Thanks again some day ill get stupid & hope up to a 2.4 system but tell then I'm loving the 5.8 with my pepper box & assorted LHCP antennas I've got from you there a true step above & well worth there price! Gold plated is my only wish LoL pushing the limits even further 😉
How did you conclude there are only 2 legal US ch? From the specs and the most recent Band plan chart it seems like there are plenty more available in the US to amateur use. www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/january_2016_spectrum_wall_chart.pdf That's 200mhz of bandwidth (3.3-3.5) for the amateur band in the 3.3ghz block. Compare that to the CH capable on the VTX for the international version: A: 3320, 3345, 3370, 3395, 3420, 3445, 3470, 3495 MHz B: 3310, 3330, 3355, 3380, 3405, 3430, 3455, 3480 MHz They all fall in the legal amateur bands. Am I misreading something here?
Did you have the short range using the only two legal channels allowed in the US or on all the other channels too? Problem with video TXs not using dip switches is that lot of them are producing RF noises especially on UHF bands...
Only switch if you are flying with other people and have issues with people stepping on your channel. Otherwise, stay with what you have. Indeed, I am disappointed as well.
If I investigated right this system uses MAX2870 Synthesizer as a core element in Tx to generate 3,3 GHz signal. In fact this chip is capable to do 23.5MHz to 6000MHz. On Rx side it is working with RTC6711 as a core elements. Signal is down-converted to RTC6711 IF and then demodulated by it. Sad this system does not gain popularity and more form factors.
The problem is that it is simply too expensive compared to the 5.8Ghz band. I personally use the system (now that they fixed the range issue). However, it will be difficult to gain popularity with the price point of 5.8GHz video transmitters.
I can not find these for sale anywhere. Looking for a sender/reciever for the exact reasons you mention. Getting EMI and need something that can cut throught that.
So range is worse than 5.8ghz? I thought it would be better than 5.8. Also thought penetration should be better. It is a lower frequency which should do better. What is the deal?
It is indeed worse... at least in my tests. Admittedly I am surprised at this, but I tested in several different places and the results were consistent. That is the greatest weakness of this system.
Poor receiver sensitivity would be my best guess. The video was crystal clear up to 1/4 mile where I started seeing bits of fuzz which slowly got worse until there was no picture at all.
Wondering why this video was removed and posted again? Too many people complained about Alex and his habit of bashing other someone's product? Maybe I was too harsh saying that his $2 dollars worth of material antennas for $55 are unfairly priced? Well, hopefully other companies will make some cheaper 3.3GHz antennas, or I will have to make my own. Does anyone has the specs for a good 3.3 CP antennas?
@Gianluca - Design your own. That's the first step. You are looking for hand-outs asking for instructions. There aren't any because people do not value the engineering time that goes into designing a good antenna. if you aren't willing to pay for the design, you simply go with a cheaper option and deal with poor video. Side note: vendor price on 3.3GHz antennas is $26, not $55.
A dearly friend who is an outstanding engineer, helped me with lots of good information about antennas. He also mentioned that your antennas are not clover-leaves but Skew Planar, clover-leaves antennas are flat and also known as Big Wheel antennas. Which by the way, these circular polorised antennas were invented by radio amateurs early in 1960's, not by you. It's about time for you to stop taking their credit boasting about your expertise and how much better your products are and everyone else product is junk. If it's true that you sell each antenna for $26 it's still pricey for a $2 worth of material item. To anyone that wants to design its own circular polorised skew planar antenna, here it is www.slvrc.org/902band/skewplanar.htm Thanks for your 'professional support', I would have gotten better assistance from cheaper vendors anyway.
Nice to see someone still flying airplanes with all the multicopters. Pink looks cool actually.
Thanks again some day ill get stupid & hope up to a 2.4 system but tell then I'm loving the 5.8 with my pepper box & assorted LHCP antennas I've got from you there a true step above & well worth there price! Gold plated is my only wish LoL pushing the limits even further 😉
How did you conclude there are only 2 legal US ch? From the specs and
the most recent Band plan chart it seems like there are plenty more
available in the US to amateur use.
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/january_2016_spectrum_wall_chart.pdf
That's 200mhz of bandwidth (3.3-3.5) for the amateur band in the 3.3ghz block.
Compare that to the CH capable on the VTX for the international version:
A: 3320, 3345, 3370, 3395, 3420, 3445, 3470, 3495 MHz
B: 3310, 3330, 3355, 3380, 3405, 3430, 3455, 3480 MHz
They all fall in the legal amateur bands.
Am I misreading something here?
Did you have the short range using the only two legal channels allowed in the US or on all the other channels too?
Problem with video TXs not using dip switches is that lot of them are producing RF noises especially on UHF bands...
I only used the two legal U.S. channels. I verified the noise floor was low before flying to ensure I was getting maximum range.
I was really looking forward to use the system on my mini wing, where the 2,4g antennas are too big, but your review makes me stay on the 5,8g band.
Only switch if you are flying with other people and have issues with people stepping on your channel. Otherwise, stay with what you have. Indeed, I am disappointed as well.
If I investigated right this system uses MAX2870
Synthesizer as a core element in Tx to generate 3,3 GHz signal. In fact this chip is capable to do 23.5MHz to 6000MHz. On Rx side it is working with RTC6711 as a core elements. Signal is down-converted to RTC6711 IF and then demodulated by it. Sad this system does not gain popularity and more form factors.
The problem is that it is simply too expensive compared to the 5.8Ghz band. I personally use the system (now that they fixed the range issue). However, it will be difficult to gain popularity with the price point of 5.8GHz video transmitters.
I can not find these for sale anywhere. Looking for a sender/reciever for the exact reasons you mention. Getting EMI and need something that can cut throught that.
These are long gone. They were a commercial failure
Okay thanks. Is there any alternatives?
So range is worse than 5.8ghz? I thought it would be better than 5.8. Also thought penetration should be better. It is a lower frequency which should do better. What is the deal?
It is indeed worse... at least in my tests. Admittedly I am surprised at this, but I tested in several different places and the results were consistent. That is the greatest weakness of this system.
Video Aerial Systems Surprising regarding the range. Do you have a theory why?
Poor receiver sensitivity would be my best guess. The video was crystal clear up to 1/4 mile where I started seeing bits of fuzz which slowly got worse until there was no picture at all.
Video Aerial Systems
Wow. Interesting! Maybe if 3.3 ever matures we will see the real benefits it has to offer.
All true. Just remember it's first generation and possibly the only one of its kind. Also never heard of "ElectriflyRC finch" before
were to buy?
You can choose one of these authorized ElectrifyRC dealers!
electrifyrc.com/stores
didnt I watch this video 8 hours ago
same here.. dAmm we have a glitch in the metrix..
lol right
Wondering why this video was removed and posted again?
Too many people complained about Alex and his habit of bashing other someone's product?
Maybe I was too harsh saying that his $2 dollars worth of material antennas for $55 are unfairly priced?
Well, hopefully other companies will make some cheaper 3.3GHz antennas, or I will have to make my own.
Does anyone has the specs for a good 3.3 CP antennas?
@Gianluca - Design your own. That's the first step. You are looking for hand-outs asking for instructions. There aren't any because people do not value the engineering time that goes into designing a good antenna. if you aren't willing to pay for the design, you simply go with a cheaper option and deal with poor video. Side note: vendor price on 3.3GHz antennas is $26, not $55.
A dearly friend who is an outstanding engineer, helped me with lots of good information about antennas. He also mentioned that your antennas are not clover-leaves but Skew Planar, clover-leaves antennas are flat and also known as Big Wheel antennas.
Which by the way, these circular polorised antennas were invented by radio amateurs early in 1960's, not by you.
It's about time for you to stop taking their credit boasting about your expertise and how much better your products are and everyone else product is junk.
If it's true that you sell each antenna for $26 it's still pricey for a $2 worth of material item.
To anyone that wants to design its own circular polorised skew planar antenna, here it is www.slvrc.org/902band/skewplanar.htm
Thanks for your 'professional support', I would have gotten better assistance from cheaper vendors anyway.