AKK Dual antenna VTX - Will it work? Supplied by AkkTech
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- There's been talk of antenna diversity on the transmitter side as long as there's been VTX's but multipathing generally gets in the way of the idea. But Akk has bought out a dual antenna VTX, have they cracked it?
This VTX was kindly supplied by Akk for review, so if you'd like to check it out in more detail, please use this (affiliate) link www.akktek.com...
Alternatively, Banggood also carry Akk gear - I've had good experiences with their previous VTX's, you can take a look here www.banggood.c...
If you liked this video and want to show your support please feel free to join my Patreon supporters here / currykitten or if you decide to shop at Banggood, here's a general affiliate link which helps me out if you use it www.banggood.c...
If you want to look at other ways of supporting my channel, then check out all the ways you could help out here www.currykitten...
“This layout is particularly bad for anybody that uses props” good job keeping a straight face saying that 🤣
Finally, someone called them on it. You have to wonder if anyone at akk actually has any idea what they are doing. 5 star review
I think there's just nobody doing proper testing there now. Which is a shame, they've made some great products previously
Spat my brew out when you said "this layout is particularly bad for anyone that uses props" 😂😂😂
That struck me funny as well😂
This is a VTX made for the kind of people who think a pet dog or cat is boring....... They have something like a hippo and they call it Fluffy. It's batsh*t crazy! If any reviewer said it was a good idea they should lose all their subscribers overnight! Well done Wayne you passed the AKK insanity test. 👍 P.S Stu the OTT Australian would love it! It would be a "game changer" as most things are.
Thanks! Respect for thinking out of the box, but of course, like you said, now you get constant multipathing.
And with still a lot of new people joining the hobby they'll probably sell a lot to newbees who think it's better.
I bought one for cheap as more of a curiosity than anything. I did'nt even try it yet. Someone at AKK liked the look of the dual antennas on the DJI system so much, they decided to implement it on a regular VTX with no real benefit, lol.
You have to wonder if that's literally what happened. Seems like either nobody is testing, or they are but ignore their results
Would be interesting to see it with 2 antennas of the same polarization to see how that does. When I first saw this a few months back I was wondering why they would want two different polarizations, it just doesn't make sense. But maybe with 2 rights or 2 lefts it might actually work good. Thanks for the review!
Maybe it’s supposed to be used with those equally weird tbs patches? 🤣
2 rights or two lefts in different orientations would make a bit more sense, although being circular polarised the loss you get in a turn is pretty minimal compared to a linear - so who knows ?
Great and honest review, Wayne! Thanks a lot! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thanks MC - how you are safe over there
@@CurryKitten Well, I don't ever get out the house, so... 😬
Something this difficult to mount.. should at least perform above average.. which it "clearly" didn't.
Good review though.
With a lot of companies I just don't think there's enough testing on actual quads done - if there had been then someone would have surely suggested 90 degree antennas and reported back on the picture not being that good
@@CurryKitten We must be missing something here... Why would anyone design a format like this.. and then stand the cost of production... Without testing a prototype first... Just dosn't make sense to me.
@@heliharris69 use two 180degree patch antennas on it and you understand why it is like it is
Dumb idea! lol 😳🙄
Thanks for giving us your honest opinion! Nice review!
Thanks!
Good effort!
I definitely would suggest running 2 antennas with the same polarization and see if the flickering goes away. If they have already dealt with the impedance matching of transmitting with 2 antennas then running 2 of the same should work quit well.
It's interesting to try and do diversity at the VTX. I would expect better results with two antennas of the same polarization and one with a 90degree connector.
It strikes me that to do it cleanly, you need to be transmitting on two different frequencies with goggles/some sort of diversity rx that can choose the best signal between them. I can't see a way that you aren't producing multipathing when on the same band/channel
Honest review,Thanks.By any chance have you reached out to AKK to get their reasoning or science behind it? That would be nice info to get.
Good summary but might have been nice to see the LAL with your usual VTX on the same day for a comparison.
I'd have love to have done that as well, but doing a field swap of the VTX is a bit too involved so you'd have to refer to a previous flight when I was out testing the Phoenix 2 nano czcams.com/video/FI57Y3PfXBk/video.html
great vid as always nice vtx two is always better than one well most of the time lol still not found my quad weve looked all weekend borrowed binoculas from a mate and no luck so thats not good trying to get the parts together to build a new drone if youve got anything youve no more need for id be very greatful as im at the moment looking arfter my son and grandson so money is so tight sorry to ask many thanks have a great day just finished the vid that pictures terable great vid good job realy not laying into them but they do normally make ok vtx cheers mate
I am just a layman in radio tech but this looks like a terrible idea. You always receive part of the signal in the wrong polarization which is rejected by the receiver antenna or, even worse, canceled out by waves reflected somewhere.
You want two 90 degrees elbows on them so they are vertical. This will give you Vertical and Horizontalr signal off them. Then your rx will get the signal in all orientations.
If they are both on 90 degrees and are vertical, then how are we getting vertical and horizontal from them - surely both will be vertical ?
what if 1 output mmcx but y split(2 branch)? will be equal like that?
Have you tried it with RHCP and LHCP antennas on your goggles at the same time? The idea does seem more pants than Primark. If you set your goggles up with a RHCP and LHCP antenna you can no longer use a onmi and a patch directional antenna so in affect you actually lose range, unless you use a RHCP and LHCP patch on the goggles at the same time but then you’ve lost you omni. Not sure what AKK we’re thinking as they do make very good products up until this point.
I never use skews including on 5.8g...You could have removed one of those skews to prove your theory methinks....Both were lipo blocked as well with one wrapped around the lipo power cable...God knows how bad it would be for someone not having the benefit of Rapid fire...It's why I don't use 5.8g if I can help it.
I didn't want to run it on a single antenna as I wasn't sure if it would cause damage to the VTX. Although there's an amount of blocking in that configuration, there was in the original VTX as well which still got a better picture.
@@CurryKitten I doubt it would damage the vtx, I don't think the RF split is that clever TBH. The image was okay, it was the constant flashing that made it look bad IMO.
Now the test is done, it could be worth trying on one antenna to find out. Maybe you could also bottom mount your Lipo temporary with tape?
I wonder if you could put two linear whippy bois on there and then mount them 90 degrees apart? Probably better for a wing with that weird mounting
Unless there is some trick that AKK have not let us know about, I am surprised AKK have released something so poorly thought out. I am a great AKK vtx fan - had nothing but good experience with their products, but this one seems a bit strange. At first glance i thought it was to be used with linear antennas, but that idea was soon proved wrong!
Me too, I've had some really nice VTXs from AKK, but this just didn't seem to work at all. It sort of reeks of doing something because someone thought it must be good without testing it
Rapidfire has a flickering sky exactly like that
I'm using RapidFIRE - there's normally a little bit of a flicker, but nothing like this, which is more of a complete frame thing
my guess is you have to use classic diversity module on goggles with different polarized antenna for this setup to work
by classic i mean rapidfire wont reconstruct well... but polarity will make sure each set of antenna does not affect the other set... and diversity will make sure that one set of antennas is acctive at a time
It's pretty cool though, I would exspect it to be much clearer. Did you try it with a single antenna? TFS!
I didn't - mostly because I don't know if you need both antennas to be present to stop any damage to the VTX
This is for planes. Use two 180 degree patches with 8 to 10 dbi and you will understand. :)
I thought that going to lh polarised on one side of the goggles and rh polarised might be the go too, but might just make the signals even more mixed up. I don’t think I’d invest in one.
I can't see a sensible way around it - aside from transmitting on two distinct frequencies and having a receiving diversity system that could pick from the strongest signal on two frequencies. It's the only way I can see of getting proper TX diversity without multipathing
This is something that you got to think why? There is a lack of thought with the aerials also the concept is missed of not explained. This is not something I would consider at the end of the day, if you have splashed out on immersion rc rapid fire this was made to reduce multipathing where Akk seams to add it back, confused!
I wonder how it would perform with two RH antennas, and maybe bending the antennas down would both clear the props easier and
Provide a less obstructed signal .
I had considered being downwards, but they would stick out below the frame slightly and I was worried about potential damage there. Perhaps the same polarization in different orientations would help - but according to AKK that's not the intended use ?
Did you try 2 rhp antenna or maybe it was made to only have one antenna at a time?
So run extension. Run one antenna front top.. other bottom rear.. drone between both antennas?
Didn't watch video yet.. reception at trail bad
Just wondering if you have a rhcp, and a left on goggles and vtx?
It would seem a more sensible idea - I didn't try it as I didn't have any LHCP for my goggles. It also wasn't documented that you should do so. I've still got it in the corner if I want to try it again, but I've already swapped the VTX out of that quad so I can get on with testing other stuff without having the hassle of two antennas getting in my way
@@CurryKitten I wanted to buy one to check it out, but Bardwell said it doesn't make sense, but that hasn't killed my curiosity, lol. I know nothing about these things, but it seems if the receiver was made to receive both, and maybe use rapid fire tech to merge the images. It seems something like this could be done to eliminate multipathing, I guess if it was that simple it would have been done.
What if you used 2 RHCP antennas, and for the one the sticking out, you used a right angle mmcx or something? And then you could set them up in a way such that one antenna is on the front of the quad and one antenna is on the back of the quad?
I think the L shape isn't a bad idea if you have one horizontally and one vertically. I think you'd get more benefit on coverage that an on in front/on behind configuration. But with two RHCP signal going at once I don't think it's going to help on the multipathing issue
It should pair nicely with that silly TBS patch (aerum polar) designed for MIMO but advertised as both LH and RH CP at the same time :)
(I’m joking, but what if that was the idea all along?!)
ooh Akk Nice
I'll Stick with my Tanks thanks 😜👍
Good move - I was just out testing the Tank II Ultimate
Is it betterwith just one antenna?
I didn't want to run it like that, as I didn't know electronically if the lack of an antenna on one of the MMCX adapters would cause damage
Either they didn't test this out before release or they decided that they had too much money and time invested in the project to not release it even though the concept doesn't work. Too bad either way.
so that's a two fingered salute to the two antenna board then.
It’s not the dual antenna it’s akk I use dual pigtails on my wing using tbs hv and I fuckig love it but I cause minor issues for people I fly with but they just change the channels and bands on the vtx. I never got anything good from akk and if I did it didn’t last long at all an akk vtx will burn out on you in a week or two
How do you connect two pigtails on TBS HV?
what a shame
I kinda did what I expected it to sadly.
Don't like it at all.
Me neither