Shark Byte on a 5" Racer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- I finally put a shark byte system in my standard 5" racer. I wanted to see if the performance when flying on a full speed racing quad would match my experience with the Tiny Trainer. I have to say, Shark Byte delivered. there was no noticeable difference in latency between analog and shark byte for me! I'm excited to see where Shark Byte goes from here!
Imo still looks like very very good analog
Very very Good analog
How did you mount the vtx? An adapter?
yes, I 3D printed an adapter. It was actually just loose in this build though, not secured to anything. For that reason I tried to fly a bit more cautious as I didn't want to crash and break it.
@@JohnEFly I just ordered shark byte (I couldn't resist) and started waiting for delivery. The whoop vtx single pcb seems to have in photos a little plate that it looks help to mount in 20x20. If that doesn't work I will need to get an adapter. I think I saw a stl in fb sharkbyte group. Thanks!
By the way, fatshark website has different information of the vtx mounting holes than what distributors specification info show. I think fatshark website is wrong.
@@numberjuanfpv The included adapter wasn't workable for me. The adapter has m3 holes to start, which I could work around. But then on top of that you need a way to secure that board to your existing stack, adding nuts which adds more spacing. then you need to add screws and nuts to the holes for the shark byte board to secure it to that, adding yet more height, and it becomes a bit unwieldy for me. Therefore I went with a mounting adapter I found on thingiverse which was more workable.
@@JohnEFly I see! Well, I'm planning to put the vtx in a switchback pro. It has m3 screws. I'll see until I receive it if I can mount it. If not I will follow your solution!
Sharkbyte doesn't gives trouble for timing system, does it?
looks like enhanced analog and not like HD at all. No way that is 720p.
I would say that if you tried it yourself in the goggles, you wouldn't say that. Shark Byte is a bit of a complicated technology, and the implementation still has some kinks to work out. So first, the DVR side of things is far from ideal. Shark Byte doesn't transfer a compressed format which can directly be saved like DJI does, so it has to compress and store it on the receiver, and that leads to quite a bit of visual loss in the process. On top of that there is a bug in shark byte where if you use 4:3 scaler mode (show a 16:9 image cropped to a 4:3 screen), which I was here, it chops off the top and the bottom of the recording, so basically it is taking a 720p source and converting it to something more like 1280x480, which I then re-stretched for this upload. Then on top of that with the fast motion, UA-cam's compression destroys the picture as well.
I personally agree this doesn't look that impressive watching the DVR here, and even in the goggles it does not look comparable to DJI, but in the goggles it's a WORLD of difference over analog.
@@JohnEFly good luck. I keep seeing durability issues. 3 out of 3 locally did not last for more than a few flights.
@@jp-3dairgunworks152 I have heard that from one other person as well. All I can speak to at this point is my own personal experience though. I have a setup in my Tiny Trainer that I have crashed a ton, and so far I have yet to have any issues. This setup in my 5" I haven't actually crashed yet (besides clipping a gate and staying airborn), but it's also only mounted loosely inside the frame. It has yet to have an issue, but it's not a good durability test. I have yet to have any issues in either.
@@jp-3dairgunworks152 there was a manufacturing defect in the first revs of Shark Byte boards (confirmed by Carl) which led to premature failure. This has been corrected now, which is why you don't hear new reports of durability issues to that level. I hope fatshark support took care of them - that was my experience
@@RyanQuellet makes sense. To bad they had a botched release. Once you lose trust from the community, it is hard to get it back.
Very nice 👍. Tad better than analog
it's certainly not DJI visuals, but it's also worlds less latency. I will say the difference is much better in the goggles than the DVR, but the DVR is what we have... Regardless I'm happy
Looks great to me it will only get better keep flying
@@winder6 no it def looks good and better than most analog setups but it it’s UA-cam compression and my crap connection didn’t realize my playback was on 240p lol. But that said I know inside the goggles it will, most of the time, look better. I know my racer 3’s and even my predator v2 look a heck of a lot better in my HDO’s than on the dvr.
@@JohnEFly as long as your happy 😁. And like I mentioned in my reply to Bryan, I know my analog race setups look much better in the goggles than dvr.
@@JohnEFly way better in goggles imo. I flew it with HDO2 and its amazing
i see you practicing some GQ elements :)
ha, no practicing for me. this was just the track someone built for our race on race day.
Nice flying! I’m waiting for fatshark to release the 20X20 Race Vtx to get onboard!
Is there an announcement of a 20x20?
@@numberjuanfpv They showed a 20x20 prototype about a month ago and said they were working on a race VTX.
If you upload at 1440p 60hz or higher, UA-cam uses VP9 codec and higher bitrate. If you don't, then image quality takes a poop, especially for fast moving scenes like this
that is sort of true. You also need to watch it back at 1440p or higher to really see the benefit, even if you're playing at 1080p. But honestly, this wasn't meant to be a "look at the picture quality". There are enough issues there, this is more an illustration of the flight performance while using Shark Byte for me.
By the way, even with the added compression, this footage looks great to me. I am done with people that insist this looks like analog. I don't think I'll even acknowledge that sentiment anymore. Keep up the good content!
@@RyanQuellet It really doesn't look great... But man, I flew at the field again yesterday where I put a bunch of shark byte packs in. The difference from analog is absolutely massive. I was actually impressed that I had my fastest laps on shark byte at the time. It is not a performance hinderance in the slightest for me. I did later fly mostly analog and again set my fastest times, but both can be competitive with each other IMO.
I actually flew about 20 packs on shark byte before my first crash. The crash didn't go so well, but even just flying at that speed without a crash said something about the system for me.
@@JohnEFly I get mixed messages here... doesn't look great, but is massively better than analog? Anyway - would you accept the weight penalty from a higher quality 19x19 camera with M12 lens and a larger sensor to make the quality "great" or is nano and lightweight more important than "great" image quality?
@@RyanQuellet I'm saying the DVR is not representative of the experience I had flying. From the DVR quality itself, to the fact that I was flying scalar mode which does not record the full resolution down to the youtube compression. I wasn't saying the experience of Shark Byte didn't look good.