Comedee Wing-Q 2.4G Wireless HD Video Link for UAVs--Shenzhen Hollyland Technology Co.Ltd

Views: 1989

Comment by CrashingDutchman on August 30, 2016 at 4:33am

That is not a whole lot of information. I had to Google for more and found this: http://hollyland-tech.en.alibaba.com/product/60498058610-222485400/...

Features:

  • Working distance : 2KM (Unobstructed, Line-of-sight)

  • True Full HD 1080P at 30fps

  • Low latency to about 100ms

  • Plug-and-play HDMI HD Video input and output

  • Anti WIFI interference and robust anti-multipath DSP technology

  • Two separated high speed downlink transmitting channels for HD video & real time control data.

  • Two layers encryption : AES-128 & self-developed encryption algorithm in physical layer

  • Self-contained CAN bus and S-bus, compatible with popular MAVLINK, Futaba control protocol

  • Multi sets of TX&RX work together, anti-interference automatically

  • Light weight of air unit less than 100g

Packing List

  • 1Unit Air system.

  • 1Unit Ground system

  • 2pcs Air system MMCX antenna(2dBi)

  • 2pcs Ground system SMA antenna(5dBi)

  • 1pcs Power cable of Sky unit to flight control (Customized)

  • 1pcs HDMI Output cable

  • 1pcs User manual

  • Carton Packing

  • Air unit S_BUS cable (Customized)

  • USB cable

  • Power adaptor for Ground unit,12V

Comment by Arnaldo Santos on August 30, 2016 at 7:01am

It looks like a wifi modem and a raspberry pi ready to go with some nice case.

Comment by Patrick Poirier on August 30, 2016 at 10:10am

WOW !!

By looking at the last picture it can do time travel....;-)

Comment by Gary McCray on August 30, 2016 at 11:13am

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.


Moderator
Comment by Sgt Ric on August 30, 2016 at 12:19pm

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"

Comment by Patrick Poirier on August 30, 2016 at 12:30pm

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.


Developer
Comment by John Arne Birkeland on August 30, 2016 at 2:52pm

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...

Comment by Gary McCray on August 30, 2016 at 3:37pm

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

Comment by Patrick Poirier on August 30, 2016 at 5:01pm

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 :-)

Comment by Gary McCray on August 30, 2016 at 5:21pm

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

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

Groups

Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest 
A list of all T3 contests is here. The current round, the Vertical Horizontal one, is here

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service