the switching between 150Hz and 50Hz is very conservative, cautioning on the side of a reliable 50Hz link and as little switches as possible. this is why switching back also does not happen very soon (hysterisis is large). the range far exceeds a normal race course, and the switching between modes is what causes issues for racers (not the actual link) that is why the force 150Hz mode was made. crsfshot benefits 50 and 150Hz modes. very interesting video!
Thanks for the feedback. I know that as of late more and more pilots are starting to use dynamic power. I understand this likely isn't good for racing. Probably not legal within race rules. But for freestyle, would you say that using dynamic power might reduce the amount of switching between 150/50hz? I intend to re-run this test with dynamic on. And also I'll try force 150hz at 100mW and see if I can get it to failsafe.
@@PinchTune dynamic isnt advised for racing. to minimize switching, dynamic will not harm or help, as the algorithm is geared towards ramping up power first then switch modes. at 100mW you will have troubles getting failsafe in the area and manner that you flew in this video.
@@TeamBlackSheepFPV please clarify. Default mode out of the box seems looks to me like any other dynamic power / dynamic throughput link management method in all of telcom. For most of us, should be leaving it in default rate, default power unless we have a specific case we are tuning for? Is there another thought for 8 pilots on the band at the same time in the same football field?
@@christopherwhull I don't know what default is now. But I've been running CRSF for close to 3 years now and it used to be that dynamic was simply not recommended, period. As of recent updates it supposedly became the way to too. I can see how it should not be used at races because you don't want 8 pilots' power output constantly changing. But for freestyle, perhaps it's a good option. I intend to run this again with dynamic on and see what happens.
@@christopherwhull yes, dynamic power is the default and best way. however, in a race situation the switching can cause distractions to the pilot. and the noise from other crossfire user amplifies the amount of switching scenarios. I'd say for flying as in this video, keep max legal power and dynamic on. if you need the 150Hz, do a few dry runs on the mode and gauge the performance implications for where you fly. if you plan on flying more than a mile, definitely stick to dynamic bandwidth allocation. with friends too. as always, dont overthink it. Crossfire = simplicity. The options to make it complicated are there, though, should you wish to go "under the hood".
I always thought there was 3 different modes for CRSF. I thought there was a 50hz, 100hz and then 150hz. Greta video I learned something today. Thank you.
Using crossfire at 200 feet is supported but not where it is designed for. Dynamic power should provide better link quality on average. If you have already calculated your link loss, profiled your antennas, polared you signal strength and want to jack with the power setting ignore the rest of what I have to say. This is why unless you are working an edge case leave crossfire in dynamic power. There is the case where crossfire degrades because the rx on either side of the link saturates and the datarate is forced lower when the gain cannot be cut farther by the chipset. Other chipsets i have read the datasheet in this band only have about a 12dB range on the gain. The farther out you go, path loss increases, the more the gain on the rx is ramped up because the RX power levels drop to where the circuit is tuned for on either side. Somewhere out there is where the link becomes ideal. At 400 feet you the loss is just getting to where the RX can start ramping gain to be more sensitive high above the noise floor. You will find you have more LQ variability at 50 feet than 5000 feet for this reason. Dynamic power in modern digital communications saves a ton of droped bits at both short and long paths. It is how it is licensed, been designed for, use it that way for best results in most cases. Love that nobody notices 50hz/150hz on crossfire but they are insane about 6ms in other products. It is like USB latency in gaming, predictable the brain just gets over it except for .3% of the userbase.
When I run higher output for actual LR flights, I don't remember noticing changes. This means that apart from testing this on dynamic power, I should also run this test on 500mW with dyn. off.
I recently ran this same test - a helpful coincidence! The results were surprising! If the quad was 10 feet from me, armed and on the ground, it would switch to Crossfire mode 1 (50hz) IF the null of the Immortal-T was pointed to me. Not what I expected! Two different quads did exactly the same thing. 100mw. Tried both stock and Diamond Transmitter antennas. I've been worried that something is wrong with my Crossfire transmitter, but after seeing your video, it seems that this is just how Crossfire is. It would be interesting to see if you get the same result, if you point the null of the Immortal-T towards yourself. Thanks for the very insightful video!
One better way to make the radio announce the 150hz and 50hz mode is by doing logical switches, and then make like a custom sound for 150hz and 50hz, that's what i do on my longrange builds. Keep up the good work
I mean, I don't remember is it's reading values, or logical switches. It's been a few years since I set up this call out. I agree that a custom sound that's more clear would be better. But either way, I remember that 2 is 150hz and 1 is 50hz and 0 is no telemetry like it was yesterday. So no worries there.
Interesting test idea and you make a good point. It would be cool to figure out a way to actually see how often and how long the crsf stays at 50 and 150 MHz instead of using the Taranis to call out one or two every five seconds, as you stated before your flight.
Right. It does seem like it's pretty random. But based on TBS's comment on the video, looks like the algorithm slows down the switching to keep it conservative.
I tend to only fly on 100mw or 500mw. Unless I plan on pushing to the mile marker and REALLY do not want to walk then I break out the external battery. Link quality of 300 at a mile is nice.
Love that u did this. 🤘 I'm always wondering if something is wrong with my setup cause I have rfmd set on a warning on tx just differently that yours . Just lets me know when it go to mode 1. I just updated my micro tx to 250 and now it's way better so far. + Subbed🤘✌️
I think the mounting of the antenna on the quad is the real issue - blocked by a lot of carbon. i used to run a similar setup and was really surprised in some settings how poorly my xfire setup performed (where FrSky outpaced its reception). The Steele "Immortal L" and tuned xfire linear antenna has resulted in wayyyy better performance for me where the quad stays in 150hz much, much longer. I just use antenna tubes. It's definitely more durable for me than the arm mount immortal T ... but not much can beat your setup in terms of durability. Really curious about those new floppy xifre antennas from VAS: www.videoaerialsystems.com/collections/antennas/products/xfire-pro-antenna
I get what you mean about the antenna orientation. But again, I feel that only matters when flying upright and out. If you're flipping around within 500 feet of you you're going to have every conceivable orientation during various points in the flight. The exception would be that yes, the TX antenna put vertically would be better if doing freestyle since you're usually not right over yourself.
Your Immortal T transmitter antenna orientation makes me wince. That orientation is reaponsible for the only Crossfire failsafes I have ever had. I prefer vertical orientation so my nulls are above my head and at my feet rather than out to my sides. I know rock like a 3db whip and get it as vertical as I can. All my long range rigs have a diversity nano with a vertical rx and horizontal antenna to keep me better oriented to the tx orientation.
Yeah, I know, but this isn't an LR quad. I run it like this on racers and freestyle quads because I don't want a vertical antenna always in the way of a crash... The only exceptions would be hooking the antenna up to an arms, where it ends up almost vertical during forward flight, or running an immortal air like Steele. Either way, I feel this is all a bunch of baloney (bologna lol) because no matter the orientation, if you just have ONE antenna and you're flipping and flopping around within 500 feet of you, the antenna orientation matters diddly-squat in my opinion. Haha. With the exception of the TX antenna which would be better if vertical regardless.
I just realized your were talking about my TX antenna. And you'd be right. I normally only put it vertically at races and for LR. The reason for that is I store is flat in my TX bag and never take it off. It's a hassle to loosen and put vertically. Looks like I have yet another test to do. Lol.
PinchTune my extremely informal observation is that pushing aside the issue of nulls and flippityfloppy flying where it’s like impossible to avoid a null somewhere, which i totally agree with - there’s something else about vertical TX (and vertical RX) that seems to perform wayyyy better than flat. Dunno if it’s just better reception on the quad or that the metal handles on the TX drop the SWR on the antenna. (which is something that Trappy and Pavel something something mentioned / tested as definitely being an issue).
@@CesiumSalami I see what you're saying. Easiest test would be to go vertical on the TX and fly the quad as is... which I'll try. In the near future I'll try immortal-L again given I have like 50 of those little whips lying around.
@Russell Phelan if youre concerned about firmware def get the latest version of AgentX and download the latest version 4.0.2 , then rebind to push the lastest to your NanoRX
@Russell Phelan same issue but maybe i get around 150m, funny becuase LQ stays almost always at 99% (via BF aux channel)....maybe thats just the way it is?
Yeah, youtubers often cut this part out. But by doing that I can see and hear a spike in the audio in both the vlogging camera and the flight camera... or more cameras if I'm filming with more. This allows me to more easily sync each video track in my editing software. I could have just as easily cut that out once sync'd, but I decided to leave it there for that "behind the scenes" vibe.
@@PinchTune thnk u for leaving it. It's the little things here and there in your videos that makes a diffrence. Like your camera videos,and how you showed how the lens made for wider fpv. Or how the camera parts work together. Awesome videos thank you for what you share and do for our hobby👍 was thinking of getting ratel, I got the eagle mini
@@tylerwilliams786 THANKS! This is very encouraging. It's tricky to run channel like this when you have to run a real business fulltime, and this "business" makes $22 a month. Lol. And BTW, glad you got the Eagle over the Ratel. Much better over all.
Where did you get that long metal holder for your Taranis? The thing that you put the battery strap in? I have been looking all over the internet but couldnt find it. I ended up making something myself, its not perfect, but its ok. But where can i get one like you have here?
I see Race Day Quads has it. Search "Aluminum Transmitter Stand" on their site. I modified mine and drilled holes at the very end, to move the cross bar to the very bottom, so the module would fit inside.
@@PinchTune No, not that thing. The metal holder on the front side. Right above your on/off button. Think its called transmitter neck strap balancer. The one you have is extra long. I ended up putting to regular ones together to make it extra long.
@@TheBjornarv Ahhhh! The balancer. Right. You won't find this one anywhere. This was custom made for me by a machinist. It even has "PinchTune" engraved on the side of it.
Possibly, but I'm not flying flat half the time in this video, and it switched MANY times, so I don't think it will make that much of a difference. Not to mention, I was no more than 300ft away during the entire thing.
I use to run my antenna flat but noticed in my OSD that spots where it got low RSSI improved when putting the antenna in the vertical position even though it's flat on the quad itself.
@@smooth_ops2942 ditto & confirmed on my diamond, greater signal 360... vertical on TX means nulls are pointed at ground n over my head not side to side
I definitely wanna see how far it goes on forced 150hz at 25m and 250mw, gonna help me out with whether the micro is gonna be enough or I'll have to buy a full size crossfire module instead
Oh totally. I mean, I can tell a big difference between CRSF Shot regular CRSF. This video was done BEFORE I got my Tango 2. I haven't flown this radio since. But of course, I could also update this one to CRSF Shot. I will eventually, for long range season.
I don't. Maybe in my old videos. But essentially, it's the same as any other protocol from what I remember. As long as telemetry works you set up the callouts based on the values. It's standard Opent TX setup. There should be a lot of videos out there on it. Just make sure the telemetry you want is coming in.
Welcome. I shot a second part yesterday. Should be out in the next few days. However, not at 250 or 1W, since that's just too strong for regular freestyle. The new video focuses on vertical antenna orientation.
@@deltageek7177 Yeah, I realize that now. The thing with CRSF shot is that it makes this test irrelevant now... since the latency has been reduced so much now.
@@PinchTune Kinda... crsfshot fixes the jitter in latency. Previously the UART packets and the OTA packets were not in sync so there was a variable latency element which was really bad for feed-forward and introduced noise into motors. Crsfshot only fixes this and nothing more, it's the variance that is much improved, not the overall system latency.
Oh no, that's not what this is supposed to be at all. Even with the switching, I can hardly notice a latency increase. This is still my link of choice. I would not go SBUS (ACCST/ACCESS) or R9... Those have their own pitfalls. The idea of this video is to help us understand how to best use this system. This is the reason I want to do this test on dynamic power next.
@@PinchTune dont get me wrong i agree crsf is still the best . Hey i was flying about 100 ft in front of me and kept getting link quality low im still learning about it all .
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
the switching between 150Hz and 50Hz is very conservative, cautioning on the side of a reliable 50Hz link and as little switches as possible. this is why switching back also does not happen very soon (hysterisis is large). the range far exceeds a normal race course, and the switching between modes is what causes issues for racers (not the actual link) that is why the force 150Hz mode was made. crsfshot benefits 50 and 150Hz modes.
very interesting video!
Thanks for the feedback. I know that as of late more and more pilots are starting to use dynamic power. I understand this likely isn't good for racing. Probably not legal within race rules. But for freestyle, would you say that using dynamic power might reduce the amount of switching between 150/50hz? I intend to re-run this test with dynamic on. And also I'll try force 150hz at 100mW and see if I can get it to failsafe.
@@PinchTune dynamic isnt advised for racing. to minimize switching, dynamic will not harm or help, as the algorithm is geared towards ramping up power first then switch modes. at 100mW you will have troubles getting failsafe in the area and manner that you flew in this video.
@@TeamBlackSheepFPV please clarify.
Default mode out of the box seems looks to me like any other dynamic power / dynamic throughput link management method in all of telcom. For most of us, should be leaving it in default rate, default power unless we have a specific case we are tuning for?
Is there another thought for 8 pilots on the band at the same time in the same football field?
@@christopherwhull I don't know what default is now. But I've been running CRSF for close to 3 years now and it used to be that dynamic was simply not recommended, period. As of recent updates it supposedly became the way to too. I can see how it should not be used at races because you don't want 8 pilots' power output constantly changing. But for freestyle, perhaps it's a good option. I intend to run this again with dynamic on and see what happens.
@@christopherwhull yes, dynamic power is the default and best way. however, in a race situation the switching can cause distractions to the pilot. and the noise from other crossfire user amplifies the amount of switching scenarios. I'd say for flying as in this video, keep max legal power and dynamic on. if you need the 150Hz, do a few dry runs on the mode and gauge the performance implications for where you fly. if you plan on flying more than a mile, definitely stick to dynamic bandwidth allocation. with friends too. as always, dont overthink it. Crossfire = simplicity. The options to make it complicated are there, though, should you wish to go "under the hood".
I always thought there was 3 different modes for CRSF. I thought there was a 50hz, 100hz and then 150hz. Greta video I learned something today. Thank you.
Ahhh! Hahah. I pulled a Bardwell. :)
@@PinchTune Yes you did and you did it so slick like..lol
Using crossfire at 200 feet is supported but not where it is designed for. Dynamic power should provide better link quality on average. If you have already calculated your link loss, profiled your antennas, polared you signal strength and want to jack with the power setting ignore the rest of what I have to say.
This is why unless you are working an edge case leave crossfire in dynamic power. There is the case where crossfire degrades because the rx on either side of the link saturates and the datarate is forced lower when the gain cannot be cut farther by the chipset. Other chipsets i have read the datasheet in this band only have about a 12dB range on the gain. The farther out you go, path loss increases, the more the gain on the rx is ramped up because the RX power levels drop to where the circuit is tuned for on either side. Somewhere out there is where the link becomes ideal. At 400 feet you the loss is just getting to where the RX can start ramping gain to be more sensitive high above the noise floor. You will find you have more LQ variability at 50 feet than 5000 feet for this reason.
Dynamic power in modern digital communications saves a ton of droped bits at both short and long paths. It is how it is licensed, been designed for, use it that way for best results in most cases.
Love that nobody notices 50hz/150hz on crossfire but they are insane about 6ms in other products. It is like USB latency in gaming, predictable the brain just gets over it except for .3% of the userbase.
When I run higher output for actual LR flights, I don't remember noticing changes. This means that apart from testing this on dynamic power, I should also run this test on 500mW with dyn. off.
Nice video! And really cool flying skills through all these trees. Was fun to see that.
Thanks! I fly trees a lot. That helps :)
I recently ran this same test - a helpful coincidence! The results were surprising! If the quad was 10 feet from me, armed and on the ground, it would switch to Crossfire mode 1 (50hz) IF the null of the Immortal-T was pointed to me. Not what I expected!
Two different quads did exactly the same thing. 100mw. Tried both stock and Diamond Transmitter antennas.
I've been worried that something is wrong with my Crossfire transmitter, but after seeing your video, it seems that this is just how Crossfire is.
It would be interesting to see if you get the same result, if you point the null of the Immortal-T towards yourself.
Thanks for the very insightful video!
Thanks for this. Actually, everyone's feedback has been amazing. I have a lot of new ideas to go through to try on the next video.
One better way to make the radio announce the 150hz and 50hz mode is by doing logical switches, and then make like a custom sound for 150hz and 50hz, that's what i do on my longrange builds. Keep up the good work
I mean, I don't remember is it's reading values, or logical switches. It's been a few years since I set up this call out. I agree that a custom sound that's more clear would be better. But either way, I remember that 2 is 150hz and 1 is 50hz and 0 is no telemetry like it was yesterday. So no worries there.
Crossfire is amazing.
Interesting test idea and you make a good point. It would be cool to figure out a way to actually see how often and how long the crsf stays at 50 and 150 MHz instead of using the Taranis to call out one or two every five seconds, as you stated before your flight.
Right. It does seem like it's pretty random. But based on TBS's comment on the video, looks like the algorithm slows down the switching to keep it conservative.
Such a great video. Well done. I have my remote the same.
Thank you. I intend to re-run this test with dynamic power on and see what happens.
@@PinchTune sweet yeah i like too see it and maybe do force 150 too
Great video.
Please do more videos for new long range pilots.
Thanks. Did you see the one about flying far a not losing your quad? I posted that a few months before this one I believe.
I tend to only fly on 100mw or 500mw. Unless I plan on pushing to the mile marker and REALLY do not want to walk then I break out the external battery. Link quality of 300 at a mile is nice.
what a beautiful place to fly
Love that u did this. 🤘 I'm always wondering if something is wrong with my setup cause I have rfmd set on a warning on tx just differently that yours . Just lets me know when it go to mode 1. I just updated my micro tx to 250 and now it's way better so far. + Subbed🤘✌️
I think the mounting of the antenna on the quad is the real issue - blocked by a lot of carbon. i used to run a similar setup and was really surprised in some settings how poorly my xfire setup performed (where FrSky outpaced its reception). The Steele "Immortal L" and tuned xfire linear antenna has resulted in wayyyy better performance for me where the quad stays in 150hz much, much longer. I just use antenna tubes. It's definitely more durable for me than the arm mount immortal T ... but not much can beat your setup in terms of durability. Really curious about those new floppy xifre antennas from VAS: www.videoaerialsystems.com/collections/antennas/products/xfire-pro-antenna
I get what you mean about the antenna orientation. But again, I feel that only matters when flying upright and out. If you're flipping around within 500 feet of you you're going to have every conceivable orientation during various points in the flight. The exception would be that yes, the TX antenna put vertically would be better if doing freestyle since you're usually not right over yourself.
Your Immortal T transmitter antenna orientation makes me wince. That orientation is reaponsible for the only Crossfire failsafes I have ever had. I prefer vertical orientation so my nulls are above my head and at my feet rather than out to my sides.
I know rock like a 3db whip and get it as vertical as I can. All my long range rigs have a diversity nano with a vertical rx and horizontal antenna to keep me better oriented to the tx orientation.
Yeah, I know, but this isn't an LR quad. I run it like this on racers and freestyle quads because I don't want a vertical antenna always in the way of a crash... The only exceptions would be hooking the antenna up to an arms, where it ends up almost vertical during forward flight, or running an immortal air like Steele. Either way, I feel this is all a bunch of baloney (bologna lol) because no matter the orientation, if you just have ONE antenna and you're flipping and flopping around within 500 feet of you, the antenna orientation matters diddly-squat in my opinion. Haha. With the exception of the TX antenna which would be better if vertical regardless.
I just realized your were talking about my TX antenna. And you'd be right. I normally only put it vertically at races and for LR. The reason for that is I store is flat in my TX bag and never take it off. It's a hassle to loosen and put vertically. Looks like I have yet another test to do. Lol.
PinchTune my extremely informal observation is that pushing aside the issue of nulls and flippityfloppy flying where it’s like impossible to avoid a null somewhere, which i totally agree with - there’s something else about vertical TX (and vertical RX) that seems to perform wayyyy better than flat. Dunno if it’s just better reception on the quad or that the metal handles on the TX drop the SWR on the antenna. (which is something that Trappy and Pavel something something mentioned / tested as definitely being an issue).
@@CesiumSalami I see what you're saying. Easiest test would be to go vertical on the TX and fly the quad as is... which I'll try. In the near future I'll try immortal-L again given I have like 50 of those little whips lying around.
@@PinchTune woohoo! can't wait to see what your finding are!
Interesting technical specs man! Liked and subbed 🤙🏽 #islandfpv
Thanks for sharing! Curious if it drops latency modes when you use even higher power settings, like 500mw or full 2watt mode
Sounds like I have more testing to do. Thanks.
@Russell Phelan naw dude, something isnt right on your setup, antennas might be touching the carbon, or on the wrong freq (should be 915mhz for USA)
@Russell Phelan 500mw is enough to carry me 2 miles with 99% LQ...there's def something setup wrong👍
@Russell Phelan if youre concerned about firmware def get the latest version of AgentX and download the latest version 4.0.2 , then rebind to push the lastest to your NanoRX
@Russell Phelan same issue but maybe i get around 150m, funny becuase LQ stays almost always at 99% (via BF aux channel)....maybe thats just the way it is?
Where did you get the warning sounds? Trying to set up my crossfire warning sounds
Most of them are from the amber pack. Just search for Taranis Amber Sound pack. Easy to findnn
Force 150hz ftw 😬🔥
I'll try that soon. If I failsafe into a tree though... it's on you. Lol.
@@PinchTune 😂😂
What's the purpose of clapping before flight on gopro. If it's something useful I'm curious. Thnk u
Tyler Williams to link the different footage so it’s in sync
Yeah, youtubers often cut this part out. But by doing that I can see and hear a spike in the audio in both the vlogging camera and the flight camera... or more cameras if I'm filming with more. This allows me to more easily sync each video track in my editing software. I could have just as easily cut that out once sync'd, but I decided to leave it there for that "behind the scenes" vibe.
@@PinchTune thnk u for leaving it. It's the little things here and there in your videos that makes a diffrence. Like your camera videos,and how you showed how the lens made for wider fpv. Or how the camera parts work together. Awesome videos thank you for what you share and do for our hobby👍 was thinking of getting ratel, I got the eagle mini
@@tylerwilliams786 THANKS! This is very encouraging. It's tricky to run channel like this when you have to run a real business fulltime, and this "business" makes $22 a month. Lol. And BTW, glad you got the Eagle over the Ratel. Much better over all.
@@PinchTune thnk u for your response and help. I'll keep eagle. Keep up the awesome videos.👍👍👍👍👍
Where did you get that long metal holder for your Taranis? The thing that you put the battery strap in? I have been looking all over the internet but couldnt find it. I ended up making something myself, its not perfect, but its ok. But where can i get one like you have here?
Hi, I bought this one from Hobby King a few years ago. I'm pretty sure GetFPV must have it too.
I see Race Day Quads has it. Search "Aluminum Transmitter Stand" on their site. I modified mine and drilled holes at the very end, to move the cross bar to the very bottom, so the module would fit inside.
@@PinchTune No, not that thing. The metal holder on the front side. Right above your on/off button. Think its called transmitter neck strap balancer. The one you have is extra long. I ended up putting to regular ones together to make it extra long.
@@TheBjornarv Ahhhh! The balancer. Right. You won't find this one anywhere. This was custom made for me by a machinist. It even has "PinchTune" engraved on the side of it.
I wonder if mounting the tx antenna vertically would change the results?
Possibly, but I'm not flying flat half the time in this video, and it switched MANY times, so I don't think it will make that much of a difference. Not to mention, I was no more than 300ft away during the entire thing.
I use to run my antenna flat but noticed in my OSD that spots where it got low RSSI improved when putting the antenna in the vertical position even though it's flat on the quad itself.
@@smooth_ops2942 ditto & confirmed on my diamond, greater signal 360... vertical on TX means nulls are pointed at ground n over my head not side to side
@@PinchTune try it guarantee u will have better results ...at least higher rssi
I definitely wanna see how far it goes on forced 150hz at 25m and 250mw, gonna help me out with whether the micro is gonna be enough or I'll have to buy a full size crossfire module instead
Why you should when the micro also can fire up 1000mw ? :D
i like those stick ends .. where can i find them?
Hi, this red ones I believe came stock with the M9 R gimbals.
Not really related but I can sure tell a difference between shot and regular s-bus and I am just not going back
Oh totally. I mean, I can tell a big difference between CRSF Shot regular CRSF. This video was done BEFORE I got my Tango 2. I haven't flown this radio since. But of course, I could also update this one to CRSF Shot. I will eventually, for long range season.
Got a tutorial on how to make crsf callouts?
I don't. Maybe in my old videos. But essentially, it's the same as any other protocol from what I remember. As long as telemetry works you set up the callouts based on the values. It's standard Opent TX setup. There should be a lot of videos out there on it. Just make sure the telemetry you want is coming in.
Great video thanks :) just wanted to see 250 and 1W test, Also video is so long :D
Welcome. I shot a second part yesterday. Should be out in the next few days. However, not at 250 or 1W, since that's just too strong for regular freestyle. The new video focuses on vertical antenna orientation.
@@PinchTune Yes, I was hoping for the vertical orientation because its supposed to be better.....I have to find that vid....😃
@@sunsetpark_fpv I think this is what you're looking for: ruclips.net/video/uMKv486FimE/видео.html
😁👍
how about 150hz and crsf shot?
I'll get to that. It might be a little harder to demonstrate. I can demonstrate how it does with force 150hz though.
crsf shot has nothing to do with this
@@deltageek7177 Yeah, I realize that now. The thing with CRSF shot is that it makes this test irrelevant now... since the latency has been reduced so much now.
@@PinchTune Kinda... crsfshot fixes the jitter in latency. Previously the UART packets and the OTA packets were not in sync so there was a variable latency element which was really bad for feed-forward and introduced noise into motors. Crsfshot only fixes this and nothing more, it's the variance that is much improved, not the overall system latency.
@@deltageek7177 Oh, I see. Good to know. Thanks!
Doesnt seem.like crsf works as good as they say . I wonder if its differant on crsf shot . Nice job Danny
Oh no, that's not what this is supposed to be at all. Even with the switching, I can hardly notice a latency increase. This is still my link of choice. I would not go SBUS (ACCST/ACCESS) or R9... Those have their own pitfalls. The idea of this video is to help us understand how to best use this system. This is the reason I want to do this test on dynamic power next.
@@PinchTune dont get me wrong i agree crsf is still the best . Hey i was flying about 100 ft in front of me and kept getting link quality low im still learning about it all .
@@jayward7536 Usually I just "Set and forget" but with the recent updates in CRSF firmware we're all experimenting again.