The Mavic flies further and with stronger signal that P4P?? REALLY?
- Thread starter ihavequestions
- Start date
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,351
- Reaction score
- 9,293
They both fly a long way.
The Occusync system used by the Mavic is optimised for speed and updates very quickly.
The Lightbridge used by the Phantom is optimised for a clear view.
Is the so called occusync lower resolution or just a lower bitrate? I have never had my hands on a Mavic. I would have to think DJI would use the same FPGA/SOC in both AC if for only reasons of production efficiency and cost saving.
Ocu-Sync is different, incompatible with P4P. I believe Ocu-Sync is the future for DJI. The DJI goggles work wirelessly with Ocu-Sync on Mavic. DJI couldn't make the googles work wirelessly with Phantom 4P lightbridge. I have a hunch P5 will be Ocu-sync because DJI's robotic team is using Ocu-Sync, apparently for good reason. I've noticed that Ocu-Sync's signal isn't as volatile as the P4P. Although my P4 will go over 4 miles and I've never done that with Mavic due to battery, the Mavic Ocu-Sync signal seems more stable, not sure why with those smaller antennas. The signal bars in Mavic don't erode so suddenly as with the P4P as you get out a couple miles. Ocu-Sync just seems more stable, but both birds go a long long way. I prefer my P4P on 5.8Ghz AUTO for long distance flights because it can fly longer, hence farther, and it doesn't get blown around as much if wind comes up, not to mention the better camera in P4P. Mavic comes in handy for lower noise missions, such as animal video captures. You can get closer, and use the 2X zoom to see better during flight when recording in 1080.
Last edited:
It is almost certain lightbridge and occusync are fancy names for very slick implementations of the wifibroadcast protocol (part of the existing 802.11 standards). Wireless radios that support injection mode can achieve this performance using wifibroadcast.
If this was so simple with off the shelf technology, all the drone manufacturers would have a lightbridge equivalent by now. It's been 3 years and they still use plain old wifi garbage, from what I've seen. However, Autel announced 7KM range at CES in their EVO model, but they wouldn't say how they're doing it, so I'm a bit skeptical since it took DJI a couple years to optimize Lightbridge to go 7KM. I'd bet Autel is fudging their number a bit, but I hope they're not. DJI needs some competition and so far nobody has been close.
A good RF engineer could use a spectrum analyzer and look at the differences of LB and WiFi. Seems I remember this had already been done about a year ago.
It is that simple- have a look at what the wifibroadcast FPV open source crowd is doing. You don’t need a spectrum analyzer to know it’s wifi- the FCC compliance documentation reveals that. Specifically the P4P and Mavic are type approved as Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure TX, i.e 802.11a AKA WIFI... wifibroadcast is part of the 802.11 standards.
Last edited:
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
All that holds back the Mavic is the battery . In a noise free area it Will go 4.2 miles and back
with full signal .
Don't ask, I read it on the internet
with full signal .
Don't ask, I read it on the internet
Since all DJI flavors of Lightbridge appear to be point to point any ideas how occusync implements live feed?
Ocu-sync is special, a product that evolved from DJIs robotics ambitions. They have a robotic division that apparently needed to display fighting robot camera video which motivated DJI to create ocu-sync to support multiple client receivers for entertainment purposes. How do they do it, hard to say, but someone will figure it out someday.
Both wifi broadcast and video over IP support multiple receivers. So there are two ways it might be implemented.
I'm have no clue why, but my personal experience is that it takes more distance as wel as radio interference levels before the Mavic loosess connection when compared to the P4P+.
This experience makes me fly the Mavic with much more confidence than the P4P+ which I only bought because if its mechanical shutter. Yet, because of its frequent (near) signal loss, even at close range, I do not really enjoy the P4P+ anymore, although video wise the Mavic can not even tip at the pro's video quality.
Last edited:
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with the P4P accordingly to the spectrum analyzer (ext. equipment), yet, The Netherlands is already overcrowded with 2.4 and 5.0 GHz Wi-Fi making flying in the city nearly impossible, not to mention the GSM, 3 and 4 G telecom towers every 5 mls.
OK, your using CE compliant specs, less power than FCC in the US, but you should still get 3km with your P4P. Are you flying 5.8Ghz Auto? Are you using windsurfer?
I'm afraid that CE and FCC are hard or software presets, so not much one can do. If one could I would be very interested in finding out how
Today in a wide open field I got 2313 meters at 2.4 GHz. Not too bad. More interesting, and to my pleasant surprize I got well over 12 km flight path on a single battery, which is 50% more than the Mavic. A highly appreciated increase.
The problem in the Dutch cities is that you don't know what transmitters you will encounter along the way. These could be fixed, or on auto, yet, most likely it will be a mix of both, and the mix will also vary from spot to spot. Hence, auto or fixed doesn't really matter, it are all unknowns.
Just to give an impression of the crowdyness, The Netherlands has an internet penetration degree of 95%, and in the city that also means wireless. So when at home, and at ground level I already have at least 6-8 APs at both 2.4 and 5.8 GHz. Hence, If I'm lucky I get 250-350 meters before signal loss occurs. The Mavic yields up to 750 meters.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2016
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 233
- Age
- 77
It sure seem like flying over trees, my Mavic did better that the P4P. Both on flat ground without trees are awesome. Correct me if I am wrong, but 5.8 for congested areas is better. 2.4 for remote areas gives better range. The Mavic only has 2.4. So in a congested area it is concealable that the Mavic may not do as good?
Last edited:
I think you mean flying with the signal going through trees, where you don't have direct LOS connection. In that scenario I think Ocu-sync has better penetration through trees. I use my Mavic in those conditions where penetration through plants is needed. But with clear LOS connection with P4P on 5.8Ghz, the P4P excels with range and it can go farther due to more battery endurance.
