An airbourne radio relay with. a pair of directional antennas on servos would serve to reduce the Fresnel effect. A ballon would stay up longer on a battery.
what video transmitter are you using in the secind test? or can you recommend a transmitter for a quad with a few small tree obstructions. btw alwayd great videos. informative and helpful. looking at getting ine of those run cams now :-)
I think it was this one goo.gl/MPYaXs , I set it up with the capacitors as recommended in the circuit diagram shown there, and a little voltage regulator etc. That was a long time ago though, these days you can get them ready to go without messing around soldering things yourself, and with 40 channels instead of only eight, for almost the same price. Search for TS5823
So what's the testing for this time? Have watched a lot of your videos and am pretty sure this is preliminary to something much more. Just curious. Cheers
As far as I know they use the same radio module. I tested them both on the quad up to 2.3km without noticing any difference. I guess since at ground-level it's possible to run it far enough to lose control, this might be a good way to find some difference between them.
also you might try some different antennas orientations, even on quadricopter, since I am not really sure on how they have to be mounted. your 45 degrees rabbit mount seems to be wrong since the transmitter has a vertical and an orizontal antenna in it so putting receiver at 45 degrees should cause a loost of half of the power immediately. so I tend to mount one of them vertically and one horizontally. am I wrong?
Who said I wasn't holding the transmitter at 45 degrees :p But seriously, I don't think it works like 45 degrees causes half power loss, there would at least be a sine/cosine involved somewhere. Ideally you don't want to have an antenna pointing directly toward the signal source, which will not happen for this case (unless the car tips over :-). Other than that, I think as long as there is some reasonable length presented to source it will collect a decent signal. For this usage where we can assume the vehicle only rotates in yaw, you might get better range by putting one antenna straight upward, and making sure to hold the transmitter vertically.
:) :) if you put the TX antenna vertically and the RX antenna orizontally ideally there shouldn't be received power, but we are not in an ideal world (luckly) so there is a loss but not a complete lack of signal since there are reflections and so on. Since our receiver has two antennas thay can operate in diversity. We can maybe think that if you transmit in vertical and you receive with two 45deg antennas you end up with half of the power on both antennas. If that power is combined intelligently (MRC???) you then get a pretty decent signal :) So maybe the ONLY required steps are: 1)put antennas in a place where they are not obstructed 2)put them with an offset of 90degs
sin(45) is about 0.7 so it's not half. If I understand it correctly diversity simply chooses the strongest, the two signals cannot be 'combined'. Overall though I agree with your conclusion. If you have a dual diversity just keep them unobstructed and at 90 degrees and don't worry about too much else.
I think they use the same radio module, so power output would likely be the same, and I would expect similar results. If anything the i6s might have slightly less range because it doesn't have the second antenna extended into the plastic handle like the i6 does.
Good to see the bike doing service still.
im a flysky i6 lover and this was really helpful thank you
An airbourne radio relay with. a pair of directional antennas on servos would serve to reduce the Fresnel effect. A ballon would stay up longer on a battery.
Oh hold on. ballons on tethers dont need a battery do they.
Or just something like an autonomous glider overhead?
I missed a good project video from you, thank you! Wouldn't it be fun to play FPV hide and seek? Car hides quad seeks?
Very good!
great range test
More videos yeeey! :D
good test.
what video transmitter are you using in the secind test? or can you recommend a transmitter for a quad with a few small tree obstructions. btw alwayd great videos. informative and helpful. looking at getting ine of those run cams now :-)
I think it was this one goo.gl/MPYaXs , I set it up with the capacitors as recommended in the circuit diagram shown there, and a little voltage regulator etc. That was a long time ago though, these days you can get them ready to go without messing around soldering things yourself, and with 40 channels instead of only eight, for almost the same price. Search for TS5823
perfect thanks so much!
Would be awesome if you could compare this RX to the Flysky X6B, I think the ia6B is superior but this would be a great test
wow! the range is still amazing considering it is all stock.
Nice one, thanks.
So what's the testing for this time?
Have watched a lot of your videos and am pretty sure this is preliminary to something much more. Just curious.
Cheers
Just curiosity :)
How were you able to program reverse on FS-i6?
Need to know too
The ESC is made for cars, so it has reverse already. Nothing to do with the radio.
hi could you tell me what control board your useing
Control board?? The transmitter and receiver are mentioned in the video title.
Not too bad. Would be nice if you test again with the i6-xb so you can finally pick a winner :)
As far as I know they use the same radio module. I tested them both on the quad up to 2.3km without noticing any difference. I guess since at ground-level it's possible to run it far enough to lose control, this might be a good way to find some difference between them.
also you might try some different antennas orientations, even on quadricopter, since I am not really sure on how they have to be mounted. your 45 degrees rabbit mount seems to be wrong since the transmitter has a vertical and an orizontal antenna in it so putting receiver at 45 degrees should cause a loost of half of the power immediately. so I tend to mount one of them vertically and one horizontally. am I wrong?
Who said I wasn't holding the transmitter at 45 degrees :p But seriously, I don't think it works like 45 degrees causes half power loss, there would at least be a sine/cosine involved somewhere. Ideally you don't want to have an antenna pointing directly toward the signal source, which will not happen for this case (unless the car tips over :-). Other than that, I think as long as there is some reasonable length presented to source it will collect a decent signal. For this usage where we can assume the vehicle only rotates in yaw, you might get better range by putting one antenna straight upward, and making sure to hold the transmitter vertically.
:) :) if you put the TX antenna vertically and the RX antenna orizontally ideally there shouldn't be received power, but we are not in an ideal world (luckly) so there is a loss but not a complete lack of signal since there are reflections and so on.
Since our receiver has two antennas thay can operate in diversity. We can maybe think that if you transmit in vertical and you receive with two 45deg antennas you end up with half of the power on both antennas. If that power is combined intelligently (MRC???) you then get a pretty decent signal :)
So maybe the ONLY required steps are:
1)put antennas in a place where they are not obstructed
2)put them with an offset of 90degs
sin(45) is about 0.7 so it's not half. If I understand it correctly diversity simply chooses the strongest, the two signals cannot be 'combined'. Overall though I agree with your conclusion. If you have a dual diversity just keep them unobstructed and at 90 degrees and don't worry about too much else.
Would the flysky fs i6s?
You have modefoid transmission
where did you purchase the rc truck?
I got that one at a shop in Japan. But it's a Tamiya CR-01, you can find them in many places.
iforce2d thanks for the quick reply
Would the flysky fs i6s tx be able to the same
I think they use the same radio module, so power output would likely be the same, and I would expect similar results. If anything the i6s might have slightly less range because it doesn't have the second antenna extended into the plastic handle like the i6 does.
what flight control?
not sure but i think you can get a better distance if you put some distance between the video tx and the radio