I'm just getting into fpv flying and have some question about goggles.  I most likely will be using a walkera 210.  With just starting I don't really need that great of resoluition in a photo, but something less chopy or staticy in the video.  I was looking at the Dominator v3 by fatshark but around $100 less I can get the Walkera goggle 4 fpv.  Any idea on the difference here?  Would the choppy ness (lines in the video) be about the same and just lower resolution?  Or would there be a better set out there to get?

I don't know about the difference between the V3s or walkeras... but I can tell you that I have the overpriced Dominator HD3s that I paid $500 for, and I am considering "upgrading" to the $140 Eachine goggles two.

The Fatsharks have 800x600 display @ 42degree FOV (so think of it as looking at a 40 inch TV from 10 feet away that doesn't even get the first level of HD video: 720p)
Where the goggles two have 1920x1080 display @ 78degree FOV... (So this is more like looking at an 80 inch TV from 10 feet away that gets 1080p resolution. The difference is significant)

The only reason I haven't upgraded yet is I haven't flown with the goggles two yet but I plan to ask a buddy if I can borrow his this weekend and if it's as much better as I am expecting then I'll probably bite the bullet. In fact banggood has them on sell from the US warehouse for $120 so I am definitely thinking about it.

(14-Sep-2017, 11:43 AM)Carl.Vegas Wrote: I don't know about the difference between the V3s or walkeras... but I can tell you that I have the overpriced Dominator HD3s that I paid $500 for, and I am considering "upgrading" to the $140 Eachine goggles two.

The Fatsharks have 800x600 display @ 42degree FOV (so think of it as looking at a 40 inch TV from 10 feet away that doesn't even get the first level of HD video: 720p)
Where the goggles two have 1920x1080 display @ 78degree FOV... (So this is more like looking at an 80 inch TV from 10 feet away that gets 1080p resolution. The difference is significant)

The only reason I haven't upgraded yet is I haven't flown with the goggles two yet but I plan to ask a buddy if I can borrow his this weekend and if it's as much better as I am expecting then I'll probably bite the bullet. In fact banggood has them on sell from the US warehouse for $120 so I am definitely thinking about it.

Good Reviews.

I have the goggles 2 and I really like them, one issue that annoys me a bit - the connector from the battery to the goggles is a bit temperamental, sometimes just twisting it round can cause it to disconnect, not the end of the world, just replace the connectors with something more reliable. It will mean that you have to hack the charger connector too though. Another downside to them is that there is no installed DVR, but the hack to add one really isn't difficult.

Bear in mind that I have nothing to compare them to, so maybe hang on till Carl has a go with his buddy's to get a proper comparison. I am looking forward to your opinion. Also they may not be ideal for glasses.

(14-Sep-2017, 11:43 AM)Carl.Vegas Wrote: I don't know about the difference between the V3s or walkeras... but I can tell you that I have the overpriced Dominator HD3s that I paid $500 for, and I am considering "upgrading" to the $140 Eachine goggles two.

The Fatsharks have 800x600 display @ 42degree FOV (so think of it as looking at a 40 inch TV from 10 feet away that doesn't even get the first level of HD video: 720p)
Where the goggles two have 1920x1080 display @ 78degree FOV... (So this is more like looking at an 80 inch TV from 10 feet away that gets 1080p resolution. The difference is significant)

The only reason I haven't upgraded yet is I haven't flown with the goggles two yet but I plan to ask a buddy if I can borrow his this weekend and if it's as much better as I am expecting then I'll probably bite the bullet. In fact banggood has them on sell from the US warehouse for $120 so I am definitely thinking about it.

It has to be pointed out that the video signal from an FPV camera is a standard definition analogue TV picture and therefore is limited to either PAL or NTSC resolution. For NTSC, this means 525 scan lines (of which 483 are visible) or 625 scan lines (of which 576 are visible) for PAL.The horizontal resolution of the signal is generally between 600 - 800 pixels.

Displaying a standard definition signal on a 1080p display means upscaling the signal so that it covers more pixels. The scaling can't add information that wasn't there to start with, so it will only assist in reminding you how low the real resolution is.
 
The box style FPV goggles are also much heavier than Fatshark style ones. The Fatshark HD series goggles come in at about 250g before you add a battery and the HD series are quite heavy goggles. (My Skyzone Sky02s are 210g with antennas and no battery.) By comparison, the Eachine Goggles 2 are over 330g before you add a battery and closer to 450g with a battery that will last more than an hour. They're also bulky, which makes it very hard to just throw them in a back pack with a quad, a radio and some batteries.

There's no focus adjustment on the Eachine Goggles 2, so unless you have perfect eyesight, or glasses (and a face) that are small enough to be able to wear them while you are using the goggles, you won't be able to use them. Fatshark style goggles, in contrast, project an image that is far enough away (virtually) that those who only need reading glasses can focus on the projected image without glasses. If you are near sighted, you can fit corrective lenses with up to -4 correction or even have prescription lenses made for the Fatsharks that will also correct for astigmatism.

Many people who have used box style goggles find that the huge field of view is actually a negative because you have to move your eyes to look at different areas of the screen and this results in them feeling dizzy and in eye strain when they are worn for longer periods.

So, I think you'll find the Goggles 2 a downgrade compared to what you currently have.

Fair points, and many are the reasons why I opted for the HD3s back when I made the decision (my second big FPV purchase after buying my radio)

I'd like to clear up a couple of specific points

On resolution:
There are 2 specific applications where the resolution matters to me right now that I left out and that probably don't apply to the OP. So for the sake of elleip unless you have the same scenarios they wont necessarily apply.

The first is HDMI interface from my PC... I use simulators a lot. I have from day one and still put in several hours each week into simulator flying. A better resolution paired with a bigger FOV would mean that I don't have to take my goggles off to select menus... this would be a huge help in itself but also just having a better quality image coming from the simulators would be nice I like pretty computer generated images... not to mention that I might be more likely to actually watch movies or something etc as was my original thought back when I was a complete noob in the post I link to above.

The second, and this is probably even more relevant, I have been greatly considering upgrading my FPV system, possibly going with the prosight system. I recently go the chance to have a look at it and was super impressed! My biggest thing holding me back right now is money to convert 4 quads and the price to make every quad in the future capable for the system.

Weight and size:
At 2.5 min flight time or if I were to fly like a normal person maybe 3 or 4 minutes I am not worried about another couple of pounds on my head. I can take it... where the problem does come into play is the size. For me I travel on business and like to bring my quad with me. I haven't done this on a flight yet but I imagine that the Goggles two would be out of scope for that. In my car however I already carry a ton of junk whenever I go flying. it just means one more thing to pile on when making one of my trips to the car. YMMV

Focus:
This is a key factor and is important. I hadn't thought of it before because I don't have vision problems. Someone who does have vision problems should keep it in mind.

Eye movement:
I don't move my eyes when I fly. I fix my eyes on the center of the screen because moving my eyes would affect my flying. This is true on my monitors when flying simulators. I actually as a habit use my peripheral vision more than most people probably do, and sometimes it comes off as eye contact issues I think (although no one has told me that before so maybe nobody notices it)

I think what you have pointed out though unseen is that my interest in these goggles might be a little more biased to my individual situation than I though... at the same time I think they get good enough feedback from folks that they warrant considering, especially for a new pilot..

So I tried out the Goggles Two today and I did get a bit of an ah-ha. The first was that I forgot about the aspect ratio. 16:9 is not what I've flown before and my quad is pushing 4:3 so everything is squished. If I were to convert I'd absolutely need to work to get used to them.

The picture is significantly more clear than my HD3s as I expected. I was very impressed by that, but I think that might be the receiver more than it being about the goggles.

My biggest problem though was when I lost picture entirely while mid flight at full speed. I don't know what happened but the crash tore the quad up a little so that part sucks.

The weight wasn't a problem, neither was the size resulting in eye movement. The only problem I'd have there is maybe OSD stuff. I was mostly able to fly the way I typically would even if I didn't feel quite as confident because of it being eery.

In general, I would still recommend the goggles two even if I am not ready to buy a set quite yet (I need more time to think about it)

Ah no man, not cool, I hope its fixable?

It is... mostly it was a combination of prop damage (I have one prop that I cant get the nut off of, but I think that's more because of the spacers than the crash), a little bit of loosening of the camera, my gopro wedge/mount exploded and I had a battery strap rip apart. So all things I can easily fix (after I get that prop off).

The screen on it is really strange... I've never seen static look the way that it did on this screen... It's obviously converting the picture to a digital view. That makes me wonder if there are any possible issues with latency as well. I wasn't able to tell if there were or not though, I'd need for it to feel more familiar and locked in first to judge.

While Carl isn't wrong about the analogy of looking at a 40 inch TV from 10 feet away its a little hard to visualize. I had read a similar analogy many times before I bought my DOM V3's. I had gone from box goggles and was worried that the FatSharks would be like looking at a screen down a dark hallway. That is not at all my experience. I find my DOM V3's to be very immersive. If you are able to try out some different googles to see what you like best.

(18-Sep-2017, 05:01 AM)rryyyaann Wrote: If you are able to try out some different googles to see what you like best.

While not everyone has this option, I concur that those who do should absolutely take advantage of it! 

The analogy of distance is less about the actual distance and trying to describe how your eyes might fix on the screen. 

one part of the analogy that I would change in my example above though... is fatsharks are like looking at a 40" at 10 feet away, while the goggles 2 is more like looking at a 40" just a couple of feed away. Because it is a single screen and you do have to cross your eyes some it absolutely feels much closer than the FS goggles do.

I think Walkeras is Much Better Choice but You should also Check Eachine Ev100 before making your final decision.

(07-Oct-2017, 05:29 PM)FlyingBird Wrote: I think Walkeras is Much Better Choice

Why do you think this?


A completely unsubstantiated opinion is not exactly helpful.

(09-Oct-2017, 10:46 AM)unseen Wrote: Why do you think this?


A completely unsubstantiated opinion is not exactly helpful.

Just Because they are $100 cheap and they are from the same  manufacturer, I think they would be better for a Welkera Drone.

(09-Oct-2017, 12:51 PM)FlyingBird Wrote: Just Because they are $100 cheap and they are from the same  manufacturer, I think they would be better for a Welkera Drone.

There's nothing magic or special about the FPV signal from any quadcopter that makes a particular manufacturer's goggles better at receiving or displaying that manufacturer's FPV signal.

Unless the craft in question is using a special system like a Connex Prosight or a DJI Lightbridge, the FPV signal is a simple analogue TV signal transmitted over a 5.8GHz carrier. This signal is the same, regardless of if the originating craft is a Walkera, an Eachine or a completely custom build.

If you are going to present yourself as a knowledgeable reviewer and punt stuff to people to make money from the affiliate schemes that you run on the web site that you link to in your signature, you actually need to know what you are talking about in detail and know how all the technology works.

Also, having looked at the web site, a review is something which requires that you personally own and have used the things you recommend. As far as I can see, the person who wrote the review of the Walkera Aibao has never actually used one. If they had, the photographs in the article would have been taken by the reviewer rather than being copied from Walkera's press release.

Another case in point is the article "Best FPV RTF Quads and Kits for Drone Racing". Each article consists of nothing more than a stock photo, a few words of filler and a copy of the specifications straight from the Banggood product page. No honest reviewer would ever include the truly horrible Eachine Racer 250 in a best of anything review!

The Wizard X220 "review" which has your name attached to it is nothing like a review! It mentions none of the strengths and weaknesses of the craft, contains only stock photos and one photo copied from a YouTube review by Reya Dawnbringer in November 2016 and fails to meet any of the criteria that would actually make it a real review. Have you actually flown this craft?

Telling people you are an expert when this clearly isn't the case is dishonest. Telling people that something is great, when you haven't actually even held one in your hand, much less bought it for your own money and extensively tested it before writing a detailed and unbiased review is also dishonest.

I'd personally advise people not to trust a word that they find written on howtodrones.com. Joining this forum and using it to advertise the site via the link in your signature is something I personally find offensive. Many people who come to Oscar's blog and to this forum are beginners and don't yet know enough about the hobby to be able to spot bad and dishonest reviews when they see them.

I am an expert and there are many people here on this forum who would vouch for the truth of that statement. I won't stand by and say nothing while someone tries to use the forum to gain traffic to an affiliate link farming site so that they can make money by giving people poor advice from reviews which are nothing more than republished sales listings.