O3 uses mimo so ideally you want orthogonal linear 2x2... the stock lollipop is using this internally (bot smashed his demo open and I saw it) which works great with the stock v2 antennas. What you need to try is cross-linear patches on the goggles faceplate (like the one internal to the g2). It's interesting that the left-right circular polarized work so well with the stock linear antennas on the V2 goggles, I imagine because it was actually able to operate in 2x2 again much like orthogonal linear antennas would... Very cool and interesting. I'm using stock again for good omni performance but that makes me think about the next build, I have options on the drone now. ❤
Yeah that would make total sense. I could do a long range test but I feel it is not necessary. To me it is obvious the Mjolnir pro would out perform the stock nubbies
@@33rdframe the problem is the device is very kid friendly and well designed. Ready to run even and in collaboration with fat shark 🦈. It will sell well and is better than the Emax competitor for beginners. The company really did a slam dunk but sadly the problem is they won’t send you any money for coming up with the idea they based it off of.
@@marcoreviews im not bothered, looking good does not mean well designed... customers are going to have to get better educated on what a good drone actually is or they will continue to get taken advantage of
@@33rdframe I agree! Just happy you are making it! TikTok revoked my livestream capabilities today for not breaking the rules just like RU-vid keeps muting my audio on videos much on the same way… it is bothersome working on social media. Little bit concerned if TikTok gets banned in the USA 🇺🇸. Was finally gaining traction on there.
Nice test! Will you redo the test with Goggles 2 when Maple comes out with upgraded antennas (it's in the work!), along with TrueRC and stock antenna? Thank you
I tried some TrueRC matchsticks at 115mm at ground level on the car, but I wasn't too sure about the putting two LHCP's on there, and leaving 2 stock omnis on the V2's as well as an LHCP iFlight patch. In the end I noticed, by doing the exact same obstructed runs, I felt like the stock antennas were either better or about equal. I just went back to all stock since it has the lowest form factor. I figure DJI probably knows what they are doing, and would be wasting their time releasing stuff with garbage antennas. For example, I could drive around a building and put about 350ft of it between me and the car til the point the signal would be down to about 1.5mbps or so and video would not freeze. Using the upgraded and longer antennas it would freeze and do it earlier.
Driving is a different beast from FPV because you get a whole lot of bounce signal. So that is why you saw the gains from the omnis, the stock antennas on the O3 is light-years better than the previous air units antenna. However, saying "they wouldn't waste their time releasing garbage" makes me thing you havnt been paying attention to what kind of company DJI is, lol They are the apple of drones, they are smart enough to make things good where marketing will be kind and avoid negative reviews, but the deeper you look you start to see a cardboard cake. They DO know what they are doing and find ways to cut corners every single place they can. But mostly iflight patches are very bad and patches in general probably are not good for the kind of situations FPV cars would put you in. I would look into the truerc nubbies for FPV car
@@33rdframe The TrueRC's are what I was recommended before also but I didn't notice any improvement with them... but I was also not real sure which to get. Having them sit as low as possible to the ground seems counterintuitive but it seems to work for the DJI stock omnis. Two truerc LHCP's didn't help at all with the LHCP patch and looking dead at where I was driving (on other side of a building). I never noticed any improvement. I just figure DJI has needed to keep a competitive edge as being "the best" when it comes to the quality or reliability someone can get digital, and I feel like it would be a pointless task if their antennas just weren't going to work well (on the O3 which is supposed to be their best).
@@33rdframe lol yea that's the thing about those 4 dual polarized stock deals. So many possible variants to test. I figured on the ground just getting good antennas as high as possible would be the idea.. which in that case just extended leads on the stock antennas would be nice.
id have liked to see you using something like a lhcp patch and lhcp antennas on the goggles and both lhcp on the goggles aswell as both rhcp on the goggles and your contraption? overall nice test i can imagine it helping alot of people out but not me today im sorry:(
@@fpvbersila4524 no settings, but there could be a malfunction in installation, or maybe even a damaged ufl connector. Or like I said it could be your antenna were damaged or defective outside if your doing. (As a side note, what faceplate antenna are you running? Googles 2 or v2?)
@@fpvbersila4524given that none of the other things mentioned are wrong it could be concluded that something is incomparable with the foxeer and the Googles V3. As you saw in the video I only have the googles v2 which is what I tested everything with
@@33rdframe cool! Good to know! I’m using the o3 on a 3” build, fairly confident that the stock ant is OK for my purposes, but in the future, should i get another or need to replcace the antenna, i know what to do… thanks for your response!
