Hey thanks for the review! To answer your questions: -What our "alpha" units actually are, are our 3rd internal units that we believe are ready for the public to start tinkering and testing with. As such we're already a few stages in R&D with what you received. -The 800mW VTX does not need a fan! Earlier version had it but we managed to handle the heat without a fan by this third version -You can use Ethernet or USB-C to configure your system -Our 100mW VTX is much closer to a finished product and where we put a lot of R&D into to help make HD more accessible while the 800mW is definitely more catered towards long range enthusiasts and people really wanting to test the limits of OpenIPC
Thanks for the response! Could you explain the power settings on the receiver side? The 2W receiver is kinda confusing... is this bidirectional? The RunCam version doesn't have any power setting on the receiver side so I think this could use some more explanation, thanks!
@@marblekitfpv Do you ever notice how when you're in an area with poor signal, your phone will drain more battery? Wifi, 5g, radio, on the receiving side, you can amplify weak signals by using up more power in order to "increase its range", which is something our phones and many devices do in the backend. So our 2W RX is for people wanting longer range, but it will drain power more, we're just listing out the specs on that so people know what they're getting. I'm speaking in layman's terms, I'm sure an rf engineer can correct me and explain this in much greater detail. But here's a summary I pulled up: The receiver's power rating is more about the device's total power consumption, including its amplifiers, processors, and possibly any other onboard functions like decoding or buffering. The higher wattage allows it to process the incoming signal more reliably. It doesn’t impact the range or sensitivity of the receiver directly but allows it to handle the signal efficiently once received.
Great overview of the Emax OpenIPC test units. The whoop board and receiver look legit. Looking forward to seeing your test results. Curious about the power output ratings of the receivers, interesting. Happy flying Albert. 😎
Iam really looking forward to openipc stuff coming out, i cant see myself spending multiple hundred dollars on some goggels alone. Ive got a quest 2 on hand. Which is plenty for up to 1080p120
Latency testing on this phone setup is definitely pointless. When they have goggles to test that people can buy, I would be interested in a latency test at that point.
I hope so. I think a solid VRX solution is needed before anyone takes OpenIPC seriously. The DIY solutions are just too difficult for most normal FPV people. Only the hard core techies will be able to build their own VRX.
@@marblekitfpv Not so fast :) There are simple solutions, like RubyFPV, for the same hardware, where you just flash your firmware to the sd card, connect power and radio to Radxa and it's ready to be used. Same for Radxa + OpenIPC: flash firmware, ready to use. But yes, people want to buy something absolutelly ready to use, plug and play: Connect battery and it works, no sd card flashing needed.
@@marblekitfpvI have to disagree with you there. Buying a SBC (radxa), attaching a usb WiFi dongle and burning a SD card image doesn't seem so hard...
still a long way before thats ready im afraid , not even sure if the openIPC guys will even have enough money to actually get the manufacturing of it of the ground yet ,but the prototype lens and display looks good so far . the best we do have right now is a DIY VRx module to attach to your hdmi capable goggles rn , hopefully bigger manufacturers can work on a better ready built version soon
FYI MarioFPV has mentioned this was in the works and apparently posted a image of beta goggles for honorary members on his channel. I'm not an honorary member so haven't actually seen what he was referring to though. i.e I don't know how beta they were.
I expect a LOT to change in the next few months which is why I just plan to plug this stuff in and go fly it. Doing deep dive testing right now is a waste of time because it will all be obsolete information in 2 weeks anyway.
@@marblekitfpv Yes and no: The hardware platform is pretty much settled. Unless a new more powerfull SOC shows up, the hardware platform is final so to speak. Other than the design of RF frontends (which is extremely important) the hardware platform, and what it is capable of, will still be this one going forward. All of them (OpenIPC Mario AIO, Runcam, Emax) use the same SOC: SSC338Q and same radio chips: RTL8812AU/EU. Changes can be on the software side of things. There things are progressing. How much? It's not for me to answer that.
@@petrusoroaga6528 I think his point is that there's nothing on the screen side to do latency testing on. No one cares about latency through that phone (which no one can buy anyway). When there are goggles or a VRX to buy with HDMI out, then latency testing is appropriate. Otherwise, totally meaningless data.
@@JoshFPV24 Mad tech's dropping a video that has some comprehensive latency testing soon i think this or next week , as for latency alot of work is being done to optimise for lower latency, petru is the guy that developed rubyHD which i personally prefer over the wfb solution but right now ruby is not quite optimised yet for the radxa DIY VRx module that you can make so it has a higher latency than wfb right now that may change in the coming months and years .Though I do wish a manufacturer could make a ready built VRx module for us , i suppose the market is too small right now to support the cost of R&D and manufacture to build one right now . The goggles are a work in progress I would not expect them any time soon apart from if we are lucky some news about the design by the end of this year (some details have been shared and videos of the lens' and display but thats all i can say since its paywalled behind MarioFPV's channel mebership) .If any of the information ive said is wrong im pretty sure @petrusoroaga6528 can correct me on it
People ask about latency so they can determine if it is a product they should check out because that affects how they will interact with the craft on the other end.
Noob here, will this fit in the tinyhawk 2 freestyle? If so, does this boost the vtx as well? I set the vtx to 200 and I still loose video to the goggles at about 100 yards.
Wonder if the watt rating on the receiver is for transmitting. Unlike HDZero which is receive only, DJI/Walksnail transmit some data for retransmission. (Extra latency, but better pen)
I wouldn't exactly suggest flying the small whoop board using the phone method , personally the radxa board wth 2 wifi boards attached as a VRx module to attach to your goggles should give you the best performance but that will require alot of time that im assuming you and most people won't have tbh, but im looking forward to the review and your insights on the performance
Also openipc-fpv(the default firmware) has a control link to the drone in development, currently being tested. Video retransmission is not planned at the moment due to using wfb_ng which relies of FEC for link reliability instead.
There's two system available for use - openipc itself and rubyfpv which has bidirectional link. All this information are available on relevant resources.
Congrats to @JoshFPV for winning the giveaway in today's premiere. Early bird got the worm!
The whoop one would be an instant buy for me. I have the Runcam and i'm pretty satisfied overall but i want to put openIPC on my 3 inch
Hey thanks for the review!
To answer your questions:
-What our "alpha" units actually are, are our 3rd internal units that we believe are ready for the public to start tinkering and testing with. As such we're already a few stages in R&D with what you received.
-The 800mW VTX does not need a fan! Earlier version had it but we managed to handle the heat without a fan by this third version
-You can use Ethernet or USB-C to configure your system
-Our 100mW VTX is much closer to a finished product and where we put a lot of R&D into to help make HD more accessible while the 800mW is definitely more catered towards long range enthusiasts and people really wanting to test the limits of OpenIPC
When (if) can we expect a standalone VRX to be able to buy? (Similar with Walksnail: hdmi output, no phone needed)
Thanks for the response! Could you explain the power settings on the receiver side? The 2W receiver is kinda confusing... is this bidirectional? The RunCam version doesn't have any power setting on the receiver side so I think this could use some more explanation, thanks!
@@marblekitfpv Do you ever notice how when you're in an area with poor signal, your phone will drain more battery? Wifi, 5g, radio, on the receiving side, you can amplify weak signals by using up more power in order to "increase its range", which is something our phones and many devices do in the backend. So our 2W RX is for people wanting longer range, but it will drain power more, we're just listing out the specs on that so people know what they're getting. I'm speaking in layman's terms, I'm sure an rf engineer can correct me and explain this in much greater detail. But here's a summary I pulled up:
The receiver's power rating is more about the device's total power consumption, including its amplifiers, processors, and possibly any other onboard functions like decoding or buffering. The higher wattage allows it to process the incoming signal more reliably. It doesn’t impact the range or sensitivity of the receiver directly but allows it to handle the signal efficiently once received.
@@EMAXUSA Ah, that makes sense. So it's about power consumption on the receiver side. Got it!
@@petrusoroaga6528 I'm interested in that or goggles. I don't think anyone will want to fly through a smartphone screen.
Great overview of the Emax OpenIPC test units. The whoop board and receiver look legit. Looking forward to seeing your test results. Curious about the power output ratings of the receivers, interesting. Happy flying Albert. 😎
Thanks for the intro.
Iam really looking forward to openipc stuff coming out, i cant see myself spending multiple hundred dollars on some goggels alone.
Ive got a quest 2 on hand. Which is plenty for up to 1080p120
Waiting for a real VRX with HDMI out so I don't have to use a phone. I want to use some real googles.
It already exists...
Latency testing on this phone setup is definitely pointless. When they have goggles to test that people can buy, I would be interested in a latency test at that point.
I hear there are some OpenIPC goggles in the works. Do you know when you'll be testing that?
I hope so. I think a solid VRX solution is needed before anyone takes OpenIPC seriously. The DIY solutions are just too difficult for most normal FPV people. Only the hard core techies will be able to build their own VRX.
@@marblekitfpv Not so fast :) There are simple solutions, like RubyFPV, for the same hardware, where you just flash your firmware to the sd card, connect power and radio to Radxa and it's ready to be used. Same for Radxa + OpenIPC: flash firmware, ready to use. But yes, people want to buy something absolutelly ready to use, plug and play: Connect battery and it works, no sd card flashing needed.
@@marblekitfpvI have to disagree with you there. Buying a SBC (radxa), attaching a usb WiFi dongle and burning a SD card image doesn't seem so hard...
still a long way before thats ready im afraid , not even sure if the openIPC guys will even have enough money to actually get the manufacturing of it of the ground yet ,but the prototype lens and display looks good so far . the best we do have right now is a DIY VRx module to attach to your hdmi capable goggles rn , hopefully bigger manufacturers can work on a better ready built version soon
FYI MarioFPV has mentioned this was in the works and apparently posted a image of beta goggles for honorary members on his channel. I'm not an honorary member so haven't actually seen what he was referring to though. i.e I don't know how beta they were.
These emax parts look better than the runcam version. RunCam needs to make V2 right away.
It's worth nothing that the Runcam is not final production either. It's a tester.
I expect a LOT to change in the next few months which is why I just plan to plug this stuff in and go fly it. Doing deep dive testing right now is a waste of time because it will all be obsolete information in 2 weeks anyway.
@@marblekitfpv Yes and no: The hardware platform is pretty much settled. Unless a new more powerfull SOC shows up, the hardware platform is final so to speak. Other than the design of RF frontends (which is extremely important) the hardware platform, and what it is capable of, will still be this one going forward. All of them (OpenIPC Mario AIO, Runcam, Emax) use the same SOC: SSC338Q and same radio chips: RTL8812AU/EU. Changes can be on the software side of things. There things are progressing. How much? It's not for me to answer that.
@@petrusoroaga6528 I think his point is that there's nothing on the screen side to do latency testing on. No one cares about latency through that phone (which no one can buy anyway). When there are goggles or a VRX to buy with HDMI out, then latency testing is appropriate. Otherwise, totally meaningless data.
@@JoshFPV24 Mad tech's dropping a video that has some comprehensive latency testing soon i think this or next week , as for latency alot of work is being done to optimise for lower latency, petru is the guy that developed rubyHD which i personally prefer over the wfb solution but right now ruby is not quite optimised yet for the radxa DIY VRx module that you can make so it has a higher latency than wfb right now that may change in the coming months and years .Though I do wish a manufacturer could make a ready built VRx module for us , i suppose the market is too small right now to support the cost of R&D and manufacture to build one right now .
The goggles are a work in progress I would not expect them any time soon apart from if we are lucky some news about the design by the end of this year (some details have been shared and videos of the lens' and display but thats all i can say since its paywalled behind MarioFPV's channel mebership) .If any of the information ive said is wrong im pretty sure @petrusoroaga6528 can correct me on it
People ask about latency so they can determine if it is a product they should check out because that affects how they will interact with the craft on the other end.
Noob here, will this fit in the tinyhawk 2 freestyle? If so, does this boost the vtx as well? I set the vtx to 200 and I still loose video to the goggles at about 100 yards.
no and no
I got the whoop AIO into a drone... instagram.com/reel/C_tVPDvSZU1/
That's so sick!
Looking forward to the flight footage!
The whoop vtx is looking like a real product.
12 grams at 9:55 is a thumbs up.
RunCam just got their butts beat in!
Looking forward to watching and learning the system as it progresses
Wonder if the watt rating on the receiver is for transmitting. Unlike HDZero which is receive only, DJI/Walksnail transmit some data for retransmission. (Extra latency, but better pen)
EMAX clarified in their comment, the power rating is for power consumption. Obviously, the receiver is NOT a transmitter.
I wouldn't exactly suggest flying the small whoop board using the phone method , personally the radxa board wth 2 wifi boards attached as a VRx module to attach to your goggles should give you the best performance but that will require alot of time that im assuming you and most people won't have tbh, but im looking forward to the review and your insights on the performance
People who want a latency test on this are just trying to waste your time. Trolls will be trolls.
People ask for all kinds of stuff on the Internet. I've learned a long time ago to just ignore the stuff that's unreasonable.
No mics?
Thanks for the overview, Albert! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Answer to why a 2W VRX: Maybe for systems that have bidirectional link and adaptive video and/or retransmissions? ;)
Yeah, I'd like to know as well.
Oipc is one direction link as far as I know
@@АндрейМихайловский-г5й There are other firmwares too for the same hardware, that have different FPV system, not just OpenIPC default one.
Also openipc-fpv(the default firmware) has a control link to the drone in development, currently being tested. Video retransmission is not planned at the moment due to using wfb_ng which relies of FEC for link reliability instead.
There's two system available for use - openipc itself and rubyfpv which has bidirectional link. All this information are available on relevant resources.
Nice. Thanks @mariofpv