Jump to content

Attention: RC-CAM.com will be closing down August 2021.

The RC-Cam.com forum was the very first online community dedicated to the advancement of wireless video cameras on radio controlled (R/C) models. This is now called "FPV" (First Person View). We are proud of the contributions that our members have made to the FPV hobby.

We've seen significant changes over the last twenty years. Initially there were a lot of eager R/C hobbyist that built their own video systems. Allowing these creative individuals to share their work was the purpose of this site. Now the FPV market is flooded with low cost systems; Sadly DiY FPV video projects are now rarely discussed.

RC-CAM.com (main site and forum) will be closing down August 2021. This is being announced now (March 2021) so that everyone has time to download any information that is important to them. After the site is shutdown the information will no longer be available here.

We appreciate every member's involvement with advancing the FPV hobby. It is indeed sad to say goodbye to all our online friends. Be safe and stay healthy.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Raptor30

  • Rank
    RC-Cam Visitor
  1. the word is the astro flight 109 ($125)is very good and the schulse 6330 (or something like that) is even better and of course even more expensive ($220) they say Triton is slow as sh*t comparatively and hobbico doesn't fully charge
  2. why does a 3 watt Tx costs so much more than a 500mW Tx?? i may be wrong but don't they both cost nearly the same to make??
  3. what exactly sete the freq in a Tx and a Rx? in other words, what one component or transister, i guess, can be swapped out with a component of a different value to change what freq a transmiter transmits on and a receiver receives on?
  4. they look exactly like the cheap 1.2GHz models off of ebay...it's as if he's buying them and modified them to 900MHz and 2.4GHz and uping the output. i mean, EVERYTHING else is the same, cases, 4 channel switch, color... and the one he sells as a pcb board is likely just one he removed the case from. what are your thoughts?
  5. i'm trying to find a 'smart', fast, and cheap LiPo charger that can do any number of cells.. anyone have a favorite?
  6. yup, the antennas on cell towers are not designed for anything but ground signals not to mention cell phones are just extremely complicated radios that transmit at the power of about half a watt.
  7. they are also available by themselves (not integrated with thier own receiver). the new one has more options and IMO is better.
  8. i've got this little 3 stage fm transmitter i put together and with it came this 'tester' circuit (peaking circuit) which "is simply an RF detector that uses diodes to charge a capacitor" anyway i put it on my 9CAP's antenna and hooked the other end to a speaker. after that it made a low humming niose that CHANGED pitch as each joystick was moved. can a circuit be built that will cange the carrier wave's freq w/out losing/changing the signal and then have another circuit built that changes it back to how it was orriginally. they're both frequency modulated, just at different frequencies..so
  9. you make some very good points but wouldn't the output from the antenna of your Tx look like that of your speaker?? i think it would exept of course they're operating at different frequencies.. so what if you could convert that signal (from the Tx ant.) to something that could pass through the circuitry of the cell phone's mic input without frying it and then, from the output of the heli's cell, convert it back to 72.xxxMHz. you're absolutely right when you said the stream from the Tx BEFORE it gets to the antenna is like apples to oranges to what a speaker's output looks like. BUT if you take
  10. yea, i'll pay no problem but there has to be a well defined fully working system first that can send control and receive video at a decent framerate while still being cost effective by still just using your cell phone minutes. if anyone can do it i'm all for it. i don't understand why a component can't be bought for a cell phone so that it transmits at 56K like everything else. why are we limmited to 9.6k? i'll do whatever it takes to get a system like this working that doesn't use RF. do you realize how cool it would be to just be able to sit in you house and fly ANYWHERE? w/out worring about
  11. i read about what you and cyber flyer are try to do and from what i understand u've been partially successful. would sending/encoding the Tx pusle string at a live rate be possible at this point or is this even harder than what you're trying to do w/ cyber-flyer? you stated earlier that i would likely need a 17k+ packet rate to accomplish this and from what i understand current technology only allows 9600baud. if this is true using a sat phone would be the answer...i guess. i need to figure out the right path to take to successfully turn this idea into reality in the cheapest, simplist way. wh
  12. could you explain, in more detail how your prototype works? from what i gather you're encoding the data via the trainer port to a packet format so it can be sent over the internet..but i don't understand your problem thoroughly..you can't get it encoded fast enough to be real-time? im sure i could help you out if i can get up to speed. also my receiver is not PCM. couldn't the RF waves be reproduced from audio?couldn't it be just that simple? couldn't you just have a radio set to receive on 72.xxxMHz and wire it's speaker to the mic of the phone and then on the heli have a transmitter th
  13. all i would need is a regular cell phone and some device that can translate the RF into audio (so it could go to the cell on the heli) and then back to RF and that would be the end of it. if it's possible to do what im asking i shouldn't need a sat phone or a cell modem. i'm not at all worried about dropped calls or the cost of getting a more expensive cell phone plan. it's all WELL worth that risk if it's possible. so the key question again is; CAN AN RF SIGNAL BE TRANSLATED TO AUDIO AND THEN TRANSLATED BACK? no satellite phone, no cell modem, nothing but a device that will encode the
  14. i can't see how it would cost more than all the stuff you would need for good FPV or to have a good UAV helicopter ststem. just look at all the work and especially money that went into cyber-flyer's setup. think of what you would get; unlimited range; sit in your living room and fly ANYWHERE you want as long as you have enough gas for it. no worrying about trees, buildings interfering with your RF signal or how far away your heli is. IF IT IS POSSIBLE (to send control and receive a/v via a cell phone), IT WOULD BE, BY FAR, MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN ANY RF SYSTEM. ps, if you did figure out all
  15. you would just need co-pilot and altitude hold to turn on while you redial the #
  • Create New...