- Joined
- Apr 1, 2016
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 81
- Age
- 39
@Fredz That was hilarious, it completely mocked her without mocking her, genius.
ItElite Modification Honest review --> OK range improvements
- Thread starter borgqueenx
- Start date
pretty obvious how you guys are bashing my proven results, are not wanting to be shown how it was a bad investment.
CE mode absolutely makes a difference for penetration . Less power =less signal penetration.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
absolutely true. now read that post again please. Range of the DBS antenna should improve, doesn't matter how much power your radio has. It's a different antenna and not boosting anything.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 104
I like your idea but there are problems in your implementation as well as in your results and your conclusions.
For example, you claim that the P4 remote is better than the P3 remote because it sustained better video link when you had obstructions. The problem was that the tests were not similar. With the P3 you dropped to as low as 17.9m, yet with the P4 you only dropped to 20.4 m. 2.5m behind a building is a HUGE difference.
Further, I noticed that you had the omni-directional antennas pointed in an odd direction and kept the remote static. While you can claim that this is just a test, each type of antenna has a different radiation pattern, and as such, because the antennas are static, and the drone is at an angle, you will be hitting the radio wave with a different attenuation.
I think this comes from the misconception that antennas are amplifying the signal. They are not. Antennas take a signal, and based on their shape distribute it in 3D space. The reason a flat antenna has a better range than an omni-directional one is that it distributes the same signal in a narrower range. So testing outside this range is meaningless, and getting to conclusions based on such tests is false.
A flat-panel antenna will achieve its range when pointed exactly to the drone. An omni-directional antenna pointed exactly to the drone will have half of its signal aimed at the complete opposite direction. An omni-directional antenna is safer in the sense that it does not require the person to aim the remote to the drone, (unless you are flying the drone exactly over your head - as it does not radiate towards where it is pointing).
To summarize: reflectors or flat antennas will modify the pattern of radiation
by increasing it in a certain direction and decreasing it in others. In order to see the benefits of such antennas, you need to have the drone in the center of the radiation pattern, and then the difference in range will be significant.
Your ideal antenna would have a radiation pattern of a laser beam. If you would be able to hold it such that it is aimed at the drone all the time you could achieve a range of hundreds of miles...
For example, you claim that the P4 remote is better than the P3 remote because it sustained better video link when you had obstructions. The problem was that the tests were not similar. With the P3 you dropped to as low as 17.9m, yet with the P4 you only dropped to 20.4 m. 2.5m behind a building is a HUGE difference.
Further, I noticed that you had the omni-directional antennas pointed in an odd direction and kept the remote static. While you can claim that this is just a test, each type of antenna has a different radiation pattern, and as such, because the antennas are static, and the drone is at an angle, you will be hitting the radio wave with a different attenuation.
I think this comes from the misconception that antennas are amplifying the signal. They are not. Antennas take a signal, and based on their shape distribute it in 3D space. The reason a flat antenna has a better range than an omni-directional one is that it distributes the same signal in a narrower range. So testing outside this range is meaningless, and getting to conclusions based on such tests is false.
A flat-panel antenna will achieve its range when pointed exactly to the drone. An omni-directional antenna pointed exactly to the drone will have half of its signal aimed at the complete opposite direction. An omni-directional antenna is safer in the sense that it does not require the person to aim the remote to the drone, (unless you are flying the drone exactly over your head - as it does not radiate towards where it is pointing).
To summarize: reflectors or flat antennas will modify the pattern of radiation
by increasing it in a certain direction and decreasing it in others. In order to see the benefits of such antennas, you need to have the drone in the center of the radiation pattern, and then the difference in range will be significant.
Your ideal antenna would have a radiation pattern of a laser beam. If you would be able to hold it such that it is aimed at the drone all the time you could achieve a range of hundreds of miles...
Last edited:
Thanks for the constructive feedback. The tests indeed had some variations in them, but in overall also looking at the signal bar you can easily see the phantom 4 remote beats the phantom 3 remote. i dropped with the phantom 4 to 18.8 meters but still a difference yes. But i also went to other places and you can see the signal quality then.
I realise this about radio's yes. But if i would hold the radio's in my hand and point it at them there will always be slight differences and i can reach more further away and the point is to stay close, so i am making the signal worse on purpose just to test the raw power of these radio's and by placing them on the same spot on the ground in the same position they both transmit their signal on exactly the same way. (since these radio's in those 2 video's were not modded as can clearly be seen)
I also realise that the DBS modification on its own does not boost but transmits in a different shape where you more have to point the antenna in the right direction. In the tests i did for this, i aimed both radio's at the aircraft at all times, and therefore the DBS mod should get more range as it can go further. But as you can see in the video's it barely does this with some tree's in the way.
for the moment i have not yet received a reply from the shop where i bought it and from ItElite themselfs. I am pretty sure they know that my tests are true and max distance is only really improved in a complete signal-free and obstruction-free field, and do not have solutions to send back to me....
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 399
Hey @borgqueenx , where did you buy the ItElite from? Support directly from the company is sparse, I'd agree. However, I'd like to help you out if I can. I am a supplier of the antennas and would be happy to swap yours out, although I'm located in the US.
Another thing to note is, I'm sure people appreciate your honest feedback and you're just trying to help. The ItElite / FPLVR setups are not for everyone. Without amplifiers, you'd have a hard time penetrating buildings / trees with any antenna setup out there. However, the results are very real for those seeing an increase in distance. I wouldn't sell something I don't have confidence in or that I haven't tested myself, not the way I choose to run a business. If you want to PM me your order details, I'll try contacting my source at ItElite. Let me know bud!
You are wayyyy more generous than I would be. This person did not ask for help but instead was 1 out of 100's to criticize the product and do not recall the person asking for help at all.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 399
It's possible his range is just maxed out because of where he flys, but on the off chance it is an issue with the antenna, I'd like to help. He did say he's not getting a response form ItElite, so I may be able to help in that regard as well. Even if he didn't ask for help, he's getting it! Haha
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2013
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 38
I just got a booster from Jacob and Maxx Uav I forgot to take the channel of 1 and put it into abut and it did a lot better . Flew about 3x further than I got on stock. He was very willing to help if I had any issues. Im a lot happier with it than the stock antennas. I also hacked my channels and have 32 now.
The premise that the itelite antenna should improve range regardless is a flawed assumption. If the op doesn't select a quiet channel, or choose a low bit rate, or keep the antenna pointed correctly, the results can be skewed. Also, testing differences in penetration is irrelevant since 2.4ghz has trouble penetrating most objects, including leaves, branches and buildings. Penetration testing is a poor test criteria since nobody claims a significant penetration performance boost.
The op doesn't seem interested in suggestions on maximizing performance, seems more interested in proving itelite is not a good buy. This implies a non biased attitude, potentially motivated somehow too discredit a product we all know works well, since the op doesn't believe the results others are getting, implying we're all lying to justify our purchase.
I'm amused with the op thinking the p4 transmitter is better than p3. Although the spec says that, my experience is my p3 works way better than my p4 when comparing similar antenna setups, including a stock antenna.
The op doesn't seem interested in suggestions on maximizing performance, seems more interested in proving itelite is not a good buy. This implies a non biased attitude, potentially motivated somehow too discredit a product we all know works well, since the op doesn't believe the results others are getting, implying we're all lying to justify our purchase.
I'm amused with the op thinking the p4 transmitter is better than p3. Although the spec says that, my experience is my p3 works way better than my p4 when comparing similar antenna setups, including a stock antenna.
Last edited:
I am also a licensed Amateur Radio operator, have been for 30 years. I have hand built hundreds of antennas for frequencies ranging from 160 meters up to microwave. As stated, the antennas you are using don't amplify the power, but signal can be increased with gain antennas using beams, parabolics, etc. Anytime you have a non omnidirectional antenna, the directionality of the radiation pattern becomes more critical. You standing in a yard, moving about, and your target doing the same, makes for a difficult repeatable test. Watching the video, I believe those trees absorbed your signal, no matter what antennas you used. You just cannot penetrate trees with either antenna setup. A fairer test would be in the clear, transceiver on a fixed mount, copter on a fixed path away from you. These gain antennas DO work well,, I have measured the db increases with RF meters in controlled settings.
If you look at page 1 you see that i hoped to solve it with the community. I appriciate all help
Jake i thank you kindly for your offer, it would be awesome if you can contact your source.i will pm you later.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but you seem the guy biased here.
I show video proof and already said multiple times i make the range less ON PURPOSE. But since i do this for both radio's we can see wich antenna is better. Thats why i select a high bitrate(but still on a clean channel) in an area with other signals and in a area without other channels. You are also saying that "im thinking" that the p4 radio is better. Yes, i was thinking that so i tested it- and you can see the results.
You are the amusing person here like some others who see the proof in front of their eyes and chose to ignore it.
I am also not ignoring people. I can test whatever people suggest.
People definatly reported better penetration sometimes and the claim of "battery will be the limit" is really exaggerated since the battery can also be the limit on stock setup- depends where someone flies.
@Multicoptertec thanks and as i said before i do believe range can increase when in a complete open field- but the stock radio's then also get really far that the battery can be the limit. Even better the dbs mod also improves my range- its sadly just a very tiny amount.
Last edited:
Hi, very interesting results and iv been following, thank you for going to the effort of not being biased because as you see alot of people are.
But could you test auto please? Auto selects 8 channels. Rather than 1 channel.
Please retest on 8 channels (auto) in the same location.
But could you test auto please? Auto selects 8 channels. Rather than 1 channel.
Please retest on 8 channels (auto) in the same location.
Are you the same guy as from the multirotor forums? I will give it a shot, same conditions otherwise. I will also try a 10mbit long ramge flight without interference see if i can get some range.
I will also add that for all you do on the transceiver end, the bird itself is what it is.It's huge advantage is altitude.
Similar threads
