December 05, 2020, 07:49:59 am

RCMF Donations

Enjoy using RCMF? How about a wee donation to help us keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed?

Welcome to RCMF. Please login or sign up.

December 05, 2020, 07:49:59 am

Login with username, password and session length

FPV Goggles ...

Started by Wiz, April 03, 2015, 16:44:13 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wiz

... is it normal to feel motion sickness?  I lasted about two minutes - thankfully I was just an observer but, if you've tried them, what was your experience?
The buck stops here.

DarrellW

I tried them (as a passenger fortunately) and nearly threw up, it's not uncommon to experience this. If you persevere  (so i've been told) you may get used to it. Myself - I couldn't  so stick to  Los flying, I would have thought that you would be ok with a screen or maybe even the HK budget setup - it's not quite as immersive.
I think.......I think I am........Therefore I am. .....I think!

Wiz

I've got the HK budget set-up Darrell and yes, it's not as immersive as the Fat Shark jobbies I tried this afternoon but still makes me queasy!  I think a screen might be the way to go so that my brain remains properly calibrated!
The buck stops here.

The Saint. (Owen)

Try taking travel sickness medication, I'm sure it will help.  :af
Electrickery is the work of the devil.
Proper aeroplanes are powered by engines.

Patmac

Can't speak from experience of FPV but in the past I've occasionaly suffered a feeling of motion sickness as a passenger but never when driving a car.
Perhaps if you were driving the model it wouldn't be a problem since you'd be anticipating & reacting to all direction changes.
Pax vobiscum

FrankS

Only flown with mine once so far, but never had an issue (Fat Shark Goggles and Easy Star type plane), but it was a calm day so model wasn't thrown around by the wind. Also let several clubmates have a go as an observer, and did a loop with one guy, but none of them felt any motion sickness.

Cactus

as said above i'd think it a passenger issue.
it's caused when your getting signals that don't make sense.
if you're the one doing the inputting your brain can over ride those conflictions easier
I know you believe you understand what you think i said, but i am not sure you realise that what you think you heard is not what i meant.

Wiz

Actually Frank you've just reminded me, I flew FPV on a fixed wing model ages ago and didn't experience the problem and I think, looking back, it's because the nose of the model was in view which gave my brain a reference point. Today was on a quad so just lots of open space.
The buck stops here.

FrankS

The FPV camera was in the nose so none of the airframe was in view. Maybe it was my flying  :''

Loopdreams

After many hundreds of FPV flights I can't say I've ever had this problem, I can see how it might happen as a passenger though, especially if the one doing the flying is wobbling all over the shop.  I've certainly watched plenty if FPV videos that looked pretty sickness-inducing.

FlyinBrian

Are FPV Goggles anything like Beer Goggles?, I sometimes feel queasy when I wear them.
Basic Research is what I do - when I don't know what I'm doing!.

Pup Cam

Quote from: FlyinBrian on April 03, 2015, 20:08:45 pm
Are FPV Goggles anything like Beer Goggles?, I sometimes feel queasy when I wear them.


Just the same but more expensive.   Mind you, it would appear you could get to the end result quicker ...
Still distracted by a 1953 AJS 16MS and now a 1939 BSA 250 too!

Bad Raven

Bumping this as I am about the press the button on buying a 250/280 "racing" quad.

Four months on, what's the opinion on the best setup?  I have not seen much FPV in use but from the sample I have, I have not a screen set up in use that came close to the clarity and freedom from distracting images of gogggles. Which goggles are best?

I have read elsewhere that some who have experienced motion sickness wearing goggles have found that sitting down rather than standing helps a lot, anyone experienced/tried this?
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

Rob Thomson

There is no clear winner.

It's a simple case of everyone has slightly different opinions!

I personally favour skyzones.  They are excellent.

Headplays are excellent...  but bulky.

The best advice is... go for as high a resolution as you can  afford!

2.4G Shaun

BR    If this helps.......

Ive had the HobbyKing V1 goggles and recently replaced them with the V2's which are far better. Improved resolution , bigger screen and you can use glasses under them.

I also have a pair of Fat Shark Predator 2's  To be honest , I prefer the cheaper HK V2's.
The Fat Sharks are slicker looking, lighter but I'm leaning to the HK V2's as my preferred set.

Wiz,
The first time I flew FPV I did feel a little bit off. Disappointed as I used to fly aerobatics in full sized gliders. It stopped after a few flights and doesn't bother me now.


Shaun

lanicopter

Were you standing up or sitting down? A nice sturdy chair makes all the difference to me, especially if the plane is wobbling around.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Cactus

September 03, 2015, 15:16:53 pm #16 Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 15:18:10 pm by Cactus
had a watch of some FPV at our show, first fatsharks.
nice and light but the image is rubbish, i adjusted the angles of the screen on the adjuster until it was about right but unless i tightened the strap ( not mine so didn't ) real tight even tho they were light they would tip forwards a little and make half the image fuzzy, it felt like watching a twin image down two very long dark tunnels.

i then tried a hobbyking epp headset thing with one large screen and a viewing lens.
this was much better and the weight didn't feel too bad, i still felt like i was watching a screen a bit like an old projector but it was at least bigger.

what shocked me tho as we're all used to HD footage just how bad the live feed is.
how you fly using that i don't know, racing must be near impossible.
in our featureless field i had a realhard time working out where they were, height, or anything useful.
you either saw ground or sky and that was it.
unless it was interferance, which as i said, in our featureless field was a surprise.

i'll not be investing till HD and solid links become the norm.
I know you believe you understand what you think i said, but i am not sure you realise that what you think you heard is not what i meant.

paulinfrance

I converted a computer game headset about 6 years ago,(eboot new at $100) and find that they are better than the fatsharks that my Scots friend just got,  :-X the first few flights were a bit head spinning when I first started and it is better if you sit down to start, but later you will find no problems at all,  :co
Mode 2 THE only way to fly

Bad Raven

So, nearly six months on..............

I'm still using the HK Quanum V2's I bought at the start.

These have been modded to put the screen out of the case to the rear (taped neatly with black duct tape) since nearly day one.

I had tried a variety of different goggles owned by others over the months and today managed to blag the use of the very top of the range extremely expensive Fat Sharks.

And they were total utter rubbish in all respects other than wearing comfort. Ye Gods the picture is dire.................like looking the wrong way into binoculars.

What I have now also done to my Quanums is to replace the fresnel lens with proper shaped lenses from a head magnifying unit. It was an easy enough conversion and now the clarity, already better than anything else tried, is even better yet. 

The unit I bought was less than £10 and came with several different really nicely transparent clip in lenses in a box. I have managed to fit these with their clip in holder into the fresnel lens frame. After one false dawn choosing lens that seemed to work OK (while operating short range indoors), but gave a double "fringed" image outdoors.

The next mod is to replace the head mounting with a ski goggles body, this is tomorrows job!!
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

graham bowers

Quote from: Bad Raven on March 12, 2016, 22:04:26 pm
<snip>
What I have now also done to my Quanums is to replace the fresnel lens with proper shaped lenses from a head magnifying unit. It was an easy enough conversion and now the clarity, already better than anything else tried, is even better yet. 

The unit I bought was less than £10 and came with several different really nicely transparent clip in lenses in a box. I have managed to fit these with their clip in holder into the fresnel lens frame. After one false dawn choosing lens that seemed to work OK (while operating short range indoors), but gave a double "fringed" image outdoors.
<more snip>

Would you mind posting a bit more detail on the head magnifying unit you used please, as I have the Flyingwings Eco Goggles and the fresnel lens leaves plenty to be desired. I currently have a butchered set of reading glasses (3.5 dioptres I think) hot-glued in place but the screen would need to be moved about 30mm forward to be in focus.
Thanks
Graham

Bad Raven

Hi Graham,

Do a search on EBay for  " HEAD TORCH MAGNIFIER LENS WITH LIGHT WATCH JEWELLERY REPAIRS NEW HANDS FREE "

I paid £8.95 last week.  I have modded it into the Quanum such that lens can be swung up and swapped AND I can still use the mag headpiece with the other three lens, so its not even wasted that!

Flown this morning after changing the lens, it is much clearer than the fresnel.  I'm using the 1.8x lens in the Quanum fitted into the Fresnel frame (without mods) with it at the nearest to eye setting of the std slot. 

The 1.2 gave some double imaging.  1.2, 1.8. 2.5, and 3.5x are provided.

The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

Mike_T

Just wondering, Dan, if you use reading glasses?  I have tried a friend's Quanum unit and could not 'pull' the focus with the (fresnel) lens he had.  This might have a bearing on whether the magnifier lenses will work for some people?  I use +1.5 ready-readers and suspect I could wear these inside the 'box'. 

My own goggles are the old VR1400's that I've modified to work properly and despite my prescription getting worse since I bought them, their image is still focused without any correction.  The image is a 600TVL square at the end of a tunnel (so not really 'immersive'), but works well enough to get me in the air.  Like Cactus inferred, the FPV images you see on the net are taken from a separate video feed; the real-time image the pilot sees is less awe-inspiring!


Bad Raven

I have astigmatism or non-round eyeballs. ;D

I wear glasses for driving and flying but nothing else really. I was "sold" reading glasses last time around but tbh don't find a need usually.
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

graham bowers

Quote from: Bad Raven on March 13, 2016, 12:32:59 pm
Hi Graham,

Do a search on EBay for  " HEAD TORCH MAGNIFIER LENS WITH LIGHT WATCH JEWELLERY REPAIRS NEW HANDS FREE "

I paid £8.95 last week.  I have modded it into the Quanum such that lens can be swung up and swapped AND I can still use the mag headpiece with the other three lens, so its not even wasted that!

Flown this morning after changing the lens, it is much clearer than the fresnel.  I'm using the 1.8x lens in the Quanum fitted into the Fresnel frame (without mods) with it at the nearest to eye setting of the std slot. 

The 1.2 gave some double imaging.  1.2, 1.8. 2.5, and 3.5x are provided.


Thanks, ordered. I wanted a head magnifier anyway so its a win win!

Bad Raven

 :af

The unit comes with two clip in lens swing fittings which pivot on a single holder piece screwed in with two self tappers . I razor sawed this part to leave as much of the screw section on ONE pivot half. This went back on the mag headpiece, so a single lens still fits and swings as designed. The other clip in swing piece is fitted into the sawn off part and that part is taped to the fresnel lens frame. Done correctly the lower points of the lens fit into the lower fresnel frame groove and stays put, but can be unclipped by springing the frame and lifted up and out for changing or cleaning.

Having done this I found that my quads camera needed a lens focus adjustment which made the image even better, there was no way to tell it was out before!!
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

graham bowers

Quote from: Bad Raven on March 13, 2016, 17:07:05 pm
:af

The unit comes with two clip in lens swing fittings which pivot on a single holder piece screwed in with two self tappers . I razor sawed this part to leave as much of the screw section on ONE pivot half. This went back on the mag headpiece, so a single lens still fits and swings as designed. The other clip in swing piece is fitted into the sawn off part and that part is taped to the fresnel lens frame. Done correctly the lower points of the lens fit into the lower fresnel frame groove and stays put, but can be unclipped by springing the frame and lifted up and out for changing or cleaning.

Having done this I found that my quads camera needed a lens focus adjustment which made the image even better, there was no way to tell it was out before!!

Very interesting, particularly the bit about the lens focus. I'll pass this info to my fpv buddy as he uses V2 quanum goggles.

Mike_T

Quote from: graham bowers on March 13, 2016, 19:30:06 pm
Very interesting, particularly the bit about the lens focus. I'll pass this info to my fpv buddy as he uses V2 quanum goggles.


Likewise  :af

Bad Raven

Too windy and cold for me for outdoor trials today, but used them in a larger hall and with the second try 1.8x lens they seem to suit me well.

Vision is considerably better than with the fresnel lens, and this is with the lower quality Blade Nano QX FPV quad camera.  Now really looking forward to trying it with a 700TVL!
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................