Will the Evo wifi evolve to something more advanced?

[alekaras]

I was watching a YouTube vid about Ocusync and it mentioned that it can run on existing wifi hardware. So here's the question for the more tech savvy on this forum: do you suppose Autel may enhance the Evo wifi with an Ocusync-like system?

 

[joshmentele]

Evo's transmission system is almost identical to the Mavic's. They are both wifi systems in that they both run on 2.4 ghz frequencies. Other than that, neither use actual wifi connections for their transmission system. I see no need for Autel to improve their transmission system as it has been tested out to 4 miles with strong connection.

 

[alekaras]

Evo's transmission system is almost identical to the Mavic's. They are both wifi systems in that they both run on 2.4 ghz frequencies. Other than that, neither use actual wifi connections for their transmission system. I see no need for Autel to improve their transmission system as it has been tested out to 4 miles with strong connection.

So the Evo "wifi" does not suffer the interference issues a Mavic Air or a Spark would? It's more like Ocusync?

 

[Otterdrone]

I agree. I had a Mavic Pro and I’m very happy with my move to the EVO. In my opinion the EVO is a beast of its own. A tough built drone with a great camera along with a good range. I have a good feeling we will see some extras with firmware updates. I am very happy with it now though.

 

[Gsa103]

I was watching a YouTube vid about Ocusync and it mentioned that it can run on existing wifi hardware. So here's the question for the more tech savvy on this forum: do you suppose Autel may enhance the Evo wifi with an Ocusync-like system?

Everything in this statement is incorrect.
Ocusync cannot run on existing WiFi hardware. The Mavic can send data over WiFi instead of Occusync. Occusync uses some dedicated chips built into the drone and controller. There is also a separate chip for WiFi. The Mavic Air lacks the true Occusync chips, hence shorter range.

The Evo uses a similar approach to Occusync, but I have not seen details on what and how?

 

[alekaras]

Everything in this statement is incorrect.
Ocusync cannot run on existing WiFi hardware. The Mavic can send data over WiFi instead of Occusync. Occusync uses some dedicated chips built into the drone and controller. There is also a separate chip for WiFi. The Mavic Air lacks the true Occusync chips, hence shorter range.

The Evo uses a similar approach to Occusync, but I have not seen details on what and how?

I am not an expert by any stretch, but from what the video mentioned Lightbridge is the one that is hardware dependent. See video at 9:35 mark.

 

[joshmentele]

So the Evo "wifi" does not suffer the interference issues a Mavic Air or a Spark would? It's more like Ocusync?

In the end, you can expect the same range or better from the EVO as from the mavic. It has WAY better range than the Spark and Mavic Air.

 

[mjbok]

In the end, you can expect the same range or better from the EVO as from the mavic. It has WAY better range than the Spark and Mavic Air.

While I think it absolutely destroys the Air and (especially) the Spark in that regard, I think it is a step below the Mavic Pro in that regard. I've never had it drop, but I've gotten warnings while well within a mile.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Over the last 4 years of flying UAV's I have seen many posts like this one. Can I get this thing to fly farther. LOL Kind of a moot point but it is very clear if you follow the rules.
VLOS means and this is right from the FAA: "determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another." I would hate to be that guy who had his EVO drop on a crowded highway and cause a terrible accident.

Many will point to Part 101 to suggest that there isn't a line of sight requirement scouring 101.41 for the regulation. But remember, Part 101 is actually not the full regulation, rather it is a cut and paste of Section 336 of the 2012 FMRA by Congress (law) that offers the carve out for hobbyists. So the text to really look at is Section 336. In that you will find that Congress provides: "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft" as a part of the definition for model aircraft.

(c) MODELAIRCRAFTDEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

So you need to see the aircraft - not the lights on the aircraft but the aircraft itself.

The FAA offers their interpretation of 336 in a document call the "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" in which it offers up the following in regard to VLOS:

"By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices c ould dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement.See id.(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times." -

 

[alekaras]

Over the last 4 years of flying UAV's I have seen many posts like this one. Can I get this thing to fly farther. LOL Kind of a moot point but it is very clear if you follow the rules.
VLOS means and this is right from the FAA: "determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another." I would hate to be that guy who had his EVO drop on a crowded highway and cause a terrible accident.

Many will point to Part 101 to suggest that there isn't a line of sight requirement scouring 101.41 for the regulation. But remember, Part 101 is actually not the full regulation, rather it is a cut and paste of Section 336 of the 2012 FMRA by Congress (law) that offers the carve out for hobbyists. So the text to really look at is Section 336. In that you will find that Congress provides: "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft" as a part of the definition for model aircraft.

(c) MODELAIRCRAFTDEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

So you need to see the aircraft - not the lights on the aircraft but the aircraft itself.

The FAA offers their interpretation of 336 in a document call the "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" in which it offers up the following in regard to VLOS:

"By definition, a model aircraft must be “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).1 Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model.2 Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view thereby reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices c ould dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.Finally, based on the plain language of the statute, which says that aircraft must be “flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft,” an operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement.See id.(emphasis added). While the statute would not preclude using an observer to augment the safety of the operation, the operator must be able to view the aircraft at all times." -

Then again, some of us may be flying outside North America (which, of course, doesn't mean we're free to endanger life and property), or in an area where there is absolutely nothing around for miles. So getting good distance and a good signal is not a moot point.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Then again, some of us may be flying outside North America (which, of course, doesn't mean we're free to endanger life and property), or in an area where there is absolutely nothing around for miles. So getting good distance and a good signal is not a moot point.

You think laws in the US are strict try the EU.

 

[skimcoat]

seems this is yet another thread thats turning into the law says this that
op,the evo flys .4 miles further than the mavic already,supposingly.

 

[freddyrozen]

To me, it isn't so much the range in distance, it's the signal strength. But one tends to follow the other. Here's what I mean, using my personal experience:

MAVIC AIR - Claim: around 2 miles Actual: around two miles in a completely open non-congested area, barely 2000 feet in a dense, congested area with lots of wifi, electricity, etc.

EVO - Claim: 4.3 miles Actual: Never went that far in an open area, but have gone far with no issues and turned around due to battery level, around 4000-6000 feet in a dense, congested area with lots of wife, electricity, etc.

As one of the other posters mentioned, and I agree - The original Mavic Pro, Phantom 4, and Phantom 4 Pro all have more stable connections in urban areas than I've experienced with my EVO.

And just a small footnote, the ANAFI in a dense area is borderline useless, with the connection becoming unstable at around 600-800 feet.

 

[alekaras]

To me, it isn't so much the range in distance, it's the signal strength. But one tends to follow the other. Here's what I mean, using my personal experience:

MAVIC AIR - Claim: around 2 miles Actual: around two miles in a completely open non-congested area, barely 2000 feet in a dense, congested area with lots of wifi, electricity, etc.

EVO - Claim: 4.3 miles Actual: Never went that far in an open area, but have gone far with no issues and turned around due to battery level, around 4000-6000 feet in a dense, congested area with lots of wife, electricity, etc.

As one of the other posters mentioned, and I agree - The original Mavic Pro, Phantom 4, and Phantom 4 Pro all have more stable connections in urban areas than I've experienced with my EVO.

And just a small footnote, the ANAFI in a dense area is borderline useless, with the connection becoming unstable at around 600-800 feet.

Lots of wife always kills the fun.

Seriously though, that is exactly the answer I was looking for. Very rarely will I be flying in an area that is free from interference (wife or other - I usually have both!). So it is important that the signal is strong. It's interesting that you indicate that the Mavic Pro actually has a more stable connection than the Evo. Some of the posts above gave me the impression that the Evo wi-fi implementation was comparable to Ocusync 1.0, but apparently that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Autelguy]

What we need is a 1" sensor Evo that uses 4 or 5g cell data with a battery that would last 4 hours priced at $699.00 + shipping of course

Hey, if a Parrot Disco can do it, why not a quadcopter?

 

[alekaras]

What we need is a 1" sensor Evo that uses 4 or 5g cell data with a battery that would last 4 hours priced at $699.00 + shipping of course

Hey, if a Parrot Disco can do it, why not a quadcopter?

I remember reading recently about a drone that you can control using cellular signal. Technically, you could be in NY and fly it in Dallas. That would be slightly beyond VLOS, however.

 

[Gsa103]

I am not an expert by any stretch, but from what the video mentioned Lightbridge is the one that is hardware dependent. See video at 9:35 mark.

Thanks for the link. What he says is that Occusync is using a SDR (software defined radio), which is programmable radio chip, it essentially let DJI program whatever waveform they want. Most wifi systems use cheaper WiFi only radios.
Occusync requires the SDR chip (it's similar to one found on a Xiaomi Redmi 2),

Looking back at the video you posted, you can see the disadvantage to WiFi. WiFi operates on a specific Channel (1-11) and doesn't do any frequency hopping across the band. LightBridge/Ocusync, and presumably whatever the Evo is doing are utilizing the entire band for a reliable control signal.

Ocusync has a further advantage in that it will push the video at 5.8GHz leaving the 2.4GHz band free for just the controller. That's probably why the Evo is slightly more prone to video issues in dense environments, and also the reason why many people wanted the 900MHz radio.

 

[Marsh]

Evo's transmission system is almost identical to the Mavic's. They are both wifi systems in that they both run on 2.4 ghz frequencies. Other than that, neither use actual wifi connections for their transmission system. I see no need for Autel to improve their transmission system as it has been tested out to 4 miles with strong connection.

I took the evo/Mavic similarities too far i guess. I bought dji RE goggles and can't gigure out how to get them to work with my evo.

 

[joshmentele]

I took the evo/Mavic similarities too far i guess. I bought dji RE goggles and can't gigure out how to get them to work with my evo.

THey will never work with the evo, they are using different protocols. They will have to communicate with each other, and DJI will never let that happen. It isn't like a broadcast signal.

 

[Apollo11capcom]

While I think it absolutely destroys the Air and (especially) the Spark in that regard, I think it is a step below the Mavic Pro in that regard. I've never had it drop, but I've gotten warnings while well within a mile.

If you're referring to the weak video transmission signal warning, I can set mine up to get that within 10 feet. It really has nothing to do with the actual range of the Evo. It's more of just an annoyance, I've never lost signal since I've owned my Evo, but I've seen that warning a thousand times.