Thread Tools
Oct 14, 2011, 09:58 AM
Registered User
Sander your arguments are good but I have to consider your opinion biased as you have a $$ stake in it. I would say the same if Sid was pointing out flaws in EZUHF.

You should talk about how good EZUHF is on its own thread otherwise it just looks like bashing.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 14, 2011, 10:22 AM
Up up and away!
FpvKiwi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peatmoss View Post
Sander your arguments are good but I have to consider your opinion biased as you have a $$ stake in it.
Opinions have nothing to do with it. This regards an objective measurement of out-of-band interference. Sid has dodged this question all-together or not understood it. What does EzUHF or any other system have to do with how RangeLink perform?

It should not matter who makes a statement as long as it is factual. What if Sander happens to be the most knowledgable on the subject? But I'd be careful saying things like "design something that shows engineering competence" since it comes close to getting personal.
Last edited by FpvKiwi; Oct 14, 2011 at 11:04 AM. Reason: I meant EzUHF
Oct 14, 2011, 10:47 AM
Registered User
"What does EzOSD or any other system have to do with how RangeLink perform?"

Nothing, but if your trying to sell EZUHF...
Oct 14, 2011, 11:12 AM
Registered User
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by peatmoss View Post
Sander your arguments are good but I have to consider your opinion biased as you have a $$ stake in it. I would say the same if Sid was pointing out flaws in EZUHF.

You should talk about how good EZUHF is on its own thread otherwise it just looks like bashing.
Oct 14, 2011, 11:19 AM
Up up and away!
FpvKiwi's Avatar
Right, I meant EzUHF. It was Sid that brought up EzUHF, hence the rethorical question.
Oct 14, 2011, 12:45 PM
Suspended Account
I find it baffling that every comment I make is explained as yours truly having an agenda which has something to do with selling his own products.

I'm sorry, but if I was misrepresenting things, or twisting facts and subsequently plugging my own stuff I'd say there's some truth to that, but I'm not, far from that really.

What I am pointing out is evident from the information provided by Sid in this topic as well as his previous design (Chainlink) which just pissed over just about anything in the 433MHz band and in bands that were harmonics of that.

And now all of a sudden I am the bad guy here? Some of the fanboys here really need to dig their head out of their ass and rinse off the poo as it is obscuring their view ...
Oct 14, 2011, 03:10 PM
Registered User
mark the shark's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peatmoss View Post
Sander your arguments are good but I have to consider your opinion biased as you have a $$ stake in it. I would say the same if Sid was pointing out flaws in EZUHF.

You should talk about how good EZUHF is on its own thread otherwise it just looks like bashing.
Here here +1..
Oct 14, 2011, 04:53 PM
fast
fmkit's Avatar
Hey Sid!
I found nothing wrong with your spectrum diagram, 3rd harmonic is low enough and the carrier supposed to look like digitally modulated.

How many packets per second do you transmit ? What latency ?
I hope your PPM can handle short sync unlike other UHF systems that require stupid constant frame rate that makes them slow responding because of long frames.
When in multi-master mode how you gonna handle throttle and other no self-centering stick channels ?
Oct 14, 2011, 06:21 PM
Chinglish-funny
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmkit View Post
Hey Sid!
I found nothing wrong with your spectrum diagram, 3rd harmonic is low enough and the carrier supposed to look like digitally modulated.

How many packets per second do you transmit ? What latency ?
I hope your PPM can handle short sync unlike other UHF systems that require stupid constant frame rate that makes them slow responding because of long frames.
When in multi-master mode how you gonna handle throttle and other no self-centering stick channels ?
>How many packets per second do you transmit ? What latency ?
about 20ms every packet, attach 10ms+.

>I hope your PPM can handle short sync unlike other UHF systems that require stupid constant frame rate that makes them slow responding because of long frames.

sorry, it need, low tx rate, more range;

>When in multi-master mode how you gonna handle throttle and other no self-centering stick channels ?

master do not more than one at same time,,, user should make sure and guarantee this condition;


Sid
Thanks
Oct 14, 2011, 06:22 PM
Chinglish-funny
My blog update:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/member.php?u=352541


Sid
Oct 18, 2011, 12:46 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
Here is short video with 2 RangeLink TX, one with LPF inside, second without LPF, i have try with few diferent video rx and and i cant find any glitch on video or some other problem...
Frequency scaned from 910MHz up to 1360MHz, on all channels clear image, 5 diferent tx: lawmate 100mW,500mW and 1W, FOX800mW,HK900MHz 200mW...antennas: stock,patch,yagi...
But today i make range test on ground, side by side with DragoLink, same antennas on TX, same on RX and [email protected], result is dramatic for DL, after 2km in city DL(500mW) go to hard core FS and RL still on air
I will make this test again with video, probably tommorow if i catch some time...

RangeLink test_1 (1 min 35 sec)


sorry for quality, recorded with small Canon495
Oct 18, 2011, 12:52 PM
RTFM
octane81's Avatar
Thats all good , but when you fly out far , and the video signal becomes weaker than you might experience interferance from the UHF.
Thats my experience at least.
Oct 18, 2011, 01:24 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by octane81 View Post
Thats all good , but when you fly out far , and the video signal becomes weaker than you might experience interferance from the UHF.
Thats my experience at least.
mate i have tested and this, only on one cheap video rx i get some interference when UHF tx was closer that 1m, only on 1320/1360MHz
on Lawmate is picture cristal clear in all conditions, from 1040-1280MHz
Oct 18, 2011, 03:34 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by octane81 View Post
Thats all good , but when you fly out far , and the video signal becomes weaker than you might experience interferance from the UHF.
Thats my experience at least.
My experience also. I really need a filter for my chainlink but I wish I had known the rangelink would be coming out. Sid or Davorz, do you sell an addon LPF for my chainlink or is there any way to "upgrade" from CL to rangelink?

- Jeff
Oct 18, 2011, 04:00 PM
Kiwi in Germany
whakahere's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkarnacki View Post
My experience also. I really need a filter for my chainlink but I wish I had known the rangelink would be coming out. Sid or Davorz, do you sell an addon LPF for my chainlink or is there any way to "upgrade" from CL to rangelink?

- Jeff
love to change mine cl too. i get noise on chainlink on the 5.8ghz band


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yippee! NEW DRAGON LINK ADVANCED: Full Telemetry, Bluetooth, Droid Planner, Data Modem JettPilot FPV Equipment 80859 Today 09:30 AM
New Product ChainLink UHF Long Range System siim227 FPV Talk 2853 Jul 01, 2013 04:23 PM
New Product ChainLink--The new UHF narrow band long range system BEVRC FPV Talk 878 Jun 08, 2013 06:53 PM
New Product UHF Long range JR / Futaba module Hooks FPV Talk 18 Aug 13, 2012 05:46 AM
Sold [VDS]LRS thomas scherrer UHF + 2 receivers long range LTS49 FPV Equipment (FS/W) 8 Jul 22, 2011 03:55 PM