ezuhf jr direct fit vs orange rx open lrs
- Thread starter sarpilot
- Start date
OrangeRX doesn't seem to have a USB port for programming. Certainly, it's programmable, but if it doesn't have built in USB, you probably need an external programmer and some custom wiring. My understanding (from my research, not from personal experience)is that openLRSng is better than the stock firmware that comes with most/all of these modules, so the ability to flash is quite desirable.
ezUHF has the external power switch and head tracker port. Up to you whether that's a value or not.
ezUHF advertises GFSK modulation. I can't figure out whether that is something that all of the 433 MHz units do, and they're just playing up the marketing, or whether it is unique to ezUHF.
The power output difference is only 3 dB, which equates to 50% additional distance. That's not nothing, but you can go REALLY far on 433 MHz at even as little as a few hundred milliwatts, so it may not matter in reality.
One factor that may sway some people is that the ImmersionRC stuff is all set up to work nicely together--that is, if you have EzOSD, and Immersion vTX, etc... it should all plug together nicely and easily. Not a big deal for the real hackers, but it may matter to some.
The price of the receivers is substantially different. The OrangeRX 9 channel receiver is $20 on Hobbyking. The Immersion 8 channel "lite" receiver is $100 and the diversity receiver is $125. So even if you thought you could swing an extra $50 for the module, you're going to pay out the nose for the receivers. Unless maybe they're cross-compatible? I don't know.
ezUHF has the external power switch and head tracker port. Up to you whether that's a value or not.
ezUHF advertises GFSK modulation. I can't figure out whether that is something that all of the 433 MHz units do, and they're just playing up the marketing, or whether it is unique to ezUHF.
The power output difference is only 3 dB, which equates to 50% additional distance. That's not nothing, but you can go REALLY far on 433 MHz at even as little as a few hundred milliwatts, so it may not matter in reality.
One factor that may sway some people is that the ImmersionRC stuff is all set up to work nicely together--that is, if you have EzOSD, and Immersion vTX, etc... it should all plug together nicely and easily. Not a big deal for the real hackers, but it may matter to some.
The price of the receivers is substantially different. The OrangeRX 9 channel receiver is $20 on Hobbyking. The Immersion 8 channel "lite" receiver is $100 and the diversity receiver is $125. So even if you thought you could swing an extra $50 for the module, you're going to pay out the nose for the receivers. Unless maybe they're cross-compatible? I don't know.
Last edited:
I'm building this thing for search and rescue use I've been wanting to build one of these for 10 years our technology is catching up where this is affordable now to do. I have a basic understanding of how to build one from the hours spent on YouTube.
What I'm after is something with about a 4-5 mile radius solid reception on both video and control. osd and gps return home capability and 30 minute flight time.
I have a gopro 3 but the video recording is not a must. Best resolution for video transmit is what I'm after so I can see people in fields. In our area most of the search call outs we get are Alzheimer's walk aways and unfortunately they are very difficult to find.
What I'm after is something with about a 4-5 mile radius solid reception on both video and control. osd and gps return home capability and 30 minute flight time.
I have a gopro 3 but the video recording is not a must. Best resolution for video transmit is what I'm after so I can see people in fields. In our area most of the search call outs we get are Alzheimer's walk aways and unfortunately they are very difficult to find.
I am not personally experienced with FPV, but I am working up to building an FPV plane, so I have done a lot of studying and maybe I can be some use to you. Here are my thoughts:
30 minute flight time is achievable with multirotor, but at some expense. You can get there much cheaper with a fixed-wing plane. For search and rescue, the ability to hover and fly low at arbitrarily slow speed might be necessary, especially given the quality of current FPV camera gear, so fixed wing might not be viable.
Current FPV wireless equipment is basically all SD, so there is a practical upper limit to the resolution that can be achieved. There is no point in getting higher than 600 lines of resolution from your camera if recording and post-flight playback is not a factor. However, camera quality DOES matter, in terms of dynamic range, for example. Better cameras will do a good job showing details in shadows without blowing out entirely when the sun comes into view. The cameras that are ideal for recording post-flight playback (GoPro, Mobius), are actually not the best for FPV flying (dynamic range). This is one reason why many FPV pilots will have one camera for piloting through, and a second camera for recording high-resolution, beautiful video. If, on YouTube, some of the ground is lost in shadow, who cares? But you need to see that detail when flying, or doing search and rescue.
Here's an example of a camera that is optimized for FPV flying, not recording: http://www.getfpv.com/lumenier-cu-690-ultra-690tvl-ultra-wdr.html
30 minute flight time is achievable with multirotor, but at some expense. You can get there much cheaper with a fixed-wing plane. For search and rescue, the ability to hover and fly low at arbitrarily slow speed might be necessary, especially given the quality of current FPV camera gear, so fixed wing might not be viable.
Current FPV wireless equipment is basically all SD, so there is a practical upper limit to the resolution that can be achieved. There is no point in getting higher than 600 lines of resolution from your camera if recording and post-flight playback is not a factor. However, camera quality DOES matter, in terms of dynamic range, for example. Better cameras will do a good job showing details in shadows without blowing out entirely when the sun comes into view. The cameras that are ideal for recording post-flight playback (GoPro, Mobius), are actually not the best for FPV flying (dynamic range). This is one reason why many FPV pilots will have one camera for piloting through, and a second camera for recording high-resolution, beautiful video. If, on YouTube, some of the ground is lost in shadow, who cares? But you need to see that detail when flying, or doing search and rescue.
Here's an example of a camera that is optimized for FPV flying, not recording: http://www.getfpv.com/lumenier-cu-690-ultra-690tvl-ultra-wdr.html
Incidentally, there is at least one HD resolution wireless video downlink. I think that it's made by DJI, and it's called LightBridge, but boy howdy it's not cheap. The nominal range is 1.7 km, so it's nowhere close to what the ezUHF can do. For long range video downlink, you're definitely going to be restricted to SD.
I've got the orange openLRS setup. I wouldn't recommend it for something mission critical. If you want to use openLRS go with the DTFUHF version instead - much higher quality on the hardware. But even then I'm not sure I'd suggest it for something mission critical as the software side just isn't as stable as I'd like for that.
The thing is the EzUHF is plug and play (or at least as plug and play as UHF gets, it's not something to jump into blindly and with any UHF system you need to be licensed.) while the openLRS is much more hands on and changes constantly.
The openLRS is fairly easy to reflash, you do need an adapter (commonly called an "FTDI adapter" though FTDI is just the most popular manufacturer of the chip used and there are others by prolific with a different chip that do the same thing...FTDI's drivers on the computer side tend to be better than Prolifics in my experience.) but the adapters are easy to find and usually run <$5 - they're also useful for programming smaller MW boards that don't have built in USB and a number of other things. The big problem with flashing the openLRS TX is that there's no access to the programming pins without opening the case, on mine I "fixed" this shortcoming in a minute or so with my dremel.
I like openLRS overall. But. The orange units are not well designed or made. And the software is changing rapidly on the openLRSng front (and honestly that's the only version of the firmware you'll really want to be using.) because of this stability is a bit questionable on some releases - and due to how the software for openLRS is designed it's kind of a pain to stay on an older stable version since the chrome based setup/flashing utility will update itself automatically and will only work with the latest firmware on the TX/RX. So every time the team updates the code your utilities update automatically and you have to reflash your RX/TX to the latest firmware to change anything with the config program again.
For a hacker/experimenter openLRS rocks. For something like SAR - it's just not reliable enough for me to recommend.
The thing is the EzUHF is plug and play (or at least as plug and play as UHF gets, it's not something to jump into blindly and with any UHF system you need to be licensed.) while the openLRS is much more hands on and changes constantly.
The openLRS is fairly easy to reflash, you do need an adapter (commonly called an "FTDI adapter" though FTDI is just the most popular manufacturer of the chip used and there are others by prolific with a different chip that do the same thing...FTDI's drivers on the computer side tend to be better than Prolifics in my experience.) but the adapters are easy to find and usually run <$5 - they're also useful for programming smaller MW boards that don't have built in USB and a number of other things. The big problem with flashing the openLRS TX is that there's no access to the programming pins without opening the case, on mine I "fixed" this shortcoming in a minute or so with my dremel.
I like openLRS overall. But. The orange units are not well designed or made. And the software is changing rapidly on the openLRSng front (and honestly that's the only version of the firmware you'll really want to be using.) because of this stability is a bit questionable on some releases - and due to how the software for openLRS is designed it's kind of a pain to stay on an older stable version since the chrome based setup/flashing utility will update itself automatically and will only work with the latest firmware on the TX/RX. So every time the team updates the code your utilities update automatically and you have to reflash your RX/TX to the latest firmware to change anything with the config program again.
For a hacker/experimenter openLRS rocks. For something like SAR - it's just not reliable enough for me to recommend.
looking at http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__56213__HobbyKing_Super_H_600_QuadCopter_KIT_.html
or http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/...it_US_Warehouse_.html?strSearch=hobbyking pre
hobbyking super h or the predator for a platform i love to get something from flitetest but i need big for this application.
adding http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/..._Flight_Controller_USB_GYRO_ACC_MAG_BARO.html
hobbyking mega 2.7 flight controller with gps
or http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/...it_US_Warehouse_.html?strSearch=hobbyking pre
hobbyking super h or the predator for a platform i love to get something from flitetest but i need big for this application.
adding http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/..._Flight_Controller_USB_GYRO_ACC_MAG_BARO.html
hobbyking mega 2.7 flight controller with gps
Honestly. I think you're approaching the project wrong. You need to work up to what you want. Right now you're trying to dive into the deep end off the high dive in uncharted waters when you've barely dipped your toes in the water.
Start smaller and closer and work on incrementally increasing your distance. You've got a lot to learn still and trying to take the whole firehose at once is going to hurt
Antennas will be critical. If you haven't got an amateur radio license yet that's the first place to start (and there are lots of SAR guys in radio / radio guys into SAR so you should have no problems finding some help) find someone local with a lot of radio experience who can help you with antennas and RF issues.
The duration and distances you're talking about are not going to be easy to achieve. Start with more reasonable proven expectations and work up to the moon shot.
Start smaller and closer and work on incrementally increasing your distance. You've got a lot to learn still and trying to take the whole firehose at once is going to hurt
Antennas will be critical. If you haven't got an amateur radio license yet that's the first place to start (and there are lots of SAR guys in radio / radio guys into SAR so you should have no problems finding some help) find someone local with a lot of radio experience who can help you with antennas and RF issues.
The duration and distances you're talking about are not going to be easy to achieve. Start with more reasonable proven expectations and work up to the moon shot.
I'm a very experienced ham unfortunately there is 0 people in this area that do quads much less fpv. I'll be one of the local firsts. I've had several gas planes and crashed every one of them. All I can do is watch videos and read. I'm getting a 9xr shipped to me all the videos I saw looked like a good first step radio. My next step is a mini quad to get a feel for the controls I've also had 2 helicopters destroyed both as well honestly I love the hobby I just suck at it. I'm also hoping with fpv I get in the cockpit and have better control.
This is also nothing I'm having a immediate budget for I'm building a bit at a time hopefully have something in the air by Christmas.
honestly I love the hobby I just suck at it. I'm also hoping with fpv I get in the cockpit and have better control. This is also nothing I'm having a immediate budget for I'm building a bit at a time hopefully have something in the air by Christmas.
but there is a problem with 1.2 ghz on a quadcopter ANTENNA SIZE everyone seems like they are running 5.8 ghz but from what ive seen is the range sucks any ideas?
someone just tell me what the heck i need
1.3 GHz cloverleaf can be flown on a quad...
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img145/2239/img9143p.jpg
Especially because the kind of quad you're probably talking about, with the kind of flight times you're talking about, will probably be on the larger size.
Ok - sounds like you're on a better track than I was assuming then, I figured as a SAR guy you had decent exposure to radios but the comment about 1.2 antennas being too big and questions about frequencies for a VTX threw me off
I got my ticket in 3rd grade more decades ago than I care to admit at this point (not too many, I'm still in my 30's for 8 more months!) but once the frequency gets above UHF I get freaked out. I did a bit of 2.4g s band work when the Echo sat launched but never was able to get a successful downlink. Microwaves are black magic in my book and I have a hard time cutting even a straight wire to an accurate enough length to serve as a 2.4g antenna So it's not like I can talk about being experienced with RF but not well versed in the higher frequencies!
Just about any frequency you use for your video link should be able to handle the distances - but it won't be easy. I'd lean towards 1.2 just because at those distances the chances of something getting in the way are a lot higher and 1.2 penetrates so much better than 5.8. But even with 1.2 you're going to need a directional antenna on your base station with enough gain that keeping it aimed may get tricky (or complex/expensive.)
The 9xr is a great radio (other than the ugly metalized plastic all over it that I don't care for) and should be great for you. A mini quad to start with is also a great idea. But I'd also suggest a mid-sized 350-450 sized quad (The FT knuckle is dirt cheap to build and flies great!) setup for FPV to get used to FPV before moving onto your main project. Switching to FPV really is almost like starting over again. It's just such a different experience and point of view it really takes some serious re-learning. So be sure to get yourself something smaller and easier to repair and learn FPV on that in close poximity before making the jump to LRS.
I got my ticket in 3rd grade more decades ago than I care to admit at this point (not too many, I'm still in my 30's for 8 more months!) but once the frequency gets above UHF I get freaked out. I did a bit of 2.4g s band work when the Echo sat launched but never was able to get a successful downlink. Microwaves are black magic in my book and I have a hard time cutting even a straight wire to an accurate enough length to serve as a 2.4g antenna
So it's not like I can talk about being experienced with RF but not well versed in the higher frequencies!Just about any frequency you use for your video link should be able to handle the distances - but it won't be easy. I'd lean towards 1.2 just because at those distances the chances of something getting in the way are a lot higher and 1.2 penetrates so much better than 5.8. But even with 1.2 you're going to need a directional antenna on your base station with enough gain that keeping it aimed may get tricky (or complex/expensive.)
The 9xr is a great radio (other than the ugly metalized plastic all over it that I don't care for) and should be great for you. A mini quad to start with is also a great idea. But I'd also suggest a mid-sized 350-450 sized quad (The FT knuckle is dirt cheap to build and flies great!) setup for FPV to get used to FPV before moving onto your main project. Switching to FPV really is almost like starting over again. It's just such a different experience and point of view it really takes some serious re-learning. So be sure to get yourself something smaller and easier to repair and learn FPV on that in close poximity before making the jump to LRS.
Honestly what think I need to do is buy all the electronics first then see what airframe I can pack this into. Teamblack sheep has a pretty good one. I've found another place that wanted like 1800.00 for a kit that would be what I'm looking for but I think I could build a lot less than that.
Similar threads
