Thanks alot for the discussion and presumption. I know there are not so quite clear abt Wireless Video transmission operating Instruction and principles.So let me add some extra informations of our WING-Q
4.1 Application Diagram Description
4.2 Video Input
Support all types HDMI camera or Pan/Tilt
SDI has to convert to HDMI
Video Format：1080-60、1080-48、1080-30、1080-24、720-60
4.3 Video Output
1.HDMI、USB2.0 HD Video Output
2.Video Format support: Highest Resolution 1080P 30Fps
l Video Format：1080-60、1080-48、1080-30、1080-24、720-60
HDMI
Type D
P_CAN
l Power
l CAN BUS
l Power input
l CAN_BUS Interface（OSD）
l MAVlink Protocol
Customized
S_BUS
l Remote control output
l S_BUS
l Futaba remote control signal to flight control
Customized
Upgrade
l firmware control and upgrade
l Downstream 2Mbps bandwidth input
l Downstream 2Mbps bandwidth does not occupy the HD video channel, support the special information pass back.
Micro USB
MMCX
l Antenna interface
l 2
l connect to PCB antenna
MMCX
Ground Side
HDMI（out）
l HD Video Output
l 1080P30
HDMI
Type C
USB
l HD Video Output
l Power Out
l Connect to mobilephone, Ipad, etc.
Macro USB
Power
l Power
l Standard 12V
470 socket
S_BUS
l Remote Control Input
l Receive the signal from remote control
3.5mm audio socket
upgrade
l Firmware version control and upgrade
Micro USB
SMA
l Antenna Interface
l 2pcs
l Connect to PCB Antenna
SMA
and John is right that we are doing Professional Wireless HD and SDI Video transmission with Technical Solution No images Compression and No latency. but for our transmission of Broadcasting industry and we use 5GHz Frequency to avoid the signals interferences.
But for our Comedee Wing-Q specially for UAVs we support 2.4Ghz and this is mostly conerned in the discussion about 2.4GHZ WiFi to interfere with 2.4GHZ RC transmitters / receivers. 2.4Ghz support many frequency points to set to avoide the interference. We also support S_Bus port,just need to provide us protecool link of UAVs to help the avoidance of interference. We are doing Professional Video transmission without images compression and Low Latency, so this is the Best Hit for our products. so if you are interested, you can contact me for a demo to test.
and any suggestions abt our products will be appreciated. We can research and develop together.
I am pretty sure the 100ms quote is for the transmission part only, so you will have to add camera latency (typically 50-100ms) and monitor refresh (worst case 33ms at 30fps) for true glass-to-glass latency.
Having built one (commercially where I work) I can say that making a true <100ms glass-to-glass Ethernet h.264 streaming video system is far from trivial, and pretty much impossible if you want to support off the shelf cameras and monitors on a standard interface like for example HDMI.
100ms is a lot better than my Solo's 500 to 1000ms but you are right, definitely near zero latency for FPV racing.
Would be fine for photo and video setup and flying though.
I did notice that comment about Futaba servos but they also referred only to down-link (IE transmitter in vehicle and receiver on ground.)
Of course they may not understand when to use the terms up and down link.
So really hard to interpret "control signals and Futaba servo reference".
I suppose you are right though in typical Chinese documentation fashion it is certainly possible that they have not expanded on an actual flight control capability.
However there is also no reference for a control scheme, firmware or implementation for this either.
While that would eliminate the crosstalk problem it would introduce the necessity to make your system compatible with their control scheme which would open a giant can of worms - namely interfacing with existing flight controllers in a meaningful way.
For the most part, if that is what they are trying to sell - a full WiFi solution with simple flight surface controls - I will be surprised if they find any support, especially at the unit price they have listed.
The simple fact is that modern UAS in that price category are going to need to interact in real time with a sophisticated flight controller.
Their illustrations also show it on a Quadcopter with a GPS, that would presume that either they have a full blown flight controller built in or they are expecting it to be used with a full blown flight controller which sort of takes you back to the whole RC interface thing again.
100ms is a lot better than my Solo's 500 to 1000ms but you are right, definitely near zero latency for FPV racing.
Would be fine for photo and video setup and flying though.
I did notice that comment about Futaba servos but they also referred only to down-link (IE transmitter in vehicle and receiver on ground.)
Of course they may not understand when to use the terms up and down link.
So really hard to interpret "control signals and Futaba servo reference".
I suppose you are right though in typical Chinese documentation fashion it is certainly possible that they have not expanded on an actual flight control capability.
However there is also no reference for a control scheme, firmware or implementation for this either.
While that would eliminate the crosstalk problem it would introduce the necessity to make your system compatible with their control scheme which would open a giant can of worms - namely interfacing with existing flight controllers in a meaningful way.
For the most part, if that is what they are trying to sell - a full WiFi solution with simple flight surface controls - I will be surprised if they find any support, especially at the unit price they have listed.
The simple fact is that modern UAS in that price category are going to need to interact in real time with a sophisticated flight controller.
I totally agree with your assertion, you can find my experiments with this issue here.
I like John Arne proposal to get into UHF, this would be the easiest way if you want to keep a RC backup strategy.
BTW befinitiv had a very clever way to share the 2,4 Ghz spectrum here , by the use of a CPLD used as a SPI injector on the CC2500 radio module to limit the spectrum of the Radio Control so it is not interfering with the mapped WFI channels.
The reason why I am guessing that it is a WIFI transmission exclusively (just the 802.11 stack is on the air) is this text: Self-contained CAN bus and S-bus, compatible with popular MAVLINK, Futaba control protocol.
So you can either use your RC (FUTABA) as Joystick and feed through the WIFI and control the bird using the as SBUS port or MAVLINK (without having the transmitter module attached) for manual control. But I suspect the standard use case would be flying fully auto mode from the GCS, just like when flying a SOLO with Tower on a tablet.
But with a 100 msec latency I would not try FPV racing with this setup :-)
Although they refer to a control downlink channel they do not clarify what controls and my presumption would have been related to video only and it says downlink not uplink which is what you would need to provide vehicle control.
In order to be useful in a UAS, generally you will I beleive have to also include an RC Radio for control in addition to this video setup.
Unless you have some information to the contrary.
RC transmitters broadcast on 2.4GHZ, Some Wifi Broadcasts on 2.4GHZ.
The GoPros WiFi broadcasts on 2.4GHZ.
It is a well experienced reality that using the GoPro's WiFi for video in a UAS is asking for problems.
It is very common for 2.4GHZ WiFi to interfere with 2.4GHZ RC transmitters / receivers.
Even if the signals are not identical, the proximity of receivers and transmitters (and their antennas) makes it very likely destructive interference will be received.
Basically, RF is still RF.
It may well be that their technology will prevent or reduce interference from other sources on the video, but that does not mean they won't produce interference on your 2.4 GHZ RC radio control system.
2KM out you want your RC link at 433/900mhz anyways.
Looking at the other products from this company, they at least look solid and the company seem to be specialized in video tech so there is hope. But they seem to focus on making professional and high end video products, so expect professional prices..
Concerning the RC conflict; There is NO RC in this setup , so it is relying on WIFI signal and when the signal is lost ii is swiching to failsafe and initiate a RTL or Land depending on GPS status.
Comments
Hi Patrick and Gary,
Thanks alot for the discussion and presumption. I know there are not so quite clear abt Wireless Video transmission operating Instruction and principles.So let me add some extra informations of our WING-Q
4.1 Application Diagram Description
4.2 Video Input
4.3 Video Output
2.Video Format support: Highest Resolution 1080P 30Fps
Air transmittor:
Details: Interface Instructions
Interface
Application
Remarks
Interface Types
Sky Side
HDMI(IN)
l HD Camera Input
l Support all Types HDMI camera ouput
l Video Format：1080-60、1080-48、1080-30、1080-24、720-60
HDMI
Type D
P_CAN
l Power
l CAN BUS
l Power input
l CAN_BUS Interface（OSD）
l MAVlink Protocol
Customized
S_BUS
l Remote control output
l S_BUS
l Futaba remote control signal to flight control
Customized
Upgrade
l firmware control and upgrade
l Downstream 2Mbps bandwidth input
l Downstream 2Mbps bandwidth does not occupy the HD video channel, support the special information pass back.
Micro USB
MMCX
l Antenna interface
l 2
l connect to PCB antenna
MMCX
Ground Side
HDMI（out）
l HD Video Output
l 1080P30
HDMI
Type C
USB
l HD Video Output
l Power Out
l Connect to mobilephone, Ipad, etc.
Macro USB
Power
l Power
l Standard 12V
470 socket
S_BUS
l Remote Control Input
l Receive the signal from remote control
3.5mm audio socket
upgrade
l Firmware version control and upgrade
Micro USB
SMA
l Antenna Interface
l 2pcs
l Connect to PCB Antenna
SMA
and John is right that we are doing Professional Wireless HD and SDI Video transmission with Technical Solution No images Compression and No latency. but for our transmission of Broadcasting industry and we use 5GHz Frequency to avoid the signals interferences.
But for our Comedee Wing-Q specially for UAVs we support 2.4Ghz and this is mostly conerned in the discussion about 2.4GHZ WiFi to interfere with 2.4GHZ RC transmitters / receivers. 2.4Ghz support many frequency points to set to avoide the interference. We also support S_Bus port,just need to provide us protecool link of UAVs to help the avoidance of interference. We are doing Professional Video transmission without images compression and Low Latency, so this is the Best Hit for our products. so if you are interested, you can contact me for a demo to test.
and any suggestions abt our products will be appreciated. We can research and develop together.
B.R
Chany
I am pretty sure the 100ms quote is for the transmission part only, so you will have to add camera latency (typically 50-100ms) and monitor refresh (worst case 33ms at 30fps) for true glass-to-glass latency.
Having built one (commercially where I work) I can say that making a true <100ms glass-to-glass Ethernet h.264 streaming video system is far from trivial, and pretty much impossible if you want to support off the shelf cameras and monitors on a standard interface like for example HDMI.
Hi Patrick,
100ms is a lot better than my Solo's 500 to 1000ms but you are right, definitely near zero latency for FPV racing.
Would be fine for photo and video setup and flying though.
I did notice that comment about Futaba servos but they also referred only to down-link (IE transmitter in vehicle and receiver on ground.)
Of course they may not understand when to use the terms up and down link.
So really hard to interpret "control signals and Futaba servo reference".
I suppose you are right though in typical Chinese documentation fashion it is certainly possible that they have not expanded on an actual flight control capability.
However there is also no reference for a control scheme, firmware or implementation for this either.
While that would eliminate the crosstalk problem it would introduce the necessity to make your system compatible with their control scheme which would open a giant can of worms - namely interfacing with existing flight controllers in a meaningful way.
For the most part, if that is what they are trying to sell - a full WiFi solution with simple flight surface controls - I will be surprised if they find any support, especially at the unit price they have listed.
The simple fact is that modern UAS in that price category are going to need to interact in real time with a sophisticated flight controller.
Their illustrations also show it on a Quadcopter with a GPS, that would presume that either they have a full blown flight controller built in or they are expecting it to be used with a full blown flight controller which sort of takes you back to the whole RC interface thing again.
So much speculation - not enough facts.
Best,
Gary
Hi Patrick,
100ms is a lot better than my Solo's 500 to 1000ms but you are right, definitely near zero latency for FPV racing.
Would be fine for photo and video setup and flying though.
I did notice that comment about Futaba servos but they also referred only to down-link (IE transmitter in vehicle and receiver on ground.)
Of course they may not understand when to use the terms up and down link.
So really hard to interpret "control signals and Futaba servo reference".
I suppose you are right though in typical Chinese documentation fashion it is certainly possible that they have not expanded on an actual flight control capability.
However there is also no reference for a control scheme, firmware or implementation for this either.
While that would eliminate the crosstalk problem it would introduce the necessity to make your system compatible with their control scheme which would open a giant can of worms - namely interfacing with existing flight controllers in a meaningful way.
For the most part, if that is what they are trying to sell - a full WiFi solution with simple flight surface controls - I will be surprised if they find any support, especially at the unit price they have listed.
The simple fact is that modern UAS in that price category are going to need to interact in real time with a sophisticated flight controller.
Best,
Gary
Hello Gary,
I totally agree with your assertion, you can find my experiments with this issue here.
I like John Arne proposal to get into UHF, this would be the easiest way if you want to keep a RC backup strategy.
BTW befinitiv had a very clever way to share the 2,4 Ghz spectrum here , by the use of a CPLD used as a SPI injector on the CC2500 radio module to limit the spectrum of the Radio Control so it is not interfering with the mapped WFI channels.
The reason why I am guessing that it is a WIFI transmission exclusively (just the 802.11 stack is on the air) is this text: Self-contained CAN bus and S-bus, compatible with popular MAVLINK, Futaba control protocol.
So you can either use your RC (FUTABA) as Joystick and feed through the WIFI and control the bird using the as SBUS port or MAVLINK (without having the transmitter module attached) for manual control. But I suspect the standard use case would be flying fully auto mode from the GCS, just like when flying a SOLO with Tower on a tablet.
But with a 100 msec latency I would not try FPV racing with this setup :-)
Hi Patrick,
Although they refer to a control downlink channel they do not clarify what controls and my presumption would have been related to video only and it says downlink not uplink which is what you would need to provide vehicle control.
In order to be useful in a UAS, generally you will I beleive have to also include an RC Radio for control in addition to this video setup.
Unless you have some information to the contrary.
RC transmitters broadcast on 2.4GHZ, Some Wifi Broadcasts on 2.4GHZ.
The GoPros WiFi broadcasts on 2.4GHZ.
It is a well experienced reality that using the GoPro's WiFi for video in a UAS is asking for problems.
It is very common for 2.4GHZ WiFi to interfere with 2.4GHZ RC transmitters / receivers.
Even if the signals are not identical, the proximity of receivers and transmitters (and their antennas) makes it very likely destructive interference will be received.
Basically, RF is still RF.
It may well be that their technology will prevent or reduce interference from other sources on the video, but that does not mean they won't produce interference on your 2.4 GHZ RC radio control system.
Best regards,
Gary
2KM out you want your RC link at 433/900mhz anyways.
Looking at the other products from this company, they at least look solid and the company seem to be specialized in video tech so there is hope. But they seem to focus on making professional and high end video products, so expect professional prices..
http://www.hollyland-tech.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a...
Could it be a WifiBroadcast implementation ?
Concerning the RC conflict; There is NO RC in this setup , so it is relying on WIFI signal and when the signal is lost ii is swiching to failsafe and initiate a RTL or Land depending on GPS status.
Good point about the R/C conflict.
I don't know what is meant by their point "Anti WIFI interference and robust anti-multipath DSP technology"
I notice it's operating at 2.4 GHZ, isn't that a problem in conflicting with RC transmitter / receiver as in GoPro Wifi?
I'll believe the 100ms latency when I see it, if it is that is really great - but:
I have a Solo which looks like it works very much the same way and latency is between 500 and 1000ms (.5 - 1 second).
Also, $1000.00 unit from ShenZen where obvious cargo container lots are expected is going to keep the margin a bit low.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next