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 was announced several months ago (March 2021) to allow our members ample 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.


FPV Experimenter
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cyber-flyer

  1. Yes, good to see that you keep this forum going and looking into new venues after all the years and flood of commercial products! I haven't done anything with HD analog transmission on my end, so your results are the first and I am curious. I have been playing with new VTOL design of my own and didn't have time for anything else. An interesting application (at least to me) will be a re-broadcast of video signal from a flying re-transmitter in beyond-line-of-sight environment. I haven't done any attempt to bridge two digital systems - maybe they will work just fine. But there will be an extra delay, and if they are on the same band the TX signal may flood RX inputs. I can see how an analog set up might work better for re-transmission if there is a way to properly match RX/TX bands. For example a 2.4 Ghz (or even 3.6 Ghz band for HAM operators) can be used for an uplink to re-transmitter, while 5.8 Ghz is used for the downlink. But there is a lot of wood to chop in making small and inexpensive wide band TX and RX devices available for different bands.
  2. I have just stopped by to see what is going on at the forum and was pleasantly surprised to read this. I think it is a very interesting development, thank you for sharing! For years I was interested in combining two or more SD streams for better quality HD picture, but this is a better way to do it. I am glad you have started this subject.
  3. I agree that classical style AHI will be counterintuitive. What required imho is a reversed AHI, so that you see craft's orientation like you are looking at it from above and slightly behind, instead of an imaginary horizon line. But possibly even better yet some sort of sensory feedback, like a servo pushing on your hand left or right, etc. Well, it is just an idea.
  4. Kilrah, I've looked at all three videos and actually liked the last one best. The first looks like fun but it reminds me of a race. While it is fun to be the driver of a racing car, watching driver's view is not pleasant. It may be just me then, but my vision of ideal FPV craft is the one with the stabilized camera (may be slowly following craft orientation) and some sort of visual feedback (like AHI) to let pilot see the exact orientation. You have asked the question - are we in FPV to have fun at the controls or watch smooth video. I guess I'd like to have the best of both worlds.
  5. Yeah, it took me awhile to come to the conclusion that steady video is better than the one coupled to the fuselage. In the early days I couldn't think of it because it ment lost control of the aircraft. But today, flight stabilizers and autopilots can take care of quick corrections. May be it is just me but I love the steady video that the brushless gimbals produce. Please, do tell the rumur mill...
  6. That is another reason why closed forum may be a good idea - we can concentrate on fun things, not "customer support"
  7. I agree that the fast moving image doesn't require HD. But fast pitching and tilting video is not fun. While it helps figure out drone orientation it takes away from flying experience. When birds fly their heads are moved in such way as to make image stable, while their bodies can pitch and bank like crazy. That's why I like new gimbals for FPV - they can stabilize the image to make HD viable. We obviously need a way to let pilot know the tilt and bank angle of the plane, but not through the video!
  8. Hi Kilrah, good to hear form you! Let me comment on some of the things you and Thomas has mentioned. First of all I agree that the flood of cheap FPV technology from China has changed our hobby, most likely made this forum a ghost town and made it possible for people don't care about DIY aspect of the hobby. But IMHO DJI's Phantom is a great product and we shouldn't dismiss or degrade it just because it is affordable and plug and play. I would like to draw an analogy to car assembly line innovation. Affordable cars resulted in huge number of deaths and other stupid and careless things. But with time people figured out how to make the best use of affordable cars and it transformed our society. I suggest that drones can be on the same path. I give both thumbs up for DJI and Phantom in particular. And I am in no way associated with DJI. All I am saying, let people stumble and do stupid things with Phantoms, they only do it because it is fun (for them). Also, I am against discussions on how we should protect 'our hobby'. I just think those things are beyond our control - there are always be fools, let's not spend our time on them.
  9. How about this? Get a core group of people on this forum. Let them express their wish list. Everybody votes on everybody ideas, then some sort of ranking is done and a couple of overall best ideas is selected. They go to crowdfunding site with the whole RC-CAM forum as a principal name behind the projects. If these ideas get funded, they are distributed to members who expresses desire to work on them. It sounds a bit complicated and more logistics may need to be worked out, but what do you think?
  10. I think the original RC-CAM forum was a place where three kinds of members met: those who liked the process of tinkering with equipment, those who were using the new equipment and those who tried to meet the two sides by commercializing the field. For me the main driver was always the end application - the next exciting thing you can do with the new OSD or autopilot, etc... It was fun to think of something, build it and then see it fly. I agree with Terry: something needs to re-light the fire. If you ask me, it should come from the flying field. If you can think of something that China has not build yet, but it can be fun to fly, lets go for it.
  11. Thomas, Why do you think this forum has became "ghost town"? If you rewind time back to 2000, what would you've done differently with the regard to this forum? Val.
  12. Well, thank you for remembering my turnstile effort! Also to make the matters straight Raja didn't coin FPV term. He is my good flying buddy and he often was piloting my FPV planes during those days. But he didn't care what name we are going to call it, I did. As far as China making all those cheap toys, I have mixed feelings about it as well. But it is reality, the best way is to move on and use what we have at hands. Let's not reinvent cheap premade drones, but take them and make the next step. The question is what could be the next exciting thing in this hobby? To me the question is - would one like to see drones more atonomous (e.g. using optical motion flow for obstacle avoidance) or giving more immersive experience to the pilot (e.g. HD downlinks)?
  13. I am curious, what would you consider to be the most exciting product/innovation over the last few years with regard to FPV flight? I find brushless gimbals to be amazingly cool - I can't wait till China start making them small enough to pair with board cameras. With regard to the closed forum: I suggest to limit it to technical discussions. Of course a moderator can decide if inappropriate activity is discussed and close the thread. I am not sure how to define qualifications for new members either. May be first you send out invitations to few members that you know and trust, and then we can come up with a set of qualifications.
  14. Hi Thomas, I am making my way back into the hobby. 15 yrs down the road I still haven't figured out how to make the hobby happily co-exist with my other half Nowdays, when I am out flying, people around have no idea what's going on - all they see is a bunch of antennas... I'd like to keep it that way. Which brings me back to the closed forum question. I thought about trusted members as well. If the new "closed" forum started, the only people that can join it will be those introduced and vouched for by the current members. It doesn't completely eliminate a chance for an unwanted outsider to get inside but at least it will reduce unnecessary trolling of the discussions. I am sure other people have thought about this problem, that is why I am asking.
  15. I have a question: is there a forum that discusses FPV ideas but is closed to a general public? Something that will let in only those individuals who were proven not to associate themselves with FAA? If not, do you think such a forum needs to be organized?
  16. Hi guys, thank you for kind words! I didn't move on, I don't think I ever will, I just don't have as much time as I used to. I still fly my FPV setup every time I have an opportunity. I agree, majority of challenges and the fun to solve them is mostly gone now. I have decided to trademark FPV after I saw the letters came across on my Bloomberg at work!
  17. Hello guys! It's being long time for me out of the hobby. And the google search took me here today. Yes indeed I have applied for the trademark. Not because I want to chase someone, but I don't want anybody else using it for a commercial profit. And yes at this point the govt attorney came back and said that "FPV" is too generic to be used as a trademark. So I have one option and little time left to figure out if I want to continue. Anyway, it's nice to see the same people here. This hobby has grown huge! Cheers to everybody! Val.
  18. I also noticed a difference from time to time in GPS performance. But never looked at more than one unit at a time. Interesting idea about sun effects.
  19. Daniel, the IMU discussion deserves its own thread. Let's start it. That will be just a test of accelerometers. The actual flight will test if blending of gyros and accelerometers is done properly. If one doesn't have a calibrated IMU, the next best thing will be to put a model into a steep banking turn lasting at least 10 seconds, than quickly recover to a horizontal position and compare IMU output with visible horizon. This condition is impossible to reproduce on the ground, unless one have an access to a big centrifuge.
  20. You need to tune PID loop in any case as Kalman filter will only "read" the system but not control it. May be there is a reason for that, besides the fact that people are lazy I mean complexity of the approach may prevent detection of otherwise apparent problems. But if you have one working - that's very cool! That's would be good, I don't know anybody who's done comparison of different methods, especialy in actual flight. How would you propose to compare different approaches? Calculating attitude errors during flight will require second, benchmark IMU on board.
  21. Alex, I second your opinion - no real need for Kalman filter for this project, much simpler filter will work. To correctly implement Kalman filter one needs to know system dynamics equations and proper values for system noise and observation noise. None of them are well defined except may be the observation noise values. People often end up using truncated version of the Kalman filter where ad-hoc values were plugged in for Q/R matrices and with some very simplified assumptions of the dynamics. It still works but no longer can be called the "optimal" and the result may be no better than with much simpler filter. Daniel, I don't know what version of Kalman filter you are using, but if it works - great!
  22. Came across this Ebay auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/The-last-Co...bayphotohosting It's kind of interesting to read the story behind the contraption. I wonder why did they fail to control it. It wasn't that long ago, so they should have had reasonable gyros and solid state motor controllers. I think it comes back to the discussion of scaling up quadrocopter. I suspect it is not as easy as just making props and motors bigger. But it is just a suspicion at this point.
  23. Interesting, thanks for the info. This does make things easier for scaling up.
  • Create New...