More powerfull repeater?

[millertime510]

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.vi ... 1107131077

Hello,

I am new to this hobby and purchased my P2V which came in the mail today. This thread had me really impressed. My question is what is the biggest or strongest 2.4Ghz db repeater out there? I found an 2.4Ghz 18dbi repeater on ebay that says it can transmit up to four (4) miles away; would this work?

I am unknowable about wifi antenna's and after viewing that last video that was posted, my jaw dropped at the range that was archived. I hope someone figures out how that guy went so far.

Thank you All!

millertime510

 

[Pull_Up]

Well for a start he wasn't using a Vision!

 

[spazmodic1]

You guys need to remember the repeater link is a wifi connection ie both devices transmit and recieve. so even if you had the most powerful repeater in the world it wouldn't improve distance because its limited by the visions tx power. So when you fly it far away the repeater has no problem reaching the vision but the vision cannot maintain a reliable connection because of its lack of output power. So the vision and the repeater are constantly talking to each other and if one stops talking (out of range) the connection is broken.

 

[helixaviator]

You guys need to remember the repeater link is a wifi connection ie both devices transmit and recieve. so even if you had the most powerful repeater in the world it wouldn't improve distance because its limited by the visions tx power. So when you fly it far away the repeater has no problem reaching the vision but the vision cannot maintain a reliable connection because of its lack of output power. So the vision and the repeater are constantly talking to each other and if one stops talking (out of range) the connection is broken.

Yes I agree. That makes sense. Only so much you can do on receiving end. Im curious about the output power of the p2v wifi tx. Has anyone seen any specs on this? I may have to breakdown and buy a small wifi amplifier to put on the P2V. Its a little more nerve wracking though considering its such an expensive piece of equipment.

I am curious about the telemetry data. If the wifi tx is in the camera then Im guessing that the telemetry data must be coming in from that white plug on the back of the camera unless the P2V has a second transmitter for this withing the body of the copter.

 

[gpauk]

...which is why you use a repeater with tx amp and improved receive capability, and use better antennas. You can improve the comms link budget considerably from one end only....

 

[helixaviator]

[/quote]Nevermind I found my problem. I had the antenna attached to the wrong connector in the repeater. :lol:[/quote]

Has anyone determined if it really matters which one its attached to? I disconnected each individually and walked away from the P2V. It dropped a bar at exactly the same spot regardless of which antenna wire was detached. When I detached them both then it dropped a bar much sooner. That leads me to believe that they are sorta redundant. Not sure I am buying this master/slave argument.

 

[themosttoys]

You guys need to remember the repeater link is a wifi connection ie both devices transmit and recieve. so even if you had the most powerful repeater in the world it wouldn't improve distance because its limited by the visions tx power. So when you fly it far away the repeater has no problem reaching the vision but the vision cannot maintain a reliable connection because of its lack of output power. So the vision and the repeater are constantly talking to each other and if one stops talking (out of range) the connection is broken.

I'd say that while the basis of your point is true, it is not entirely accurate. It is true that unless you position the repeater somewhere between you and the P2V (to take full advantage of the repeater), the amplifier in the repeater alone will not make a significant difference. It is also very true that amplification is not the answer (heck, Voyager 1 is 11 Billion miles away and it only has a 23W radio.) Antenna size, pattern and configuration (Ex: MIMO) absolutely will make a difference. For example, if your P2V is maxing out at 1500 feet (stock) and you simply switch to a single larger (more sensitive) antenna (as many have) to the stock repeater, you very well could double that range (say 3000 feet). If you then put that same antenna (or three of them ;-)) on a MIMO repeater, you might almost double that again (for arguments sake lets say 5000 feet). Then of course you could move the repeater (or chain more together) and again extend the range or use even more optimal antennas (and / or aiming / tracking devices), all without making any changes to the P2V itself. Then there is the control signal to consider, but that is a different story all together.

There are realistic limits, but before those limits are reached, you will simply run out of battery power to fly. Given an average fly time of 20 minutes (28 minutes total, but with a safe buffer for wind and landing reserve) and an average flight speed of 20 miles per hour (yes it will go faster, but faster speed will trade off battery life and total flight time). You have about (give or take) a three mile maximum realistic service range (three miles out, a few minutes to hover / look and three miles back). Three miles is a very achievable goal (from a radio perspective).

Fun stuff, there is a lot to consider.

"Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others." - Jonathan Winters.

 

[themosttoys]

i'm new to fpv so please bear with me.
I know this has been asked and the answer was no however has it been looked at in depth.

instead of looking at the 2.4ghz side why not look at fpv 5.8ghz side and possibly use fatshark goggles tx rx, i know people say you cannot use fatshark goggles on the p2v as the control uses 5.8ghz.
I read somewhere that you can turn of the receiver on the fatshark goggles and have a seperate receiver on an input to the goggles.
In the p2v book it says the 5.8ghz control frequency range is 5.728ghz to 5.850ghz,

Ive found a 5.8ghz video tx rx on the bay and its 2000mw, item 161161111861
[urlhttp://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/FPV-Vehicle-5-8GHz-2W-2000mW-Video-Audio-AV-TX-RX-Transmitter-Receiver-5Km-Range-/161161111861?pt=UK_ToysGames_RadioControlled_JN&hash=item2585f36935#ht_3750wt_1255][/url]

ok it says it has 8 selectable channels 1-8, ch8 being 5945ghz.
Am i right in saying this is out of the range of the p2v's frequency range so should not effect the p2v 5.8ghz control side?

If that was the case you could run fpv along side the 2.4ghz wi-fi side, start record on you app and put your goggles on?

if wi-fi connection was broken you should still have the 5.8ghz video link, the p2v would still be recording the flight on the cam.
I think if this could be done it would suss alot of problems instead of larger wi-fi repeaters and directional aerials.

If this would still not work and the 5.8ghz would conflict then surly 5.8ghz control was a really bad idea because that would mean you could'nt fly near anyone using 5.8ghz video tx rx as they would conflict and cause the p2v to go out of control or indeed even worse crash,

Could this be the answer to all the fly aways!!

Like i say i'm new to all this so i hope you lot understand what i'm going on about :roll:

It's great that you are trying to think outside the box.

Without getting into the details of why it will not work, I will guarantee that what you wrote will not work.
Not getting into why putting such a powerful TX within inches of an RX of the same frequency (even with channel separation) is not a good plan, you will need to mount a 2nd FPV camera as there is no way (that I know of) to get video out of the P2V camera locally.

Essentially the path you are on is converting the VTX to 5.8 and then the control to 2.4 (or other, like 1.2, 900, ...). You may as well buy a Phantom 2 (no Vision) and start with that.

All that said, don't let me dissuade you, spatial multiplexing was only conceived of in 1993 and it was not until 1998 that it and MIMO were proven in a lab and today they are the cornerstones of modern wireless communication, you might be onto something completely new and not even know it until you try.

 

[themosttoys]

Thankyou themosttoys for you explination.

Not going down the p2 different camera route.

I wonder then is there any other vtx available on another freq other than 2.4 or 5.8 that could be used instead?
would be really good to use fatsharks alongside the p2v

OR

Change the p2v control to 2.4ghz or would this conflict with the 2.4ghz wi-fi?

If anything i hope my comments might put someone who knows what there taking about in a direction that might help suss this longer range issue

Thanks Neil

The P2V camera is essentially a wireless IP camera. You would need to remove the camera altogether, buy something like a gopro and mount (or better yet gimbal), add iOSD (if you wanted it) and vtx/rx (like at your link) and something to display it on (Ex: Fatshark). Then you could replace the 5.8ghz control RX with something different, remember that you will need to purchase a controller (TX) that works on the chosen frequency. The only thing (off the top of my head) that you would lose would be the radar function of the app and the ability to start and stop video recording and manual picture taking (with gopro you basically start recording before launch and stop when land, there is no "easy" remote manual control.)

Cheers

 

[iDrone]

...Voyager 1 is 11 Billion miles away and it only has a 23W radio... Antenna size, pattern and configuration (Ex: MIMO) absolutely will make a difference. For example, if your P2V is maxing out at 1500 feet (stock) and you simply switch to a single larger (more sensitive) antenna (as many have) to the stock repeater, you very well could double that range (say 3000 feet). If you then put that same antenna (or three of them ;-)) on a MIMO repeater, you might almost double that again (for arguments sake lets say 5000 feet). Then of course you could move the repeater (or chain more together) and again extend the range or use even more optimal antennas (and / or aiming / tracking devices), all without making any changes to the P2V itself. Then there is the control signal to consider, but that is a different story all together...

+1 ...good discussion. More metal on the ground, better signal from the tiny antenna in the air. Consider too, that Vision's video is being buffered, streamed, & buffered again so there's latency unlike traditional FPV video transmission systems like the FatShark uses. As you approach LOS (loss of signal) the buffering & retransmission of packets gets worse, as does latency. My experience with Vision's FPV to an iPhone or mini iPad demonstrates even under ideal conditions there is some lag, enough so that I'd probably hit the branch or phone line I'm trying to duck before I see it on my screen, esp if I'm flying a bit too fast. I've experienced a couple times where I started to lose signal quality and the video started lagging by seconds until exiting & reopening the app so it would reconnect & update. In my experience, Vision's streaming video over WiFi is good enough for most uses, but I wouldn't try ducking unforgiving obstacles at 30mph solely by FPV.

iDrone

 

[spazmodic1]

You guys need to remember the repeater link is a wifi connection ie both devices transmit and recieve. so even if you had the most powerful repeater in the world it wouldn't improve distance because its limited by the visions tx power. So when you fly it far away the repeater has no problem reaching the vision but the vision cannot maintain a reliable connection because of its lack of output power. So the vision and the repeater are constantly talking to each other and if one stops talking (out of range) the connection is broken.

I'd say that while the basis of your point is true, it is not entirely accurate. It is true that unless you position the repeater somewhere between you and the P2V (to take full advantage of the repeater), the amplifier in the repeater alone will not make a significant difference. It is also very true that amplification is not the answer (heck, Voyager 1 is 11 Billion miles away and it only has a 23W radio.) Antenna size, pattern and configuration (Ex: MIMO) absolutely will make a difference. For example, if your P2V is maxing out at 1500 feet (stock) and you simply switch to a single larger (more sensitive) antenna (as many have) to the stock repeater, you very well could double that range (say 3000 feet). If you then put that same antenna (or three of them ;-)) on a MIMO repeater, you might almost double that again (for arguments sake lets say 5000 feet). Then of course you could move the repeater (or chain more together) and again extend the range or use even more optimal antennas (and / or aiming / tracking devices), all without making any changes to the P2V itself. Then there is the control signal to consider, but that is a different story all together.

There are realistic limits, but before those limits are reached, you will simply run out of battery power to fly. Given an average fly time of 20 minutes (28 minutes total, but with a safe buffer for wind and landing reserve) and an average flight speed of 20 miles per hour (yes it will go faster, but faster speed will trade off battery life and total flight time). You have about (give or take) a three mile maximum realistic service range (three miles out, a few minutes to hover / look and three miles back). Three miles is a very achievable goal (from a radio perspective).

Fun stuff, there is a lot to consider.

"Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others." - Jonathan Winters.

Your absolutely right mate. But the Voyger doesn't have 2 patch antennas inside a camera that constantly changing direction. Yes it doesn't take much power to penetrate the earths atmosphere and reach outer space as the Voyager is relatively speaking only as far away as the extremities of the earth atmosphere(you don't get rf losses in space, only dispersal of the wave). But while we are using the vision within earth atmosphere 10 or 20dbm output power (whatever it is) ain't going to get you far, especially when around trees and materials that will inhibit the propagation of the rf energy.
In my opinion the most convienient way to increase distance would be through increased tx power. I couldn't understand why one would set up repaters all over the place to maintain a connection. But thats just me.

 

[spazmodic1]

Nevermind I found my problem. I had the antenna attached to the wrong connector in the repeater. :lol:[/quote]

Has anyone determined if it really matters which one its attached to? I disconnected each individually and walked away from the P2V. It dropped a bar at exactly the same spot regardless of which antenna wire was detached. When I detached them both then it dropped a bar much sooner. That leads me to believe that they are sorta redundant. Not sure I am buying this master/slave argument.[/quote]

It doesn't matter which connector you put it on, but if you use both connectors for 2 external antennas that would be best.

 

[themosttoys]

Your absolutely right mate. But the Voyger doesn't have 2 patch antennas inside a camera that constantly changing direction. Yes it doesn't take much power to penetrate the earths atmosphere and reach outer space as the Voyager is relatively speaking only as far away as the extremities of the earth atmosphere(you don't get rf losses in space, only dispersal of the wave). But while we are using the vision within earth atmosphere 10 or 20dbm output power (whatever it is) ain't going to get you far, especially when around trees and materials that will inhibit the propagation of the rf energy.
In my opinion the most convienient way to increase distance would be through increased tx power. I couldn't understand why one would set up repaters all over the place to maintain a connection. But thats just me.

True, 2.4ghz has poor penetration, basically line of sight only. You are also correct that the side mounted patch antennas on the P2V camera are not very good (when testing the P2V for distance, I fly cockeyed ;-)). That is the real problem, you could triple the power output of the P2V VTX and that will not change the real problem (antennas only the side and very small). Without addressing the real problem (the antennas in the camera) not much can be done on the P2V itself.
In other testing, I've tested from 25mw to a full 3 watts and without the right antennas the gains are surprisingly small and even with the right antennas, increased power has very little effect on penetration (at 2.4 and 5.8ghz basically leafless trees still tend to be a problem.) With analog systems you can often fly through the static, but the digital feed on the P2V will always have a problem with that.
I also agree with you on the multiple repeaters topic (too much of a pain.) Unless of course you only fly in one area. For example , a friend of mine has a 13000 acre farm and uses repeaters (with solar panels and batteries) to cover about a quarter (5 square miles) of it with wifi (not for flying, but the concept is the same).

 

[oukenfold]

Just tested out my TP-LINK 9dbi antenna and got a range of 650m. But when my connection drops i fly back into range but the video does not come back, the telemetry works fine so i know where the vision is but the video feed either goes black or a still picture of where it lost connection. I have to reboot the vision before the video comes back again.
Any suggestions???

Nevermind I found my problem. I had the antenna attached to the wrong connector in the repeater. :lol:

and whats the good coneector on the repeater? thanks

 

[BJay]

Hi all,

Just range tested my setup I posted about a few pages back. Results were pretty promising considering I had no amplifier. Range cut out at 910m on the wifi, the craft continued to fly for up to 200m before I switched it into failsafe (traveling 60+ km/h) after about 20 seconds wifi came back at 960m and she flew back smoothly in failsafe with sight of the p2v coming back at around 650m.

Using Tp Link 14Dbi with stock range extender and eBay black 11Dbi 5.8ghz- cost under $100us combined.

I didn't loose radio single once.

Will post video later.

 

[007trains]

Nevermind I found my problem. I had the antenna attached to the wrong connector in the repeater. :lol:

Has anyone determined if it really matters which one its attached to? I disconnected each individually and walked away from the P2V. It dropped a bar at exactly the same spot regardless of which antenna wire was detached. When I detached them both then it dropped a bar much sooner. That leads me to believe that they are sorta redundant. Not sure I am buying this master/slave argument.[/quote]

It doesn't matter which connector you put it on, but if you use both connectors for 2 external antennas that would be best.[/quote]

I disagree. When i connected the tp-link antenna to the connector on the right it worked to a range of 650m and had difficulty reconnecting. when i connected to the the connector on the left i had a range of over 1km and no reconnect issues.

 

[MadMan]

When i connected the tp-link antenna to the connector on the right it worked to a range of 650m and had difficulty reconnecting. when i connected to the the connector on the left i had a range of over 1km and no reconnect issues.

Sorry for the very lame question, but how are you determining left and right on the board? If you are holding the board and the antenna connections are closest to you? Away from you?

 

[007trains]

When i connected the tp-link antenna to the connector on the right it worked to a range of 650m and had difficulty reconnecting. when i connected to the the connector on the left i had a range of over 1km and no reconnect issues.

Sorry for the very lame question, but how are you determining left and right on the board? If you are holding the board and the antenna connections are closest to you? Away from you?

Actually a good question. I am holding the board with the connectors away from me.

Also i have found out that using my dads Galaxy S3 it gets a better connection and longer range than my Motorola Defy+

 

[BenDronePilot]

Hi all,

Just range tested my setup I posted about a few pages back. Results were pretty promising considering I had no amplifier. Range cut out at 910m on the wifi, the craft continued to fly for up to 200m before I switched it into failsafe (traveling 60+ km/h) after about 20 seconds wifi came back at 960m and she flew back smoothly in failsafe with sight of the p2v coming back at around 650m.

Using Tp Link 14Dbi with stock range extender and eBay black 11Dbi 5.8ghz- cost under $100us combined.

I didn't loose radio single once.

Will post video later.

Great results, I'm going to have a similar setup just using the 9db tplink for the wifi instead of the 14db. I also picked up a 5db TP link omni directional antenna to see how that works as well for when I want to fly with a more compact footprint but don't need such great range. It will be a couple weeks till my other directional antennas arrives My tplink 9db and 5db antennas as well as a cloverleaf 5ghz antenna will arrive first. I'll video the installation for the benifit of other users wanting to change out both their antennas.

 

[BJay]

Hi all,

Just range tested my setup I posted about a few pages back. Results were pretty promising considering I had no amplifier. Range cut out at 910m on the wifi, the craft continued to fly for up to 200m before I switched it into failsafe (traveling 60+ km/h) after about 20 seconds wifi came back at 960m and she flew back smoothly in failsafe with sight of the p2v coming back at around 650m.

Using Tp Link 14Dbi with stock range extender and eBay black 11Dbi 5.8ghz- cost under $100us combined.

I didn't loose radio single once.

Will post video later.

Results from my latest tests, distance over 1200m and height over 600m. The app only reads distances up to 1km before giving the distance as N/A.