Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Mar 20, 2017, 06:56 PM
Badass Service Mofo at Hubsan
Quote:
Originally Posted by himmelfahrer View Post
Well, I guess there are two sides to every story. I read in these forums about folks that are already preparing to upgrade their software even before receiving their new drone. I am sure there are numerous cases of perfectly working quadcopters that begin to have problems after a firmware update just as there are problems that are solved by these updates. Also, as with any new product introduction, early updates solve problems and sometimes create new ones and that, after things get settled, firmware updates are more likely to cause a problem when not needed. It might serve the brand better to limit access to the updates. Perhaps "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" might apply in some cases.
I would agree. There's a lot of this. Most firmware issues are in fact this very issue- people upgrading because they think "more is better". I haven't been able to film the updated upgrade video that I've been wanting to because I've had pink-eye and good luck putting on camera make up when that's the case. Hence why we've taken down the updates for now- because we don't want people updating out of the blue without clearly understanding the situation from our videos.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 20, 2017, 07:19 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by annegottagun View Post
I would agree. There's a lot of this. Most firmware issues are in fact this very issue- people upgrading because they think "more is better". I haven't been able to film the updated upgrade video that I've been wanting to because I've had pink-eye and good luck putting on camera make up when that's the case. Hence why we've taken down the updates for now- because we don't want people updating out of the blue without clearly understanding the situation from our videos.
Again, I must disagree. Those of us who immediately upgrade don't want "more", instead we want to decrease our chances of nightmare scenarios posted on these forms.

It is NOT too much to expect from a company that a newer version has less bugs.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Mar 20, 2017, 07:27 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camen View Post
Again, I must disagree. Those of us who immediately upgrade don't want "more", instead we want to decrease our chances of nightmare scenarios posted on these forms.

It is NOT too much to expect from a company that a newer version has less bugs.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Have you ever owned a PC with Microsoft?
Mar 20, 2017, 07:52 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by himmelfahrer View Post
Have you ever owned a PC with Microsoft?
Yes, since DOS 2.10.
Point taken though.
Mar 21, 2017, 05:00 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camen View Post
Again, I must disagree. Those of us who immediately upgrade don't want "more", instead we want to decrease our chances of nightmare scenarios posted on these forms.

It is NOT too much to expect from a company that a newer version has less bugs.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Question. How many people with the 501S have had no problems?
Answer. Unknown because they do not need to visit forums such as these.

Question. How many people with the 501s have had problems.
Answer. Many, they are on this forum and you could count them.

My point is that people visit these forums and get a very skewed idea of things, all negative, the positive side is rarely reported so to start messing with firmware with a skewed view is asking for trouble.

I have been involved in computing since the 1970s and have some understanding of software testing. Imagine trying to replicate the interaction of FC, RX and TX firmwares and all the environmental variables involved. A nightmare and as such testing would take a very long time if it was to be 100%. So it is released with the basics tested and over time further releases will tend towards to optimum, but never quite get there. As a result is always best to be at the back of the queue when updating firmware, let the gun ho types test it first. You just have to close your ears when they start moaning that it is not perfect, like, what did they expect!

I think us 501S users are very lucky to have a company, such as Hubsan, that is willing to engage so closely with so many people in trying to perfect the firmware as there are very few companies that would be willing to do this.

Rant over.
Mar 21, 2017, 05:48 AM
Registered User

video


Hubsan h501s flight over country homes (8 min 33 sec)

Went flying yesterday...little wind ..but not bad
Mar 21, 2017, 07:07 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzoneo View Post
Question. How many people with the 501S have had no problems?
Answer. Unknown because they do not need to visit forums such as these.

Question. How many people with the 501s have had problems.
Answer. Many, they are on this forum and you could count them.

My point is that people visit these forums and get a very skewed idea of things, all negative, the positive side is rarely reported so to start messing with firmware with a skewed view is asking for trouble.

I have been involved in computing since the 1970s and have some understanding of software testing. Imagine trying to replicate the interaction of FC, RX and TX firmwares and all the environmental variables involved. A nightmare and as such testing would take a very long time if it was to be 100%. So it is released with the basics tested and over time further releases will tend towards to optimum, but never quite get there. As a result is always best to be at the back of the queue when updating firmware, let the gun ho types test it first. You just have to close your ears when they start moaning that it is not perfect, like, what did they expect!

I think us 501S users are very lucky to have a company, such as Hubsan, that is willing to engage so closely with so many people in trying to perfect the firmware as there are very few companies that would be willing to do this.

Rant over.

Word!
Mar 21, 2017, 07:22 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteCell View Post
Word!
I agree
Mar 21, 2017, 07:30 AM
Registered User
Hello people,

I have the 501s with advanced transmitter , but with original antenas 2.4 and 5.8 , i have some intereferences after 200m distance .

I have already tested many different frequencies 5.8 and after 200m I always lose some signal and the image gets rainy.

Do you think this 5.8 antenna is better than original ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/351360720854

how many dbi's has original antenna 5.8 GHz ?

thanks
Mar 21, 2017, 07:44 AM
Registered User
jimq26's Avatar
Use the search feature on this forum to get your answer. Very simple and fast way to learn.
Mar 21, 2017, 08:11 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganante View Post
Hello people,

I have the 501s with advanced transmitter , but with original antenas 2.4 and 5.8 , i have some intereferences after 200m distance .

I have already tested many different frequencies 5.8 and after 200m I always lose some signal and the image gets rainy.

Do you think this 5.8 antenna is better than original ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/351360720854

how many dbi's has original antenna 5.8 GHz ?

thanks
I have the same question and I found this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradox Pete View Post
The difference between the advanced controller and the standard is the type of antennas and the connections.
The 2.4Ghz TRXs are identical as are the VRXs.

The only difference in range therefore can be down to the overall gain of the system.

2.4Ghz

Both units have a sleeved dipole, nominal gain of 2.4dBi.

In the standard unit this is connected to the TRX via a single uFL connector and a short feeder.
Total gain is 2.4dB - connector and feeder loss - lets guess at 0.4dB so gain is 2dBi.

Advanced has sleeved dipole. This is mounted externally on a longer feeder and has an extra back to back SMA connector.
Total gain 2.4dB - connecor and feeder loss - lets guess at 0.8dB so gain is 1.6dBi.
Add to this the ease in which you can cross polarise (because the antenna is not fixed) and you can easily subtract another 6dB!

Overall the standard controller will easily perform better at control range.


5.8Ghz
The standard controller has a biquad antenna with a nominal gain of 11dBi
In the standard unit this is connected to the VRX via a single uFL connector and a short feeder.
Total gain is 11dB - connector and feeder loss - lets guess at 0.8dB so gain is 10.2dBi.

Advanced has a PCB patch antenna with a quoted gain of 14dBi. This is mounted externally on a longer feeder and has an extra back to back SMA connector.
Total gain 14dB - connector and feeder loss - lets guess at 1.6dB so gain is 12.4 dBi. (same feeder and connectors will give twice the loss at 5.8G)
Add to this the ease in which you can cross polarise, not aim at the target and narrower beam width (because the antenna is not fixed) and you can easily subtract another 6dB!
So for video, on paper the Advanced has a 2.2dB advantage.
But, and it's a big but, the quoted 14dBi is a magical figure. The construction of the antenna using glass fibre dielectric would suggest that it is in fact nothing close to that in reality. I'd be surprised if it comes close to the performance of the airspaced biquad.

All anecdotal data suggests that the biquad setup performs better than an advanced controller out of the box.

Of course there are many many factors that could change this one way or the other, but 2km should be easily achieved from either controller by just adding batteries and switching on....

If I was to recommend a controller for the best (range) performance, without hesitation it would be the standard (unmodified) one
(Which is why I have two!)
YMMV

I have also found this http://qeltakeoff.blogspot.ro/p/h501...revisions.html saying that the power is limited by the software in my case. Anyone managed to use the full power on the latest firmware?

If this is true I am thinking now not to replace the antennas on my standard transmitter but rather move them outside the box like I've seen somewhere in this thread.
Mar 21, 2017, 08:20 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganante View Post
Hello people,

how many dbi's has original antenna 5.8 GHz ?

thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradox Pete View Post
The difference between the advanced controller and the standard is the type of antennas and the connections.
The 2.4Ghz TRXs are identical as are the VRXs.

The only difference in range therefore can be down to the overall gain of the system.

2.4Ghz

Both units have a sleeved dipole, nominal gain of 2.4dBi.

In the standard unit this is connected to the TRX via a single uFL connector and a short feeder.
Total gain is 2.4dB - connector and feeder loss - lets guess at 0.4dB so gain is 2dBi.

Advanced has sleeved dipole. This is mounted externally on a longer feeder and has an extra back to back SMA connector.
Total gain 2.4dB - connecor and feeder loss - lets guess at 0.8dB so gain is 1.6dBi.
Add to this the ease in which you can cross polarise (because the antenna is not fixed) and you can easily subtract another 6dB!

Overall the standard controller will easily perform better at control range.


5.8Ghz
The standard controller has a biquad antenna with a nominal gain of 11dBi
In the standard unit this is connected to the VRX via a single uFL connector and a short feeder.
Total gain is 11dB - connector and feeder loss - lets guess at 0.8dB so gain is 10.2dBi.

Advanced has a PCB patch antenna with a quoted gain of 14dBi. This is mounted externally on a longer feeder and has an extra back to back SMA connector.
Total gain 14dB - connector and feeder loss - lets guess at 1.6dB so gain is 12.4 dBi. (same feeder and connectors will give twice the loss at 5.8G)
Add to this the ease in which you can cross polarise, not aim at the target and narrower beam width (because the antenna is not fixed) and you can easily subtract another 6dB!
So for video, on paper the Advanced has a 2.2dB advantage.
But, and it's a big but, the quoted 14dBi is a magical figure. The construction of the antenna using glass fibre dielectric would suggest that it is in fact nothing close to that in reality. I'd be surprised if it comes close to the performance of the airspaced biquad.

All anecdotal data suggests that the biquad setup performs better than an advanced controller out of the box.

Of course there are many many factors that could change this one way or the other, but 2km should be easily achieved from either controller by just adding batteries and switching on....

If I was to recommend a controller for the best (range) performance, without hesitation it would be the standard (unmodified) one
(Which is why I have two!)
YMMV
I am having second thoughts now after reading this if replacing the antennas on my standard controller makes any difference or just move them outside the box.

I have also read that latest firmware has strong limitations on TX power to comply with FCC. Anyone managed to increase the TX power on latest firmware?
Mar 21, 2017, 09:30 AM
Registered User
John Luciano's Avatar
The trans distance is relative to the power of the Transmitter. Unless u make an increase in its wattage the antenna will have only a slight improvement. You are not going to double distance by changing an antenna . Anyone know the power of the transmitter?
Mar 21, 2017, 09:31 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by pin_73 View Post
I am having second thoughts now after reading this if replacing the antennas on my standard controller makes any difference or just move them outside the box.
Like the first pic, for example? People have reported improved FPV range doing so, but it seems a little fragile and exposed. Maybe it could be enclosed in a plastic box but that defeats the purpose. I really like the method used by spacedude4040 in the second attachment. Everything stays safely inside. Even if it doesn't improve the signals, I assume it wouldn't make matters worse.

I know nothing about radio transmission and was surprised to learn that the plastic housing of the transmitter could degrade the signal. You can see in the final attachment just how thick the plastic is. I'd like to hear Pete's technical opinion of this mod.
Mar 21, 2017, 09:47 AM
WI, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Luciano View Post
Anyone know the power of the transmitter?
Depending on the firmware, it is either:

1) 2dBm (1.5mw) reduced to pass FCC certification

2) 13dBm (20mw) full power


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Hubsan X4 PRO H109S 5.8G Real Time FPV RC Quadcopter CitizenKane Mini Multirotor Drones 6 Nov 29, 2016 06:03 PM
New Product Hubsan H107D FPV X4 RC Quadcopter RTF With 5.8G FPV 6CH Transmitter richos Mini Multirotor Drones 47 Feb 19, 2016 03:33 AM
Discussion Hubsan 5.8ghz FPV X4 H107D Micro Funtimegrandpa Mini Multirotor Drones 1 Feb 06, 2014 05:02 PM
Discussion Hubsan X4 H107D 5.8ghz FPV Micro Funtimegrandpa FPV Aircraft 0 Feb 01, 2014 10:46 AM