Head Tracking

[Zaviation]

I did not want to bust into the AnthonyRC thread but I wanted to let you know that we have been developing a Head Tracking system that will work with any RC radio.

I was not prepared to speak out yet but the train seems to be leaving the station. It shouldn't be long before we are in Beta Testing so please be patient and I will let you know as soon as possible.

Regards, John

Edit: I have been using JR PCM 10SXII both aircraft and heli versions for 11 years so it will have to work with those. For the system we are building the flight transmitter will be irrelevant. The RC transmitter will have to remain free of encumberances to meet the policy requirements I am pushing with the FAA which would make this type of flying legal for both commercial and recreational (meaning AMA).

Regards, John

[ob1]

I did not want to bust into the AnthonyRC thread but I wanted to let you know that we have been developing a Head Tracking system that will work with any RC radio.

I was not prepared to speak out yet but the train seems to be leaving the station. It shouldn't be long before we are in Beta Testing so please be patient and I will let you know as soon as possible.

Regards, John
Sounds very interesting....I have a JR 9303 and will be watching this space closely.

[Talontsi96]

Definitelly keep us posted John...

[GoForBlackSky]

I'm in, sign me up.

[CrashingDutchman]

AnthonyRC is planning to sell in kitform for about US$ 150. Can you estime what your device is going to cost? Also, will it be ready to use or a kit?

[rob10000]

The RC transmitter will have to remain free of encumberances to meet the policy requirements

Interesting. Can you provide more details on how the head tracker interfaces with the transmitter?

The biggest drawback the RC-Tech tracker is you lose the ability to use a buddy box. It becomes a little clumsy to pass the transmitter back and forth from the FPV flyer to the safety pilot, especially when the FPV pilot has a towel over his head and can't see the radio!

[philthyy]

Yeah, I am going to be upgrading to a better controller, but I'm going to wait until these different head tracker systems come to market before I buy so I can get one that is definitely supported. I hope to get the FHSS system on my new controller once that comes to market also.

[cessnajfb]

subscribe

[ob1]

Yeah, I am going to be upgrading to a better controller, but I'm going to wait until these different head tracker systems come to market before I buy so I can get one that is definitely supported. I hope to get the FHSS system on my new controller once that comes to market also.

Pardon my ignorance....what is "FHSS"? There are so many acronyms around I can't keep up with them all :)

[MX]

Pardon my ignorance....what is "FHSS"? There are so many acronyms around I can't keep up with them all :)

Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum. Used on the new 2.4GHz radios.

MX

[typicalaimster]

Please keep in mind that the 2.4G TX's may interfere with your 2.4g Spektrum radio.

[Zaviation]

Our system will not work through the flight control transmitter at all so it does not matter what make or how many channels. You will be free to use the buddy interface for anything you want.

We have not worked the price yet. It will be as reasonable as we can make it. It will be a finished product (plug and play) and we are considering offering it in different configurations from the basic ead tracker that you put on your own HMD goggles up through a complete system with all the transmitters, diversity receivers, cameras, goggles, etc.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised when you see the product and the prices. I hope to have one in my hands within a week so I can start to show some of the testing results. As I said earlier, I was not going to say anything this early but some folks were ready to buy components to develop their own.

Regards, John

[ob1]

Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum. Used on the new 2.4GHz radios.

MX
I thought I read where it is called "DSS....Digital Spread Sprectum" :confused:

[ob1]

Our system will not work through the flight control transmitter at all so it does not matter what make or how many channels. You will be free to use the buddy interface for anything you want.

We have not worked the price yet. It will be as reasonable as we can make it. It will be a finished product (plug and play) and we are considering offering it in different configurations from the basic ead tracker that you put on your own HMD goggles up through a complete system with all the transmitters, diversity receivers, cameras, goggles, etc.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised when you see the product and the prices. I hope to have one in my hands within a week so I can start to show some of the testing results. As I said earlier, I was not going to say anything this early but some folks were ready to buy components to develop their own.

Regards, John

Interesting...very interesting....so does this mean you will be providing your own Tx functionality between our ground-based goggles (with your head-tracking unit) and the plane(since you aren't using our primary RC Tx). If so, does this also suggest you are replacing the signal on our unused rx channels with your own signal to control the pan/tilt servos?...or will your product be completely separated from our RC Tx/Rx/servos configuration?...come on...give us a taste ;)

[RaptorAP]

Youre working on this yourself, John?

[mklarich]

Mike, do you really need to ask that? :D

Matt

[aviatordave]

Its neat to see the 'cool' stuff advancing and the ability for us common folk to own devices like this is unbelievable.

What ever happend to Wac? Remember he had a SECRET ? (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=574935&highlight=secret)

Dave

[AnthonyRC]

Its neat to see the 'cool' stuff advancing and the ability for us common folk to own devices like this is unbelievable.

What ever happend to Wac? Remember he had a SECRET ? (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=574935&highlight=secret)

Dave

Well... he still has a secret :-)

[philthyy]

FHSS is a new concept in radios. It is Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum. Old military technology that promises 5 mile range and extreme glitch resistance. DSS is very different. Its what Spektrum systems use. It stands for Digital Spread Spectrum. You can check out the thread and progress here:http://www.xtremepowersystems.net/xtremelink.php

[mklarich]

The range of both DSS or FHSS depends on a number of factors besides just the protocol of the signal. As far as glitch resistance, depending on your definition of a "glitch", neither DSS or FHSS should never have one.

I call a "glitch" a bad piece of positional information that makes it all the way to the servo.

Both DSS & FHSS radios are getting bad packets of information all the time from interference and such. It is up to the manufacturer of the radio as well as the protocol by which the radio was designed to ignore the bad information and only pass on the good information to your electronics. Then at that point its up to the software designer to make sure his data is still good, check it, then pass that info on to the servos.

If bad positional information actually makes it to the servo, then you have serious issues.

When a radio actually loses contact, I call that a dropout. With the invention of PCM 72MHz radios "glitches" were nearly eliminated, dropouts however were not. PCM has checksums built into it that check the data for corruption, if the data is corrupt, it doesn't send it to the servos. It locks the servos at their last known good location and then if there is failsafe data programmed in, it travels the servos to that position.

Anywho, this thread isn't about radio protocols. Its about headtracking, which talking about DSS & FHSS are important in this case.

Matt Klarich
Klarich Electronics

[RaptorAP]

Mike, do you really need to ask that? :D

Matt

Just messing with ya, Matty!!:D
I knew it would draw you out.
Good luck on this guys!!
Mike

[Zaviation]

You think you have drawn us out?

you only scratched the surface!

Stay tuned.

John

[askman]

wow, looks like you guys are making progress on this. Looking forward to seeing the result. :) lots of exciting things happening.

[RaptorAP]

I hope its lucrative for you, John.
Dont wait too long, people are fickle creatures, especially today. They lose interest in something real quick, I already see the FPV threads trickling.....

[ob1]

Yep....what's needed is relatively simple solutions, that are resonably priced, and will work with almost any RC system or vendor, and that are available NOW....not just a promsie. So far all we have is "speculation" of what might be coming, or that it might be "affordable", or that you might still have to hack your expensive RC equipment, etc. I applaud all the efforts and hope they are successful and hope everybody keeps working at it...not slamming anyone's effort...but so far, either you have to build your own or buy something expensive (novelty $$) from vendors outside the USA. I realize the USA is not the only RC market, but it is a very big one, and I would suspect affordable VP equip would sell pretty good. So I guess you could say this technology is really not ready for the average joe yet.....not becasue joe isn't ready for it...but because no one has delivered on the promise yet. Hope that changes soon....we are all eagerly waiting :)

[philthyy]

Matt, thanks for the quick tech on radio systems...I find all this stuff fascinating and am always learning about it. But about Headtracking...I know that people use pan and tilt systems, but I wonder if anybody has thought about adding another servo and motion. You know if you were actually sitting in a real plane and wanted to look out the right window, you would lean your upper body over to get close to the window and look down and out that way...what if headtracking systems had a sensor and system for that? I'm thinking of the Easystar specifically in my mind when I picture using a system like this. The camera is on the middle of the "platform" in the nose and you can look around but not truly straight down unless the plane is banking because the plane would be in the way. If you could lean the whole pan and tilt mount over and then look over and down and out, that would be awesome! Of course this is just me daydreaming...thinking out loud...our should I say "out type" :rolleyes:

[Zaviation]

people are fickle creatures

Mike,

Thanks for the good advice. I am sure you speak from experience and have out best interests at heart.

By the way, why didn't you answer my PMs over the past two years when I was trying to make contact with someone close by. We are only 40 miles apart and I have been to fly-ins at your club field.

John

[mklarich]

The expensive R/C gear will not go under the knife. I can't understand making people do that to their equipment, if I can't understand, I won't try and BS my way through making other people understand it.

My JR 8103 was a b ig investment 5 years ago and I still don't have the heart to take a dremel to it. So why go cutting up an expensive receiver when there is a cost viable solution that also greatly expands the flexibility/features of the system?

Matt Klarich

[Zaviation]

Well said Matt!

That kind of thinking is exactly why Matt and I have been working cooperatively for some time now.

Just a reminder, Matt also designed and built the first practical diversity receiver for Small UAVs.

If anybody else wants to step up to the plate you have to be able to see the bigger picture and think "Outside the box".

Remember, "It just keeps getting better"

Regards, John

[Zaviation]

We are ready to go a little farther and show a lab demo of the Head Tracker Matt has been working on. You can take a look at his website. (http://www.klarichelectronics.com/ke_headtracker.htm)

Please let's not have a landslide of questions. This Tracker will work with ANY radio and we hope to have it in production before Christmas.

There are other things of interest that we are working on and have been working on for some time. Stay tuned.

Regards, John Zaner

[E.N.]

Looks promising even though it did drift just slightly. What price are we talking about when it comes out?

[Zaviation]

They all drift just slightly. You have just not seen the others in such close synchronization. We have not worked out the price yet. We don't even know the actual cost.

They will be reasonably priced.

John

[lvspark]

John,
Didn't you say all this FPV flying was illegal? How are going to flight test this stuff?
If your planning on selling them (by christmas), wouldn't that test flying be a commercial use of model aircraft therfore making it a UAS and without a COA or EAC would also be unlawful?

[Zaviation]

I also said commercial UAV flying is illegal but I do that. Commercial UAV AP is also illegal and I do that. The point is that I try not to do that which is both illegal and dangerous.

Besides, it does not have to be tested in an airplane, a car might be better. It has already been proven that it is possible to fly with the headtracking so all we have to show is that it works accurately and is rugged.

However, in case I need it, I also have access to some restricted airspace.

As another alternative, I have available an indoor airspace large enough to fly a Slow Stick.

It is not illegal to sell them, only to use them. So far that has not even slowed anyone down.

I am also working very hard to get them legal for both commercial and recreational use. You can call the FAA (again) to check on that if you want to.

What have you been doing to further the cause lately besides stirring the pot on the forums. Your effort didn't work out so you will try to crap on mine again.

No worry, I can deal with it.
Regards, John

[lvspark]

crap
On that subject, does your "state of the art training facility" include an outhouse, or do clients just use the Winnebago :confused:

Must get stinky during the powerpoint presentations.. :D

[Zaviation]

Another fine example of bridge building. In your case you can just use your plane.

Robert makes his living teaching people to fly and keeps the prices low. Not a good way to get rich now is it?

I am sure he will appreciate your kind words but surely you can do better than that.

John

[Talontsi96]

OMG....Not again!!!!

[patrickegan]

Hey, did you guys miss me? :p

[Zaviation]

The gang is all aboard now. The king of the one-liners has arrived.

A little late though, my bedtime. Sit in for me will you Patrick?

See you later, John

[patrickegan]

MK is a good guy, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one Johnny!

[mklarich]

Don't go dragging me into the middle of this one, I just make the toys.

Matt

[kd7ost]

Hey Matt,

Nice to see you post. How ya been? I hope you've been flying some. ;)

Dan

[mklarich]

Nope, working my butt off behind computer screens with buddy of mine. He knows C programming language for the headtracker, reading that gyro is a very time sensitive process which I cannot do with simplier programming languages.

Also finishing up an airwave diversity receiver, very low cost. Hope to have it out in production quantities before christmas. Hope all is well out there, I'm finally getting back in the saddle for real around here. The last year has been a hell of rollercoaster ride that I don't care to repeat. Happy thanksgiving, little early but who cares. All the christmas stuff is out and they are playing holiday music at the stores already so I guess I can be just a hair early for thanksgiving.

Matt

[txflyboys2]

Why would the head tracker system necessarily have to be used as one operator/FPV? What would be illegal about having a second operator as the cameraman while the pilot is flying by full visual contact with the plane? I see more than one potential use of the equipment here.

Larry

[kd7ost]

Hope all is well out there, I'm finally getting back in the saddle for real around here. The last year has been a hell of rollercoaster ride that I don't care to repeat. Happy thanksgiving, little early but who cares. All the christmas stuff is out and they are playing holiday music at the stores already so I guess I can be just a hair early for thanksgiving.Matt

I'm glad for you that things are looking up. Happy Thanksgiving to you too. A little early is just fine. ;)

People have asked for Video switches from time to time just so you know. I know you have you hands full and I haven't replied to any of those. I still have a few of those chips I bought from you and am hoarding them for myself. :D

I use a D Type flip flop for a switching control circuit and it lacks a descent hysteresis but for my application it's a non issue. Here's a 5 minute video with it in use where you can see the switching issue right around the trigger point. My next evolution of Ag plane will not have two camera's though and I won't need to switch. I developed a cleaner switch action with a BS2 but there's no need for me to employ it.

Well anyway, welcome back Matt. It is good to see you. ;)

Dan

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=571185

[PeteSchug]

Why would the head tracker system necessarily have to be used as one operator/FPV? What would be illegal about having a second operator as the cameraman while the pilot is flying by full visual contact with the plane? I see more than one potential use of the equipment here.

Larry

People have been doing that for a while. This is more about piloting an aircraft by video. Trying to create some of the feeling of being in the plane and also doing things that you can't do without high risk by pure visual contact. A year or two ago in Vermont I accidentally passed between a couple of trees (visual contact) at about fifty to sixty feet up. I didn't get a usable tape out of it, and I'd love to do it again, but the risk would be enormous. If I were to try it with video goggles on I'd know instantly if it were possible or crazy. I'd also be able to find a way around. When it happened I was already wondering how we were going to retrieve the plane.

AFAIK all you need to satisfy the AMA is a spotter and a spotter who can take the box in a pinch is a real asset. The spotter's job is to keep you from flying too far away to reestablish visual contact should you have to take off the goggles. The tendency to wander off exploring is very strong, especially in an area that is familiar. There is no sense of distance from home when your visual field is what the camera sees.

Sorry if I am butting in, but that's what we've been doing. The bad part is that it is tough to find a good spotter and it seems to annoy some people if they are asked. Like, "What's wrong with you, can't you fly by yourself?"

I am getting around to where I don't like to fly at my home field because I look too dependent to some people.

Weird thing. The higher you are the harder it is to stay near home. It's probably easier to fly low around the field, depending on the seeing boundaries than it is to be the proverbial two mistakes high and get sucked into seeing what is over the next hill.

My blabber for today.

Pete

[kd7ost]

For what its worth, and I'm not advocating this as a workaround, but there is a company called UNAV, http://www.u-nav.com/ which makes a device called a Pico Pilot. There is a current version that is designed to simply prevent fly off's using GPS. Nothing else. The unit gets a 3D position lock when you power it up. It loads your position into memory. As long as the unit is left disabled you fly normally. It can be enabled by a spare channel via operator function but I don't think that’s the best way to set it up. Using a spare channel and a failsafe style receiver would allow the pilot to employ it if it is in range, but would also automatically employ if a failsafe condition were to exist. The plane would then return to the GPS coordinates or to where the pilot resumes transmitter flight control.

I use a system like that on my Ag AP plane. Not to fly to the edge of range but simply to mitigate risk and prevent a fly off in the unlikely event of an interference issue. Anyhow, any enterprising Pilot can see the value of such a unit. But, if you're building and flying from the bargain basement funding source, you might have to do without such a unit. Better and more sophisticated toys cost more. ;)

Dan

[Zaviation]

Why would the head tracker system necessarily have to be used as one operator/FPV? What would be illegal about having a second operator as the cameraman while the pilot is flying by full visual contact with the plane? I see more than one potential use of the equipment here.

You are absolutely right Larry. There would be no issues if the pilot of the aircraft were not using the system and was in direct visual contact with the aircraft.

You are evidently what I referred to as an "outside the box" thinker. That is a good attribute to have. A good example of what you are alluding to would be airplane rides over scenic areas for people who are afraid to fly.

Stay in touch, John

[Zaviation]

AFAIK all you need to satisfy the AMA is a spotter and a spotter who can take the box in a pinch is a real asset.

Hi Pete,
A post like that is joining in, not butting in. I don't know about the spotter who can take the box but what I think would be acceptable is using the buddy box.

The FAA always has and continues to stress the Pilot-in-Command (PIC) concept. A buddy box leaves no doubt about who the PIC is whether in a training situation or FPV flying. If you have a pilot who is capable of flying the aircraft on the control box and in direct visual contact with the aircraft then the person on the trainer box is like a peripheral and is not relevant to the safe operation of the aircraft.

The necessity for a qualified saftey pilot on the control box is a small price to pay for full approval of this type of flying by the FAA. This would mean that the AMA would fall right in line because the new policy guidance for recreational flying would provide for it.

A good example of this in recreational flying would be a one-design (Easystar) pylon race event with a rectangular course instead of the usual back and forth. All pilots would fly FPV headtracking so they could actually see the pylons and their competition. The safety pilots could take over immediately if the contestant pilot got in trouble.

This type of event would bring an entirely new level of realism to the sport and the resulting videos would be just as entertaining. The same type of thinking can be applied to other events as well.

Regards, John

[rob10000]

I don't know about the spotter who can take the box but what I think would be acceptable is using the buddy box.

First, my disclaimer - I fly FPV for recreation.
Referring to item 10 of the R/C section of the AMA safety code,

"The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are prescribed for the pilot."

Sometimes, if a buddy box is unavailable or incompatable with a student's radio, we do things the old fashioned, time honored way - hand the box to the the student, with the IP ready to grab it back if trouble arises.
I see the use of a spotter in the same way when flying FPV. Unfortunately, the design of my head tracker precludes the use of a buddy-box, so I ask an experienced pilot to sit next to me while I fly "under the hood", and keep his eyes on the plane (the hardest part- they usually want to watch the secondary LCD display) That way he's always ready to take over if things go wrong. I've found it's best to have the spotter perform the launch and climb to altitude while I watch the feed, and then hand me the radio after trimming out the airplane.

[AndyOne]

...Unfortunately, the design of my head tracker precudes the use of a buddy-box, ...

I have ascertained that using Futaba transmitters, you can connect an input to a single buddy box connection while at the same time using the output to a TX in the hands of PIC. It will require a modified lead or a Y lead to be plugged into the circuit.
A better way would be to use two separate TXs and RXs on different frequencies and make a switch over system under the control of the PIC that hands over the 4 main flying functions to the video pilot. He can still control the camera functions such as shutter and pan and tilt even while control is taken back.

Andy.

[PeteSchug]

I have ascertained that using Futaba transmitters, you can connect an input to a single buddy box connection while at the same time using the output to a TX in the hands of PIC. It will require a modified lead or a Y lead to be plugged into the circuit.
A better way would be to use two separate TXs and RXs on different frequencies and make a switch over system under the control of the PIC that hands over the 4 main flying functions to the video pilot. He can still control the camera functions such as shutter and pan and tilt even while control is taken back.

Andy.

The use of a second tx and rx just for head tracking and a buddy box for flight controls has been suggested to me already. My objection to that is the need to take two channels while flying. Sometimes you have to wait for your channel to open and then somebody has to wait for you to finish so they can fly. I really can't imagine doing that on two channels at once.

The pre buddy box concept of just handing the tx over works fine. If you are high no problem at all. I am more worried about the PIC taking over at inopportune times because what looks wrong in direct visual contact might be fine in the aerial view.

So far my spotter has handled the launch for me. I am going to a rural area in Vermont for Thanksgiving and will try a few takeoffs with my pico tiger moth. The easy star requires a handlaunch and that I have already discovered is very difficult through goggles. If worst comes to worst I will launch and put the goggles on while at altitude if the wind and other conditions permit.

Edit: I should add that in Vermont my spotter is a fairly athletic seventy-eight. He is in excellent shape but I don't expect him to be able to launch my easy star. I am a slightly arthritic sixty-eight (sixty-nine before Christmas) and have no problem launching but I will be conservative (if I fly it at all) and do the launch with the goggles up and out of the way.

They grow them tough in Vt. One of the guys in the crowd is ninety and he still teaches skiing, and mows the local golf course in the summer. (They've cut him down to only four hours a day) This guy went to Norway for a visit and asked his girl friend if she wanted to come along. She said no, so he invited another woman. His girlfriend hasn't said no to him for a few years now. :rolleyes:

Pete

[VRflyer]

Pete, I never seen a catapult in store, but if it exist, would you use it?
( The planes is on the catapult far away, you sit on a chair. you flip a switch on the radio and the planes is eject.)

[PeteSchug]

Pete, I never seen a catapult in store, but if it exist, would you use it?
( The planes is on the catapult far away, you sit on a chair. you flip a switch on the radio and the planes is eject.)

I've used high start on gliders but that's a bit different. I would probably use a catapult without hesitation. The problem is attaching something to foam that is strong enough to take the tension.

When I first launched the easy star I used full throttle and the motor was more powerful than the elevator. Then I used too little power. Now I know that half throttle gives a nice climb out. At this point I could probably launch with the goggles but I want a bit more experience before I try.

After Thanksgiving I will set up my larger Tiger Moth and practice taxiing in the back yard with the goggles on before I go to the field and fly it.

Pete

[Zaviation]

A quick status update on our progress:

Our head-tracker is based on a radio modem smaller than a half-dollar. It operates completely separate from the radio control so you will need to have your own video link and radio control receiver to run all the servos. Any radio control will work woth this one because it is completely independent. Matt says the range will be at least 1 mile LOS. Range is not a show stopper here because we are talking about head tracking only. If it gets out of range the camera will lock straight ahead and have the range of your onboard video system. You can fly it back into headtracker range with the video straight ahead.

The radio modem has the capability and capacity to send telemetry data and we plan to add upgrades to do that. The initial offering will not provide any telemetry transmission so there will be no video overlay capability from the radio modem and you will see just what the camera sees unless you have your own on screen display capability. With our field update capability additional features can be added later.

This means that, initially, the unit in the aircraft will have no need to transmit data and can actually be run from your receiver if you want. When telemetry options are added later and the onboard system goes into transmit mode it will consume about 300-400mah so a separate two-cell LiPo would be in order.

The ground tracker unit will fit on your goggles and is a bit smaller than a sugar cube. That will be connected by a wire to the same size radio modem and, since this one is in transmit mode all the time, it will require a separate power source (2 LiPo or 4 cell AA). It too will consume 300-400mah so the pack will not have to be that big.

We have been working on getting the hardware and software complete and have not spent that much time on packaging. The initial circuit board enclosures may not be pretty but they will be functional. I still do not have a price that I am willing to quote but it will be surprisingly reasonable. We are also planning on providing complete turnkey systems which include all components or have each piece available seperately.

You now know as much as I do until I receive a couple from Matt and get one on an airplane. He is expecting the initial proto boards back on Monday. I am as anxious as you are to get my hands on one. I have the airplane ready and am building the camera mount now.

Regards, John

[VRflyer]

Nice project. It will work with any radio, it's interesting for many peoples who don't use Futaba radio....
But telemetry data sent to ground is useless when we can easily add the data directly on the video with an OSD (on screen display). It have the advantage to be seen in real time by the pilot, and also data will be record with the video, so we can evaluate performance of the planes later very easily.
Sending telemetry data to ground, we will need a laptop to see the data and record them. And later it will be harder to evaluate performance. Also too much equipement to bring...

[Zaviation]

Yes, I agree about the real time flight tracking and onboard equipment status but that is not the only thing telemetry is useful for. This design is not only for those who do not use Futaba but for the many who do not have the higher end Futaba radios. In fact, this headtracker will work with free flight (in case anyone wants to go that way).

John

[scrtsqrl]

John,

I think you are right on the money with your project. Not having to buy a new transmitter is very compelling.

Being able to transmit data later, especially if it has a resonable pictorial display on a laptop similar to a cockpit display would replicate very convincingly full scale piloting, where the pilot looks up and outside for visual cues down and inside for instruments.

[GoForBlackSky]

A quick status update on our progress:

It operates completely separate from the radio control so you will need to have your own video link and radio control receiver to run all the servos.


Hey John,

Thanks for the update, one question, in that quote you said my own radio control will have to run all the servos. Does that include the camera servos? If it does, how does your unit on my airplane interface with the camera servos?

Thanks,

BlackSky

[Zaviation]

Sorry, I didn't mean all the servos. The headtracking receiver on the aircraft will operate the camera servos. Your own controls (radio or whatever) will operate all the flight servos. I guess that would mean that you could have a radio malfunction and be able to use the headtracker to look around to see where your plane was going. Interesting concept.

I am trying to not be too definitive until I get one and operate it myself. Then I will be able to have much more descriptive answers. Please bear with us, you know how it is with new products. We don't want to end up with a Nintendo WII by rushing to production.

There is considerable interest in this product from outside the modeling community and they are applying even greater pressure to get a demonstration.

Regards, John

[Itzik Ronen]

Hi,
I probably miss that, are you representing a company? Do they have other products I can see on the web? It is going to be release before Christmas?
Thanks
Itzik

[Zaviation]

Yes I do represent a company. Actually, a group of companies. There will be e-commerce websites on the West Coast and Midwest and a brick and mortar hobby shop on the East Coast. We also have an e-commerce distributor in Australia.

We will have an extensive and growing product line. This head tracking unit is intended to be the initial offering of that Consortium. My own website will not be used for retail sales as it is oriented toward my Aerial Photography business and as a marketing and promotional tool for the entire group.

When we announce the availability of the Head Tracking product the websites will be there to acquire them and we aill have announcements and advertising. The aerial video/photography products will be released under the brand name "Right Stuff VR". Other existing product lines will also be incorporated into the Consortium product line. It sounds a bit complicated now but we will clear things up shortly.

Regards, John Zaner
Zaner Aviation, LLC (http://www.zaneraviation.com)

[VRflyer]

Consortium, wow, impressive.
What I don't understand is I fly with video since six years. I buyed equipement form stores like your aerial photography store. If you had already the equipement in your hand, why everyone just begin to fly now with video, why peoples does not start before, why I was one of the few to to take-off and land and do aerobatics. My videos change everything, it's amazing
(it's off topic, I know)

[Talontsi96]

VRFlyer......you inspired a lot of people.......

[Zaviation]

Dennis,
I also have been flying FPV for a long time but with the camera controlled by the rudder servo or just pointing straight ahead. The people I am associated with have been working together for over a year now.

The one single thing that has shaken the industry up is the development of the Air Mouse and the small 2 axis Gyration gyro that drives it. We have been working on various methods of headtracking for a long time but hobby related industries do not have the financial resources to develop something like that on our own. Just like we could not afford to develop LiPo or High Density NiMH battery technology.

We have to be opportunists and jump on new technology when is is developed for a larger market and adapt it to our use. It has always been that way with modelers. Just like right now we are waiting for some larger market to develop a decent hi-res low cost set of video goggles. When they do you can be sure that word of it will spread like wildfire and then we will have a new product. I wish we had the resources to develop that ourselves but such is not the case.

By the way, I have followed your efforts with interest since I first joined the RC-Cam Forum back in 1999. I was hacking X-10 security systems to fly with at that time. I am glad you reached your objective and look forward to your new adventures.

Regards, John

[PeteSchug]

Consortium, wow, impressive.
What I don't understand is I fly with video since six years. I buyed equipement form stores like your aerial photography store. If you had already the equipement in your hand, why everyone just begin to fly now with video, why peoples does not start before, why I was one of the few to to take-off and land and do aerobatics. My videos change everything, it's amazing
(it's off topic, I know)

I haven't been flying video RC as long as you have, but I have been flying video since 2003. I started on my own and didn't know anyone else who actually did it, nor could I make much sense out of the few things I saw posted. Nobody in my club flies either AP or AV let alone plays with video goggles or head tracking.

The problem is that we are too scattered to share information until recently. When I started I downloaded every scrap of on board video I could find, and it was not much, mostly commercial from outfits that wanted to sell stuff and surprising bad by our standards of today.

I think what we have now is a communication explosion. All of a sudden people seem to be coming out of the woodwork but many of us have been around for a while at least and now, with good equipment getting less expensive all the time even people who couldn't afford it before are buying equipment.

My first camera tx combination was very poor by today's standards and it was not inexpensive. Now I can get much better equipment with better instructions, in many cases ready to use as it comes out of the box.

I have been flying RC for over forty years. When I started flying again after a lapse the first thing I did was stick a video camera in an old glider. The idea was not new. I have super 8 films from very early in my flying career, and we discussed the idea of getting an inexpensive camera and taking films from the air. Since I was flying full sized airplanes then I never bothered. Now it is easy, then it was a tough nut to crack.

Pete

[riosouza]

...nobody in my club flies either AP or AV let alone plays with video goggles or head tracking.

The problem is that we are too scattered to share information until recently. When I started I downloaded every scrap of on board video I could find, and it was not much, mostly commercial from outfits that wanted to sell stuff and surprising bad by our standards of today.

I think what we have now is a communication explosion. All of a sudden people seem to be coming out of the woodwork but many of us have been around for a while at least and now, with good equipment getting less expensive all the time even people who couldn't afford it before are buying equipment.

Pete


Indeed, I never found anyone to talk about it, becuse everybory else that I know that fly R/C seemed to be not interesting in FPV flight.
Last week talking to two of my friends, and showing them my little video project, they got crazy about it saying they thought it would never be possible, but one of them has flying with a photografic camera onboard for a long time.

[Zaviation]

It is really hard to believe that only three years ago we were flying 35mm. I think the chip density guys got a real breakthrough.

BTW, the www.rightstuffvr.com site should be up with at least a placeholder.

Regards, John

[RaptorAP]

Whats an Air Mouse?

Mike

[lvspark]

Whats an Air Mouse?

Mike

Kinda like this (http://www.tonyrogers.com/video/SquirrelLaunch.mpeg) but with a mouse?

[VRflyer]

Kinda like this (http://www.tonyrogers.com/video/SquirrelLaunch.mpeg) but with a mouse?
hum, not exactly :)
Air mouse is a mouse for computer that you can hold in the air, I mean you move it up/down and left/right and the cursor on the screen follow you hand motion.
http://www.gyration.com/en-US/ProductDetail.html?modelnum=GC1005M&accshow=3

[Itzik Ronen]

any news?

[Zaviation]

Matt had the headtracking PCBs on his porch yesterday when he got home from work. They are assembling some and working on a small software glitch as I am writing this.

It does work great right now for side to side movement so he will get some out to me shortly and I can fly with it that way. I will update the firmware with an email from him when he gets the fix.

I would expect to be doing something with them next week.

I will keep you posted, John

[Itzik Ronen]

There is any news? The holidays are coming!

[ob1]

Dennis,
Just like right now we are waiting for some larger market to develop a decent hi-res low cost set of video goggles.
Regards, John
Agreed....and I'll bet it will be something like I-Pod (or other model) video downloads for the "mobile" crowd that will drive the newer, better, and lower cost video goggles right into our waiting hands! I have a set of I-Theater glasses that I have modified (surrounded by an appropriate casing) to prevent unwanted ambient light and provide a more "immersive" feel to fpv flight. I like these and the price was right, but I would really like to have some with higher-res, larger viewing area, and better sound for a much lower cost than what is available now. I am sure we will all be ready for the next generation ;)
ob1

[Zaviation]

Thanks for your patience. I think it will be worth it.

Matt just put in the order for what should be the final circuit boards and expects them to arrive by the end of next week. I hope to have one the following weed to take to North Carolina to set up with our East Coast Distributor.

As an acid test I have ordered a DX7. I will be testing using a 2.4ghz radio modem headtracker, a 2.4ghz video downlink, and a 2.4ghz radio control system.

We will be marketing them soon.

Regards, John

[Mr.Pibb]

Should this thead be moved to the new "Video Piloting (FPV/RPV)" section of the forum now?
http://www.rcgroups.com/video-piloting-fpv-rpv-469/

[aviatordave]

As an acid test I have ordered a DX7. I will be testing using a 2.4ghz radio modem headtracker, a 2.4ghz video downlink, and a 2.4ghz radio control system.
Regards, John

I didnt think that the 2.4 Ghz downlink will work with the Spektrum, isnt that true?

[Zaviation]

I don't think this thread should be moved since the headtracker is as much for AP as it is for FPV. We should not automatically associate headtracking with FPV exclusively. It can have many purposes. If you use the video downlink from a still camera as the input to the gogles and have the headtracker move the camera It is an excellent tool for aiming precicely and requires practically no training because it is so intuitive.

FPV, as it is currently defined is in violation of the AMA safety code. I, and others are working to change that. However, in the meantime, it would be perfectly alright to go to a scenic spot and give airplane rides by letting others wear the goggles or watch the monitor. That should also be considered a form of AP.

I have been on that forum since it started and voted for it to be established. I will probably post over there but more than likely we will just take out a banner ad to go at the top of all the forums.

Regards, John

[Zaviation]

That is the reason I bought one to test with. We will find out for sure now. There is a lot of speculation about that on the forums but there is only one way I know of to find out for sure and that is lay out your money and test it.

You will know when I do.

Regards, John

[Mr.Pibb]

Fair enough on the link to FPV. I certainly think a post on that part of the forum linking to this thread is a good idea.

Regarding the Spektrum/2.4GHz downlink issues:
I have a DX6, and I purchased a 200mW 2.4GHz video system on e-bay (not that expensive, worth giving it a shot). I haven't flown it yet, but here are my results in my basement:

Placing the video TX on my plane about 6" from my Spektrum RX, there was no sign of loss of signal from the DX6 TX while I walked around my basement (including pressing the bind/field test button on the back of the TX). On the video side of things, when I used a whip antenna on the video RX there were horizontal moving lines and "ticking" in the video any time I had the DX6 TX on. This decreased when I pressed the bind button on the DX6 TX but was still there. When I put a patch antenna on the video RX the interference in the video would come and go depending on where I was standing.

I have a feeling different video systems will react differently. Better video systems may use narrower frequency bands and may be less prone to interference from the frequency scanning of the DX6/DX7. I've heard that high power video system (500mW, 1000mW?) may be able to over power the Spektrum RX and cause problems. I'm not sure there have been any real word results, though, only speculation.

I probably won't use my video system on my Mini Ultra Stick. All together with battery, tx, and camera it won't fit all that great unless I put it right beside the spektrum RX, and I'm not willing to do that yet! I'm putting together a Telemaster Electro that should give me plenty of space to experiment, but I don't have a lot of time so it might be spring until I'm ready for a maiden. (hopefully not!)

[Zaviation]

Good suggestion, the link is there.

Regarding the Spektrum, we are going to have frequency selection on our headtracker so different frequencies in the 2.4 band can be selected. The idea is to first turn on the video downlink and get a good picture, then turn on the headtracker and tune to avoid interference with the downlink, last turn on the Spektrum and it should find a frequency that does not interfere with either and lock in on it.

I don't think is is a good idea to have transmitters and receivers in close proximity onboard the aircraft regardless of the frequency. I almost lost a Scale Masters winning clipped wing Cub about 3 years ago when I just stuck in a 1000mw 2.4ghz transmitter to do some quick footage. It was a bit too close to my 53.5mhz Ham band receiver and gave me a wild ride until I got it back on the ground.

I plan on checking it thoroughly because I will have another 2.4ghz system on-board (headtracker). This first version will only be a receiver for the headtracking but later we plan to add a transmitter so the radio modem can be used for downlink telemetry.

Of course I won't do the initial tests with the Spektrum but will get to it as soon as I have the system checked out. Some of the documented problems may depend on the receiver used in the aircraft. There are two versions of the receiver and I think the FX7 receiver with the two linked receivers which provides true diversity capability is the only one that will work reliably. I am also getting one of the single DX6 type receivers to test with.

Keep in mind the DX6 and DX7 are different systems. The single DX6 type receiver is compatible with the DX7 but the twin DX7 receiver will not work with the DX6 transmitter. This is all based on what I have read in various documents and specs. I don't have the system yet so I cannot say for sure. I will find out though and post the results here.

Regards, John

[Kilrah]

I don't think this thread should be moved since the headtracker is as much for AP as it is for FPV. We should not automatically associate headtracking with FPV exclusively. It can have many purposes. If you use the video downlink from a still camera as the input to the gogles and have the headtracker move the camera It is an excellent tool for aiming precicely and requires practically no training because it is so intuitive.

Actually, you'll quickly notice it's about the opposite. You're much more precise using a classic stick controlling the servos' speed. Just picture trying to hold your camera in place for 30 seconds while your head is in the corner, you'll feel how uncomfortable it is. Not only this, but you have a limited movement range too. And if the camera is on a moving object like a plane you'll quickly lose orientation and get nuts when the pilot makes turns. With my experience, I'd say headtracking is unusable in most cases for AP/AV, or at least not the best solution. When asked, I always recommend not to use it and advise a usual TX with modified servos on the pan/tilt mount.

[Zaviation]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying unless you are talking about using the headtracker for flying and lining up photos simultaneously. I would not use the headtracker for FPV flying of the aircraft but use a second person as a camera operator with the goggles while I flew the aircraft in the normal way in direct visual contact.

I have found it to be quite easy to get the aircraft in approximately the correct position and attitude by using direct visual contact. Given that the aircraft and camera are in approximately the correct position, it is quite easy for a camera operator to use the headtracker for final adjustmnet and to operate the shutter and zoom.

I just think that everyone has started off with the assumption that, if you have a headtracker, you are going to use it exclusively for FPV to fly the aircraft. These things have many more uses if you get away from that idea for a bit. I can see a time when I would have two headtracker systems on board the aircraft, one for FPV flying the aircraft and the other for the camera operator, or maybe just a passenger.

That is the reason I think the headtracker thread belongs here instead of just in the FPV forum. We (Forum Members) keep specializing everything which keeps us from seeing the bigger picture. FPV is not just headtracking anymore than headtracking is just FPV. UAVs are not just for AP, so you will find posts about headtracking in other forums and in places that have nothing to do with RC or aviation at all.

There are many aspect of RC that I am interested in but I simply cannot keep up with all the forums. Right now my main interest is Small UAVs and there is a Forum for that, I mainly use the Small UAVs for AP and there is a forum for that. I have been doing FPV for years without headtracking but there has not been an FPV Forum until headtracking came along. Before long all the forums will be filled with links to other forums and we will be chasing our tails.

I just took a quick look at the Forums I participate in just in RCGroups and they include but are not limited to:

3D Flying
Aerial Photography
Parkflyers
Power Systems
RC Blimps
UAV
Foamies
Electric Sailplanes
Scale Sailplanes
Electric Planes
Helicopters
Electric Helicopters
FPV

And that is just in RCGroups. Why don't we all just have a Forum by name and we will have it covered.

Sorry about the soapbox. Had to rant just a bit.

I am OK now.

Regards, John

[Kilrah]

No, I was talking of using the head tracking only for controlling the camera, just how you intend. Having tried it, it turns out it's not convenient at all, I much prefer a good'ole transmitter stick setup.

I was mentioning that when the camera is on a plane and the pilot flies around, if the camera operator is using goggles and headtracking he gets sick pretty quickly as the plane's route will be unlinked to his actions.

[Zaviation]

I have not found that to be true. Whether you are the pilot or the passenger the headtracking is very natural. Of course my camera operator is my wife and she is an experienced passerger in my full sized aircraft which includes aerobatics.

I do know that if you ride as a passenger in a manned aircraft during unusual maneuvers you tend ot become airsick bcause your head movements are not linked to the aircraft motion just as it is in headtracking. This is a testament to the instant realism of headtracking.

Those who become airsick when flying as a passenger with headtracking would become airsick in a real aircraft under similar circumstances. I used to take a friend up all the time with no problem and then one time he was planning a route for a sports car ralley and was using a map with his head down and focused on the map while I circled around. He quickly became airsick under those circumstances.

When using headtracking on a passenger we should use the same procedures that are useful in acclimating people to riding in manned aircraft. It used to really irritate me when someone would take a passenger up for a first ride and try to give them a thrill with all kind of gyrations. Straight and level as much as possible and no unusual attitude or sudden moves until they are thoroughly comfortable with it.

When using headtracking as a camera operator the person can come out from under the goggles between shots to get a breather. This is very realistic stuff and should be approached with caution and thoughtfulness. I don't even show recorded flying videos to people with the goggles unless they are sitting down. The first time I showed one was to my local hobby shop owner about 5 years ago and he staggered around and went to his knees very quickly.

This is in no way bad, the very realism that causes these problems is also the beauty of headtracking. This is a completely different kind of experience with RC and has to be thought of as real flying as far as the physiological reactions are concerned. With the right approach and practice, headtracking is the best thing that ever happened to RC aerial photography and expecially to RC aerial videography. I am now working on a headtracking mount for my Sony HC3 High Definition camcorder and really look forward to seeing the results.

Regards, John

[VRflyer]

We can know easily each frequencies of the video downlink, it's available from Airwaves or Lawnmate etc.
What is the frequency of the Spektrum radio? I know it will scan to found two free frequencies and lock on them. What is the minimum and maximum frequency Spektrum radio will scan?

Spektrum and video downlink use both the 2.4GHZ band, but probably don't share the same frequency. The engineers who design Spektrum radio certainly know that some peoples will use video downlink at the feild, I would be surprise to learn they don't take that in consideration. If not, it mean peoples who use Spektrum radio can crash their planes if someone power on a video downlink on 2.4 ghz at the feild, who will buy these radio in those condition, few peoples probably. I think we probably already heard about planes crash if it could happens. Logically Spektrum radio is 100% compatible with video equipement even if both operate on 2.4GHZ

[Mr.Pibb]

From what I understand the Spektrum units don't actually listen for open frequencies, they constantly scan across the 2.4 GHz range, so any interference with another device only happens for an instant. I noticed either if I turn the video TX on first or the DX6 TX on first it doesn't seem to make a difference. Either way there seems to be no difference in the performance of either system. I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!), but I think the concept that the spektrum radios scan for an open set of frequencies is speculation.

[twinturbostang]

Spektrum and video downlink use both the 2.4GHZ band, but probably don't share the same frequency. The engineers who design Spektrum radio certainly know that some peoples will use video downlink at the feild, I would be surprise to learn they don't take that in consideration. If not, it mean peoples who use Spektrum radio can crash their planes if someone power on a video downlink on 2.4 ghz at the feild, who will buy these radio in those condition, few peoples probably. I think we probably already heard about planes crash if it could happens. Logically Spektrum radio is 100% compatible with video equipement even if both operate on 2.4GHZ
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Spectrum may not be aware of people using 2.4GHz downlinks.

I didn't understand it either though. Like you say, since it uses frequency hopping, it shouldn't matter if you encounter a signal on one specific frequency. However, I have heard Typicalaimster and others say that you will knock someone out of the sky if they are on a Spektrum radio and you power up your 2.4GHz video gear.

edit: Mr Pibb: So you do find interference between the two systems or not?

[patrickegan]

Rutro Raggy! :eek:

[Kilrah]

I was actually mentioning getting sick just as a 2nd disadvantage. For me, the main one is that when I want to film images I'll use a 360° pan (endless), and a +90° tilt (180° can give cool effects with the camera getting upside down). It's hard to control that with headtracking. Add to this you want at some point to keep a stable position in an edge for 1 minute, with the head twisted... not really practical.

Headtracking for a pilot and a "passenger" taking place in the aircraft to enjoy a nice flight is perfect. I wouldn't use it to do staged work.

[Zaviation]

I can see where you would have that problem with 360 degree endless rotation. I use only 180 degree and if I want the other quadrant I fly the other way or land and mount the camera the opposite direction while the shadows are the same.

I had a discussion with my wife about it a while ago and she said the headtracking was, by far, easier than being in the aircraft live during unusual attitudes. The headtracking is only visual where the real thing has the motion to contend with (sometimes sudden and rather violent) plus the smells. There is always a bit of exhaust smell plus when you go inverted you will often get a sudden strong shot of avgas.

Granted, these are the extremes and were only achieved after much practice with gradually increasing degrees of violence. Even in our Cub we would often do loops and spins just for the fun of it. She was often seen hanging out the doorway of my buddies Piper Clipper taking air-to-air shots with just a friction lock lap belt on. We would remove the door on these occasions so whe could get an unobstructed view. She took this photo of me passing over the bank of the Potomac River on our way to a fly-in in Fredricksburg, Virginia.

This has wandered off topic a bit but explains why she is quite comfortable with the headtracking.

Regards, John

[aviatordave]

I have heard Typicalaimster and others say that you will knock someone out of the sky if they are on a Spektrum radio and you power up your 2.4GHz video gear.



Can that be true with so much other equipment on that freq? All the Ham bands, phones, walkie talkies....and so on @ ~2.4Ghz dont affect it but a downlink does?

I dont know...thats why I am asking :)

Maybe someone in the 'KNOW' with experience should start a thread relating to this and let Zavation keep his headtracking thread on track (which I am interested in as well ;) )

So anybody out there have experience in this area?

Dave :cool:

[Zaviation]

I will have direct experience with all the equipment shortly. I am getting the AR7000 and the AR6100 so I can check them both out with a variety of video downlink systems and with our own headtracker which will also be on 2.4ghz.

Matt has said that the DX7 with the AR7000 receiver will work in this busy RF environment. I am not sure about the DX6 but I doubt it. The AR7000 Diversity receiver is not compatible with the DX6 so that means that you can not have a diversity capability with the DX6.

The DX6 was meant to be a short range system for park flyers anyway so I doubt if it has the frequency agility of the DX7. If you are flying in a park flyer environment with a video downlink and someone is using a DX6 you may well interfere with him. I am not going to test the DX6 because I have no intention of ever using one.

Regards, John

[typicalaimster]

Wow I didn't read this thread till now.. Looks like I was mentioned..

In my experience the 600mw 2.4ghz TX will lock out a Spektrum radio. You have to separate the two by about 20-30 feet before you regain GOOD reception. By good I mean pressing the 'range check' button on the bottom of the DX6 and walk away 50 feet w/o dropping the signal.

Now then I'm not an expert with this so take it with a grain of salt. This is mostly my research about it on the web.

Spektrum is operating on Frequency Hopping Spread Spektrum. According to them it locks on to two channels and goes from there. From what I understand of FHSS the TX will broadcast on a channel for a moment and then hop to the next one. Other FHSS radios such as Bluetooth, Cordless phones, and 802.11 access points use the space in between other radios' broadcast to broadcast their data. Spektrum EXPECTS other devices to abide by this rule.

Our video TX's lock in on a single 2.4 ghz channel and stay there. From my understanding that is why we need a HAM radio license for them. Spektrum, the company, doesn't see it this way. According to them the video TX is not a FCC certified 2.4ghz device. They go on to say that is why the Spektrum will not work with the video device becaue of this reason. I went around and around with them when they were developing the DX6.

Now an interesting note. When you're in wifi land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Channels_and_international_compatibili ty) you have a total of 14 channels. They suggest that you only occupy channels 1, 6, and 11 to prevent overlapping into other channels. Channels 12, 13 and 14 are technically off limits in the US and a couple other countries. This is because channels 11 'overlaps into channel 14'. Where am I going with this? Well I've read reports where someone has a 'New 500mw video TX'. What I'm wondering is how many channels do these new TX's really have? Are some of these 'new' TX's able to operate on these upper 2.4 ghz channels that are not in use by FCC regulated 2.4ghz gear? I'm also wondering if the Spektrum also has the same overlapping you see in WiFi equipment.

[typicalaimster]

I didnt think that the 2.4 Ghz downlink will work with the Spektrum, isnt that true?

Actually it _should_ work.. I'll be switching over to this sort of system pretty soon with my video plane.

A 2.4 ghz unit such as the Maxstream which uses Spread Spectrum _should_ work with the Sketrum radios. If you notice you can use the Spektrum in your house with a cordless phone, Wifi, and bluetooth. As most everyone knows you can run several laptops off of 1 wireless access point. This is because the laptops are each taking their turns broadcasting between each other. However the more laptops the slower things get.

You will still want to add a bit of distance between the data modem and the Spektrum system. This would not be a setup that you'd want to put on top of one another.

[Zaviation]

I think we agree that the DX6 is questionable. Have you tried a DX7? Do you have any information about the DX7?

The DX7 is a different breed of cat. That is what I have on order and will be testing thoroughly. The other part of the problem is that a lot of people who use the DX6 are new guys with park flyers. That's what the DX6 was designed for. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everyone with a DX6 is a newbie or does not know what is going on. It is just that people who are a bit more in the know did not go for the DX6 because of its limitations.

Given that, we are not likely to find a large body of knowledge concerning the interference problem. Nor am I even interested in finding out more about the DX6 and interference. It is a limited system and was designed to be a limited system. If you want improvement go to a DX7 and I am not sure that will elimiinate the problems. That is why I am planning to test it. If we just refer to the Spektrum without specifying whether we are talking about the DX6 or DX7 what we are saying is meaningless.

Regards, John

[Mr.Pibb]

Mr Pibb: So you do find interference between the two systems or not?

My basement test showed no interference on my plane's controls. The video, however, had minor interference in it that went away when I stood in the right place with the DX6 TX.

When the weather breaks (In May? :rolleyes: ) I might just take my equipment outside and do a long range ground test to see how things work. I'm nervous to do anything in the air yet...

[Zaviation]

Mr Pibb,
What video system were you using and what power? What was the distance between your DX6 receiver in the plane and your video transmitter?
I'm not trying to be difficult but this is good information if it is complete.

Also, in your basement the interference may have been multi-path. Outside, well clear of metal objects will be better.

Thanks, John

[ob1]

I have been wondering for awhile what type of 2.4 video downlink inteference issues would show up at my field, if a bunch of guys got Spektrum radios for Christmas. Here is what I was able to determine at my field today regarding interference between DX6/DX7 Spektrum systems and my 600mw BWAV (Lawmate) tx/rx used for FPV on my EZ*.

If my buddy turns on either his DX6 or DX7 tx, his Spektrum rx locks on as expected. Then I turn on my onboard video tx, and if I am standing pretty close (0-30 feet) I get some buzzing noise in my goggle earphones and slight interference lines on my goggle screens. Once I move farther away (50-100 feet) there was no problem, and there was also no problem with actual flight of my EZ* with onboard video tx.

If we reversed our actions and I turned on my video tx first, then he turns on his DX6 or DX7, everything works fine for both of us, and I have no audio or video inteference. In both cases, his Spektrum tx/rx stuff always worked fine. This is exactly what I expected (hoped?) would happen. It means that since our 2.4 video tx/rx don't have the same "inteferece-avoidance" programming available, we will (may) notice some form of inteference with video and/or audio if the Spektrum radios at our fields were turned on FIRST. On the other hand, if you turn on your 2.4 video equipment FIRST and then others at the field turn on their Spektrum radios afterwards, there should be no inteference, since their Spektrum systems will find a pair of "clear channels" to lock on and will steer clear of the frequency that your video tx is on. If we were flying at the same time, the guys at my field today always let me turn on my video stuff first, and none of us experenced any video, audio, or flight problems when following that approach. Now if the makers of our video tx/rx equipment will just add the same inteference-avoidance capability (at no charge of course ;) ), we will be all set !
Hope this helps...
ob1