel bitrate plays an important part. The point I'm making is if the data rate requirements of that back channel to the VTX is low enough an omni might be sufficient to match the range of the directional receiving antenna (which has to support the significantly higher bitrate of the digital FPV feed). This is because the lower the bitrate requirements the more tolerance you have for noise, which is basically what Shannon's Theorm tells us.
Obviously, even Shannon's theorem can't help if antenna gain is not enough to rx/tx no matter what data put through you have. Because SNR will be too low to RX/TX even a single bit of info. @@kandredfpv
@@schwarzflieger we're talking about a 50-5Mbps video down link vs an up link of probably a few 100Kbps to re-request corrupted packets, so of course the gain of the receiving antenna would need to be in the order of magnitude at least 50 times the gain of the transmitting one. Do you really think the WalkSnail engineers are smart enough to engineer a digital VRX but not think about the antenna gain? Honestly....
to put it short - yes, according to the Shannon's theorem and Walksnail engineers kwad kiddies do not need any high gain directional antennas to fly in a park @@kandredfpv
Thanks! I actually had this exact question as my Goggles X and Caddx patch add on is on its way to me right now.
Dumb question but what is transmitted from goggles to vtx ?
The goggles transmit to request a re-send of corrupted video frames from the VTX.
Thanks a bunch for all the info, Ian! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
And happy holidays!
"pre-lengthed" 🤣 But, very interesting video, thanks.
Is there a follow-up video for this regarding antenna recommendations? I'm having issues with signal strength on my Goggles X. I only have 1-2 green channels and lose signal within about 300-400m ... and that's maintaining a line-of-sight...No obstacles, etc. Any suggestions on antenna recommendations for the Goggles X? Thank you in advance.
do you believe it's ideal to have the transmit antenna on the top as opposed to the bottom? I would assume the manufacturer has a method to their madness so to speak. Also, what benefit would the patch antenna have in general? Should I invest in it? Thank you for all your great content !!
If all omnis, then TX on top is ideal. If 2 patch and 2 omnis, ideally you want the omnis on the top for better positioning, and patches on the front for tx
I thing that geinue caddx patch antennas can be conected also to upper antenna connectors
You will even have to change the cables inside the goggles. OR: You take the Patchantennas and you change the cables there from the bottom to the top. And then you can add the connections of the Patchantennas on the top of the goggle. There fore it works. Greez
Does that mean, best antenna to the send port? Omni or Patch better?
They sell an extension - available on Amazon.
Edit: Just ordered a 3.5cm extension.
You will loose performance because of many connections
Why cant you remove the sma brackets from the goggle housing and swap them around?
the face plate patch antenna both pointed slightly to left and right both. if one is TX and another is RX the receiving direction will be imbalanced (range reduce if my drone at another side?). I will prefer buy a wider patch for TX on top and keep bottom both RX.
You could put a third patch antena in the transmit port, isn´t? I won´t let a patch antenna for near / freestyle flights as the only transmiting, anyways. So, with the current layout, just need to swap from patch to omni.
Hello Ian, i'm asking for the VRX-modul: If i have two VRX-modules close to each other and i use LHP-antennas on one VRX (and corresponding VTX) and RHP-antennas on the second VRX (and corresponding VTX), then i should be fine regarding the two VRX-modules jamming each other in close spacing?
Well what would happen if you put high gain very directional antenna there? It could result in loss of signal if the quad bets out of the lobes of high gain
If you were planning serious long range would you not be having an external antenna setup anyway? (like a ground station or similar)
ian why do they have only 1 transmit antenna instead of 2?
ebay has "UFL IPX Male To Female Cable" that are 60cm so way too long, could you use those or not enough space to hide 60cm curled up? edit *amazon has 5cm version Vecys 2PCS U.FL IPEX IPX Male to U.FL IPEX IPX Female Cable 2" /5CM U.fl/IPEX IPX 1.13mm Low-Loss Extension Cable, would they impair?
would it degrade signal?
Can anybody help me. I replaced my left antenna port with a longer rp sma and now i have black screens.
I cant see any visible issuse
My question is, should you be changing it ..?...You think Walksnail don't know what they're doing?...My guess is that it's configured this way because most end users won't be range flying....🤔😳🇬🇧 Why not simply fit a patch antenna on the transmit port if you want range flying?..seems a better idea to me...🤔😏😏
ufl extension?
For what though. Why do you want to move the position of the transmit antenna?
Can a man in the middle listen to the communication between RX and VTX?