Here I am, the chap you speak of. Reporting in for any questions that you or anyone may have and I'm here to completely answer all of them.
You're right on target with the wifi data protocol and the WISP guys have been doing this for years, I myself one of them. (www.intellilinkcommunications.com). It's not rocket science to get good data rates over the air it's just a matter of antenna, power, and frequency. I built my first prototype with off the shelf components and it fits on a 3DR Y6 but with not much room to spare. The purpose of the Kickstarter is to shrink the whole system down to a minimal size. My goal is to have everything on one board minus the camera. If anyone would like a fully functional version the device right now without any Kickstarter involvement you can get it here http://www.4stateuav.com/product/long-range-hd-fpv/ Any input or suggestions?
Not a scam or vaporware. Sorry
I used ethernet rj-45 100Mbps and 802.11 WIFI protocol.
You're totally right about range that's given with RF. Totally dependent on your specific situation. However a experienced person could choose the best setup for the situation and get great results.
Please show us pictures of the actual device(s), technical details (inputs, outputs, resolution, fps, compression, latency, modulation, power, antenna etc), demo videos recorded on earth (how clear and smooth, choppy or not, what happens if there are temporary dropouts) and so on. The obvios details to show us how the system works, how good it is.
The only picture on Kickstarter (the ground statinon) is rather disappointing. The video on the monitor seems to be a usual analog SD transmission&OSD (minimOSD?). Pretty strange considering you are advertising HD streaming.
(assuming you are behind the kickstarter)
sorry to nuke your argument , but you made it so easy it's funny.
802.11 is an very old protocol from the early days of Wifi , limited to around 1Mbit
*No-one* that's developing something like this today, would omit the final letters after 802.11 - because that's what have made the actual difference the past 10 years. and saying 802.11 is as if somebody boasted these days an "advanced multorotor" by saying it uses "brushless AC motors" - it just reveals the true level behind.
I worked with IT security for many years, so I know that very well. - Then you manage to mix in RJ-45 - an standard ethernet connector, - as if that was some great piece of information.
Where would ethernet be relevant when using one or all of the other frequencies beside wifi ? - nowhere ? - just the IP packet overhead would be impractical for 900Mhz use.
Picture and videos are coming soon it's been raining here lately. Here is a system overview to hold you over: P.s. (Good eye on the minimOSD) That is in fact nothing more than a analog stream. It was just to show an example of what this system does) except obvously this one is far superior in it's capabilities. I'll be adding photos & videos of the hd stream and whole system ASAP on the kickstarter update page. Stay tuned.
What you show is basically off-the-shelf components that existed for years.
I think we all know WiFi, within allowed transmission power - have no chance of reacing any decent FPV requirements, it won't reach reliably even 200m.
(I assume no breaking FCC or other rules, have no very high gain, tracking antennas at both ends)
Then you still have to show the same system, decent, not too compressed , actual HD , using 900Mhz :)
You do not focus on the problem with packet loss, and quick recovery - which is non existing until you stream over UDP.
Luckily, most people know how far Wifi reach, and won't get tricked. - Also wifi near a 2.4Ghz RX will strongly reduce RC range, (juse the mess an Gopro makes.) - not everybody flies planes with 4 meter wingspan and option to separate RX/telemetry/video properly.
Actually, by posting this video, and not seeing the hard parts, or trying to BS people too much about them - I do not believe you are up to an scam, just eager to get funding and make such hardware.
Your next step would be to load it up into a plane, and fly around for range testing - please post that video.
You're absolutely correct about the off the shelf components. Although If I went to walmart and bought a wireless router I would be extremely lucky to get my laptop to connect to it from 100m away.
How is this possible? Even though I know for a fact I can shoot 5ghz for 15 miles and get 70mbps download and 70mbps download thats with less than 16dBi antennas on both ends of the link (20MHz channel width). (Although 900mHz would provide better signal strength and penetration, but not necessarily better data rates because of interference with other 900Mhz access points in my flying area.) It is because of the radios themselves and their respective configurations and/or mounting locations. www.ubnt.com
The packet loss issue is one that can be improved upon most definitely but with all RF you are expected to at least experience some packet loss. This is why it is so important to have your ACK timeout set properly so the radios aren't waiting an exceptionally long time before retransmitting.
The data coming from the Pixhawk to the ground station is UDP, I have also tested TCP also but did not notice any discrepancies in performance from one to the other.
The 2.4 Wireless router @ the ground station will in fact affect your 2.4 TX performance to some degree. In order to minimize this effect I have changed the output power of the ground station 2.4 wifi to an extremely low power output (5dB) that allows connections up to 15ft, but doesn't reach the aircraft RX. If this is still not acceptable you can remove the 2.4 wifi ground station unit entirely and use a LAN cable into your ground station, if the mission requires.
I am making range testing video coming very soon.
Thank you for your comments!