FPV Receiver Testing Part 1 | LAFORGE TRUE-D HUKIYA ACHILLES ATTITUDEV4 CLEARVIEW
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- Holy cow this was a lot of work! Please consider supporting original research like this by joining my Patreon: / thedroneracingengineer
I'm testing FPV Receivers. This is my most rigorous and scientific test yet. In this test:
* LaForge v2.0 hardware with v2.1 firmware - goo.gl/hiyk5N
* True-D v3.5 hardware with v3.5 firmware - goo.gl/kRLpKn
* True-D v3.0 hardware with v3.2 firmware - goo.gl/X6AWTg
* Holybro Hukiya - goo.gl/8x5GtR
* Realacc hardware with Achilles v2.0 firmware - goo.gl/VbAcYc
* Fatshark Attitude v4 with OLED module - goo.gl/GtWxKA
* Iftron ClearView Pro - goo.gl/E4gUpK
* Aomway Commander - goo.gl/aCJmsB
Download Achilles firmware for Realacc here: goo.gl/ktYh36
* HMDVR mini DVR - goo.gl/APxc5C
* TrueRC X-Air 10 dBi Crosshair Antenna - goo.gl/YCnjGx
* TBS Triumph Antenna - goo.gl/j2VyKF
I'm surprised Clearview didn't do better. The footage on Metaldanny's channel is practically 100% clean through even large areas with many trees. ua-cam.com/video/GQKl_wJ3hF0/v-deo.html
ClearView has 2 dBi omni antennas. The others have 10 dBi directional antennas. ClearView is at a massive disadvantage. But that's okay, because I like to make it work. In my last round of testing, where the diveristy modules only had 8 dBi antennas, Clearview nearly matched them. It seems like ClearView's advantage is approximately 6 dBi compared to other modules, but not 8 dBi.
Joshua Bardwell - I see. Thanks for the explanation ... and all of the great content you put out so regularly
sort of confused as to why the Clearview did not get the same antenna combo as the rest? Nice content otherwise.
Clearview is intended to be run on matching antennas.
I don't always watch 26 minute videos... But when i do, its Bardwell module testing videos :D
Until I heard you describe the scoring process I thought great test, thanks Joshua,
Hearing you watched each second of all that video I can't think of what to think other than: 1) you're insane; 2) you love FPV and the FPV community more than you should; 3)I wish I could patronise you more than I already do; 4) and you're insane (again).
Thanks.
Josh you are the man!! Forget the haters and keep doing what you're doing. Wealth of knowledge bro!!
If I had a dollar for every video of yours that I have watched, every time you have helped me solve a problem, or for every thing I have learned from you, then I'd have a lot more quads! I genuinely appreciate the effort you put in to help inform and keep all of us up to speed.
Thanks brother!
I can't express enough how much I appreciate all you do for this hobby. This is one of my favorite videos you have produced. My favorite is the series you did on the fpv rider simulator, it enabled me to be able to do my first real fpv flight without crashing.
Thanks. Glad you got into the air.
I think this is going to be a gold standard video for the next few months as various modules are going to to be upgraded because of your results! Great video
Great job Joshua! I would ignore all the critics. I don't think any of them are taking all the time and expense of doing this kind of testing. You are doing a great service to the FPV community. Thank you so much!
Josh, It bothers me that you always seem to speak to your audience as if they are so overly critical of your content... I just want to state that regardless of the accuracy and depth of your testing and analysis I absolutely value your content for your opinion and nothing more. so thank you!
Marvellous work, Joshua. Simply marvellous!
I love the scoring system at 20:00 :D very clever to set apart which are better than just looking at statics LOL
thx so much! first time i will try out patreon i guess. Bought the True-D 3.5 recently and im pretty happy with it
JOSH you are a legend, thank you so much for all your hard work and help you put into this hobby. You are doing the peoples work and do a fantastic job at it. Congrats to 40k man. I know how much work you put in. PS please look at the FLYKEY goggles. there must be some strange magic on with those goggles because they out perform all my otehr goggles in RF??? again thanks for the awesome test.
Great video and well-planned test. It was amazing how many times I heard your name at a multigp race. I have definitely learned a lot from your videos. Thanks a lot.
Great test and I'm happy with the results. Just updated my firmware on my True-D to 3.5!
excellent rig and very thoughtful testing process! Great work, as always!
yay. I was going to request this but you are already ahead of me
Iw never seen anyone so pumped about analog video receivers lol, let me get my coffee and dig in!
Lol, love the ironic timing, I pulled the trigger on the Laforge V2 after watching you last video. I had leaned towards the true D. Great video! Laforge has yet to show up, but anything has to be better than my Eachine VR D2s. Thanks again for the hard work.
AL Parsons I feel your pain AL, just after I ordered my tru d a couple months ago Josh did some testing leaning toward the la forge! I was coming from quanum v1 so it was definitely a HUGE improvement all across the board. You should be fine with the Laforge...hopefully we can all go digital sometime soon:-) happy flying
Yeah I'm not worried, plus I don't have the money to purchase another for awhile.
The Laforge is fantastic and to be honest I am suspicious of these results. But that doesn't mean it would be right to throw them out just because they didn't "feel right". That's how you get biased data.
Oh for sure. I'm not worried. I made an educated purchase i feel comfortable with, because of your video!
I really appreciate your hard work. Cheers.
Great review. The Aomway Commander did much better than I expected to be honest.
Just getting into the video - as always meticulous testing thanks josh!
Great video! Very thorough, well-explained, and very very helpful! 8:36 When the kid across the street says "Can I try to fly that?"
Yeah that'll be a no. 😂
Great video man. Cheers for doing it!
Thanks for the honesty & efforts Josh !
I like your video and the testing even when my receiver of choice didn't "win"!
Thank you for putting so much work into this!
Holy snapping duck turds JB. You're a lunatic...but you're our lunatic. You're work is very much appreciated.
Joshua, I'm not quite sure you used enough receiver antennas and patch cables on your testing rig man LMAO Jokes. Good stuff !! The effort you go to for your videos is incredible. I can only imagine how much time these "background" tasks of preparation like building, assembling and testing your rig take and which sadly for the most part go unnoticed. Love your work and thanks for your efforts that went into these valuable videos.
A great test and a lot of effort put forth to achieve it. Haters will always hate. Thanks for taking the time to do it.
Amazing scientifically accurate test! You have to be very proud of yourself for doing this.
I would like to see what you consider the top 3 put up against the Connex HD digital system. I feel we will see more digital systems in the future.
Outstanding test brother. It was a fair fight. The achilles should load on the holybro just fine. You can ask GC9N on the achilles rc group thread.
Thanks for all the hard work.
Thank you for what you do. I always learn something from your videos
Nice work mate.
Look forward to watching your next test on interference from another channel.
Fantastic video, well done. True-D 3.5 came out top - this is my current module. I also have the AttiV4 module - when you do the interference test, be sure to also test at 200mW as this where the AttiV4 module doesn't perform as well as the True-D
where's your interference test video?
Hi Joshua, first of all: Best test setup I've seen right now! - Very, very good!
But I must say that I'm not very surprised that the ClearView did bad in this test case. - But I think that why it lost is it's biggest power under normal conditions.
I never understood why, if there are two receivers, both always receiving at the same time, I would want to switch between them instead of "combining" the best parts of both received signals...
I'm not sure, but after listening to your previous videos concerning the ClearView, I think they do it that way.
But if it then only has two same antennas pointing to the same direction the differences between the received signals may not be very different, so it couldn't use it's real strength.
Especially when the signal get's worse faster more often because of the type of the antenna.
For the "combining pictures" method it probably needs a chip that can handle these calculations in near realtime which is, what all goggle-models do not have. - So it's their solutions only alternative to make simple calculations to decide which signal is the better one so the system can decide wich stream to use.
Woud be interesting to know which "hardware environment" is really needed to do this kind of image-correction on the source of two video-streams.
Maybe even small enough to mount it as a little box to the goggles?
Not to mention Adobe's new KI learned immage "optimisation" techniques that could possibly even enhance the image by visualy fitting data.
It would be nice if you could qstrlistHeaderTreeWidgetFilesWithDuplicateFilesizes.append("Delete"); confirm if the ClearView uses such a technique. Right now I'm just guessing.
Very, very, very cool test with great results that really make sense.
That's why I subscribed
Nice work keep up like this
And please do more of this in the Future!!
Awesome work Josh!
Thanks for the test. After seeing degraded video performance from my Laforge modules 2 different sets mind you I think I'm going to roll back my firmware. I'm not exactly sure whats going on but I swear I had better performance on the older firmware. The final nail in the coffin was losing one of my Aliens w/gopro at my usual flying spot that I flown at 100's of times. And I'm honestly thinking about just moving onto Realacc 5808 w/Achilles firmware, After losing this quad its really made me question my gear and caused lost confidence which really sucks :( Anyways for anyone reading this I've been a long time supporter of La Forge and had mine since the 2nd batch was released
Crazy testing man, thanks for this.
Great video josh!👍🏻
Congrats on that testrig and the effort youve put into making this video. I use a realacc like module from hobbyking and its working really nice. So cool to just need the goggles and no extrnal rx... greets, RcSchim
I figured you would appreciate this type of device. You love building test rigs like this, like I do.
great piece of testing. thanks for your hard work. i like your channel for the sharing of knowledge. thanks so much and keep them coming those video's.
One thing I've noticed about the diversity switching on LaForge V2.1 and other firmwares before is that the default auto speed for switching is too slow quite often for the flying I do where I may fly off to my side outside the beam width of my crosshair or helical and it takes it forever to switch to the mad mushroom at which point everything becomes super clear. I've found the the fastest diversity switching setting to be the most appropriate for complicated environments. I though about this at one moment in the video when I saw the LaForge completely be gone for a while while others had video and then it suddenly cleared up. That is exactly what happens to me on AUTO, I don't often use auto diversity speed at all. It is possible the LaForge was somehow stuck on the directional when you though it would have been on the Omni. I'm surprised how bad the AUTO setting is on the LaForge but the two faster settings are excellent. This is my idea as to why the LaForge performed worse. Did you force the modules to just use the Omni?
Amazing work!
So impressing. I don't have a set of FatSharks but still this is great info in general. I'm pleasantly surprised at how well the internal diversity receivers in the Commander performed. Any plans on follow suit with Stu and testing the FlyKey and Hiee goggles?
Have you ever thought about doing a battery test on Flight time vs Mah to see when you start to get diminishing returns. For example, would a 1800 mah battery weigh too much to get anymore flight time than a 1300 mah?
That is a video i would like to see
You can't test anything like that, because the results can't be true for every setup. It heavily depends on props, motors, ESCs (to a lesser degree), weight, flying style and so on and so on. With a "standard" 5 inch setup, a 1800 mah battery will definately give you more flight time, but the craft will not be as agile. Punchouts will not gain as much height and you will need more space to catch the quad when coming out of a freefall.
With the standard 5 inch setup, we aren't in a realm of big diminishing returns in terms of flight time even when going with a 2200 mah battery, but the agility of the quad will be so much worse, that one should start to think about a different setup with larger props and slower spinning motors, that would have the same flight time with e.g. a 1500 (instead of 1800) battery, but can handle the weight better (= be more agile) with the weight.
DC FpV I run a 1800mah battery 7-14 min fly time depending on how I fly .
7-14!!! I get about 3min if im lucky with a 4S 2600. On a 1300 I can probably get 2:30.
it definitely depends on what you're flying. a tiny quad wont lift a huge battery, while that battery can be perfect for a big one
great work, thanks for the info!
Nice job - lots of prep to get unbias results - WOW!
Massive thank you ! Gonna go check me out some new firmware. Great video 👌🏻👍👌🏻👍👌🏻
Your eyes actually seemed to bleed to some degree, haha. Thanks for such a thourough test, it had to cost a ton of time and effort. Really appreciate it.
Redefining perfectionist
Great work ! Thanks !
thank you for this contribution, the data has been assimilated for future reference
great work sir. thx very much
Thanks ! great video. let's put price into factor as well..
Can you do this sort of thing in a more wifi-noisey urban environment one day? I wonder if there is a way to broadcast a standard image with something like a QR code on it from a moving quad, and have OpenCV do a read or unreadable test on each frame to have a finer-grain automated version of the points system you came up with. Very interesting results, thanks man!
I always need empirical evidence to make these buy decisions and you're the man that brings the numbers. You are a gentleman and a scholar sir; I appreciate the hard work.
I just don't understand how anyone could argue with this. ...Do they have data? no? they can just STFU than.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Fantastic job!
My only comment & question would be for us people still holding out with the True-D V1/V2 hardware (originals). Where is that in testing? ;)
Would be best off just throwing the Achilles v2.0 firmware and plausible to get very similar results as the Realacc with Achilles OR should a saved investment to another module be best?
Again, THANK YOU!
One thing I would like to see is the standard nexwave in the line up. When I watch these videos is so difficult to find a clear difference in the video between the modules. This video being the exception though. I was able to see a difference. Im just curios how much better these modules perform compared to the good ol nexwave. Im MOSTLY curious how it compares to others when doing your future "adjacent interference" testing. If its not TOO much trouble, would it be possible for you to add that module into the mix?? Thanks for all your hard work on this.
Great valid video!
TBS Clearview with the included 5dBi patch antennas for the win.
Thanks for the testing, I understand how much effort goes into this sort of test, however I have already bought the aomway commander, (furc goggle), so clearly that one is the best. Lol
I think you should have done a test of the 2x non-diversity modules using a directional antenna. Pretty sure that they would have then performed a lot better, maybe even close-in. I mainly use an IRC 8db rhcp mini-patch with a short/stiff extension lead with my FS nextwave module and it works as well as my true-d 3.2 with both omni and directional.
i'd like to see this updated with the new ClearView module and all on the same antenna's.
This video came out perfectly for me, im looking at saving up for new goggles (currently using teleporters) and looking for what module to go with it!
We need the LaForge v3 to step up the game lol.
Joshua you are the best
Awesome video Joshua! I've got a suggestion though. Not sure if anyone's brought it up already but can you test with another quad on a different channel positioned somewhat near the test rig while your main quad flies around? Would be nice to see how the modules are affected
I will be doing a test like that, yes.
Joshua Bardwell awesome :) will wait for that test
Maybe you could try a blind test of the modules and see if anyone can tell a difference.
I wonder if the Clearview is acting like a multiple array radio telescope with its 2 antennas. Where the 2 signals into the module are combined into 1 output signal to the goggles.
Paul Bartlett that was my understanding of it. I think the signal would be too large otherwise
It looks to me like the clearview never loses sync, but the picture gets so bad at times that surely it is missing sync signal on occasion. This makes me think that perhaps the clearview has an internal clock that it can coast on when the sync signal is missed.
I have heard others make that conjecture. I really don't know how it does what it does, myself.
Great work Joshua, I look forward to your testing on near frequency interference. One question I have though. How sure are we that the Tx is transmitting on the actual selected frequency? Also, the accuracy of the Rx's zeroing on the selected frequency?
I don't know of any algorithm for tuning in on the Rx but perhaps this is a moot point?
I verified the TX accuracy with a spectrum analyzer--as best I could anyway. It's hard to tell where the exact center of the signal is, at least for me. I verified for sure that the signal did not drift as the vTX heated up.
super thorough, your work has more value than most realize. Thanks a lot!!
Hehe, continuous improvement. That sounds like something you would get from a manager. "The customer isn't entirely placated. While we may have ritualistically sacrificed our three youngest employees to get them to 98%, we must strive for ..."
Thanks. Perfect.
Are you going to review those Aomway commanders at some point? I'd like to hear how they compare to fatsharks.
Excellent video, great test method and surprising results :) How about connecting all receivers to same pair of antennas - you know only one patch and one TBS with some adapter to wire signal to all receivers? Is that even possible? Sorry if this is dumb question, but I don't know much about receivers.
There is such a thing as an RF splitter-amplifier, but an eight-way one would be expensive, and there is no guarantee that it is splitting the signal equally, so you are right back in the same boat.
nice job
nice
So Josh, I have seen all of your video's about the different receivers. Right now I run the LaForge 2.1, but I want to buy the clearview race. In the one video you say the clearview is meant to be run with two of the same directional antenna. Then in this video, you say you had Omni directional. My question is......what is the best antenna combo to run on the clearview?? thanks!
does the commander usually have those weird lines up and diagonally or just dvr issue? great video!
I didn't see it in the goggles, no.
That moment when you have Quanum V2s and still watch 26minutes of flickering
Yeah , for the price the clearview should have been the out and out clear winner. it wasn't even close. And while the "handicap" may seem huge, I wonder how much loss is in those thin little extensions everyone else had to use.
If there was loss in the extensions, it was the same for everyone.
I would say run the same test 8 times with each set up in each position and average the results, but that's a lot of work just to probably get the same result that they are all more or less the same.
breadboards ftw!
question:
I have one motor (front right) that goes to full throttle on every hard move, every roll, left or right, every flip, all punchouts, always the same motor. The other 3 motors are usually at about 80% throttle. I suspected the motor was bad, so I swapped two motors and blackbox still shows the front right motor has a problem. So now I suspect the ESC is bad.
Have you ever seen an ESC get weaker but still work?
It still flies well at low throttle, but drifts a lot at full throttle.
Great video thanks for all the information, I was just wondering what do you hook up the Clearview to? It's just a big box. I don't understand how it's used but I would love to get images like that when I am flying
You plug it in to your goggles' AV input.
Thanks!
have you ever tried to wrap a standard module with taped foil to help shield the device to see if they work better also ground the foil and you can try with vtx as well
Sounds like a recipe for a short.
lol yeah if you don't tape the inside of foil it like higher end units they all use the aluminum housing as a shield. I have mainly used it with gps units on under side to help signal.
im not surprised they use all the same chip richwave rtc6715
thats why you dont see so big difference ore thy need to mess up the balancing network
Nobody can think of every possible test scenarios. However one thing we can all agree to is that if I plan to fly out far and back in the same direction, I will never use an Omni on either the Clearview or on the OLED. Fatshark and Iftron did not bring a knife to the battle, you gave them a knife by adding a Omni antenna on them instead of installing 2 directional on the Clearview and one directional on the Fatshark OLED. So you really never gave them a chance. The fairest setup would have been - when flying outwards get directional on the OLED and on the Clearview as well, then when flying close by replace those with Omnis. All other diversities had both, those should have stayed the same. You have the gear still there, give these a fair chance.
When flying with a non-diversity receiver you often have no option but to use an omni. It wouldn't be a fair test to stop and swap antennas halfway through the test (you wouldn't do that whilst flying). This nicely highlights one of the benefits of using a diversity receiver. His second test effectively places all the receivers on an even keel for a direct comparison.
Nobody asked to stop mid-test and swap the antennas. But first test and second test were separately recorded, each of these could have been done with proper antenna selection, from that this test wouldn't any less or more valuable, it would have shown how those receivers work when they have a fair chance of competing.
Feel free to ignore the results of the first test then.
Personally I always fly omni on my Clearview. The range is so good that I never feel compelled to go further.
Joshua Bardwell I agree with you, I never fly as far as to need several directional antennas either. However, don't you want to know the results on how your number ratings would look like if there were two X-Air antennas on the Clearview and one on the OLED? All the Clearview cares about is to have two identical antennas, of those are 10db X-Air's or Omnis it does not really matter. As a matter of fact the X-Airs have about 100 degree horizontal coverage, could be really used for both test setups, then it would not be "handicapped".
bazathome2002 yes, this makes sense. why would he test with the directional if nobody is going to fly with a directional? and it can't be one of each because the clear view is integrating the signal from both antenna to make one picture. yada yada yada yada yada.
Is anyone aware of a list of differences in hardware between the trued 3.0 and 3.5 modules?
I've been unable to find an actual, technical list of what new components are on the boards vs the two.
on the furious website in the description:
"New V3.5 Updates:
- Ergonomic new plastic injection cover
- Better protection mechanic to protect the OLED screen in transportation
- New locking system between True-D boards and cover to prevent short circuit
- USB plug-in without removing the plastic cover"
Thanks. I've been to the website and I've reviewed everything the vendor has written.
at no point do they describe the actual hardware changes. I don't care about the plastic cover.
I care about what radios are in use, what chips are in use, did they completely design a new board, or did they just make a few small tweaks to the v3 board, like moving the usb port around?
They typically won't give out that information because it gives competitors an advantage.
Joshua Bardwell Ah. fair point. I wonder if anybody out there would consider a teardown?
Hey Josh, can you do a video of the clearview WITH the 8dbi antennas you showed in its review?
I know you like 4:3 but I much prefer 16:9 and have been using Skyzones for some time but recently in my quest for the best reception have bought some Dom V3s and Laforge V2s unbelievable as it mat seem the reception on the SZs seem better and the optics are far superior to the FSs and I think I have found Best way to configure them In 3D mode with both receivers on the same frequency with air pair of cyclones because any breakup doesn't match on both screens it's transparent.
can you do a vid on best goggles for using a ground station
I had been avoiding to subscribe to your channel for reasons. This video made me subscribe right away. Thnks a lot
@Joshua Bardwell
I have seen you test video receivers a lot, but have not seen hardly any vtx tests. Is this because the vtx does not much matter? Maybe any decent vtx is as good as the next? You seem to like the tbs unify, but you said you like it because of smart audio, not because of signal quality.
I know there are differences in vTX, I just haven't been super interested in testing 100 different vTX to see what's best. These days, if you want a great vTX, you buy a Unify. Especially because SmartAudio support is such a killer feature. Or buy a Tramp, but they have been hard to get. To me, the killer feature of SmartAudio is so important that I'm not interested in testing a bunch of other vTX that don't have it.
ok, if you were to test vtxs someday, here is my idea for the testing procedure. Leave one vrx at the house recording. Then mount 8 vtxs on a piece of wood and walk to test point A. Turn on vtx1 for 10 sec, then turn on vtx2 for 10 sec, etc. Use the same channel for all vtxs, just run them one at a time. After all 8 have run for 10 sec, walk to test point B and repeat. Just pick out a dozen interesting spots around your property. Then just remember the order you turned them on and you can know which part of the video correlates with each vtx.
yeah man, definitely don't bother doing a test if you are not personally interested. You already do so much work its unbelievable. Thank you again for the amazing video.
I don't own a set of comanders but when it's time to get a new set of goggles I'm putting them in the hat
Please add in this testing eachine google two 5" HD, to compare twice cheaper module as other. It will be great to know how many worster it is or maybe better?
lol i live in the middle of a huge city, people set off fireworks all year ling in the middle of the street. welcome to living in philly. we like to play "firework or gunshot"
If you got someone to move that big bundle of cables about while doing the test flights, would you see random chaos ("additional attenuation" as you called it) on those 8 screens?
No, I doubt it. The whole point of the coaxial cables is that they protect from interference.