(28-Nov-2021, 06:03 AM)kafie1980 Wrote: The optics are different with each goggle.

The barrel effect or tunnel effect is there on most goggles.

You should not need reading glasses when wearing goggles and in most cases you may not need the fancy focusing mechanism.

One advice with regards to goggles is to try them before you buy them or watch as many reviews as you can because the fit on your face or light leakage or eyelashes rubbing against the lens etc are hard to guess.

on the matter of reading glasses, i presently have an Eachine EV800D which i consider flyable without the need to wear reading glasses. i just inserted an extender (15mm) which greatly helped and if it only had better resolution it would have been great. my only minor quibble is i have to squint the slightest bit in order to make the goggle display more readable as the green font does not stand out well enough. the OSD is readable after i chose a larger font size. but it is usable nonetheless.

if this is a good reference point for not needing the focusing mechanism on the binocular goggles then that would be great! i notice they included two face plates to broaden user options. i would be so unlucky to encounter serious fitment issues…

once again, trying them out is a very long shot nowadays in my side of the pond. the best i can do is seek user feedback from the local fpv folks and hope for the best buying blindly at the end of the day.

Frankly speaking, Skyzone 04x has recently had some bad press about their goggles. The others are not immune to defects: Fastshark HDO2 has the worst DVR and others have reported power issues with the OLED screens. ORQA FPV.One has issues with the OLEDs burning out.

The above is just a short account of the latest offerings from the vendors in the premium analog goggle range. I will let you imagine how cheaper goggles may have other issues.

ORQA has a new goggle due to be released soon (there are some strong rumours around this) and same goes with others as these models have been around for several seasons now.

I will also point out that not everyone feels comfortable with slim goggles and some users actually go back to box goggles.

Then there is also a question if you will ever go digital in the future? Which is the latest trend and not many people buying analog goggles. I only fly analog at the moment but I find it very hard to recommend anyone buy analog goggles.

So I will suggest you do your research.

One thing to note with box style goggles is that you get a much more immersive experience compared to slim dual screen binocular goggles due to the huge field of view. I've never used real box goggles with a single screen and the closest I have got to something like that is the DJI FPV Goggles which are binocular goggles that have two large screens which makes the experience comparable to box goggles. I personally don't like that and I actually scale the image down in my DJI goggles so it doesn't fill the whole screen. By comparison I much prefer the view I get in my FatShark HDO (V1) goggles with a 37 degree FOV which is much smaller and less immersive, but still immersive enough for me to have a nice FPV flying experience.

I would urge a word of caution on the Skyzone SKY04 range of goggles if you are looking at those. While the features they offer are second to none, they seem to have more than their fair shar of complaints from users in recent times. That is for both hardware and firmware issues. Early adopters of the goggles seem to have less complaints so it appears that Skyzone QC has gone downhill somewhat with the later batches of goggles, coupled with the fact that they seemed to have introduced a number of bugs and issues into the newer versions of the firmware that some users are up in arms over. You also can't easily change the included SteadyView / RapidMix module to something different without modification to the goggle case or modification to 3rd party modules because Skyzone made the hole for the module too small to fit other modules into. I'm not trying to put you off getting some. Just putting the information out there and trying to make you aware that it could be a bit of a gamble with an element of luck in getting a good pair with no issues.

If I was buying a new pair of binocular goggles today, I would very likely get a pair of the ORQA goggles. They have just discontinued their FPV.One goggles in preparation for the announcement of a new version, so that might be worth waiting for. They aren't cheap though. Expect them to cost at least $600 USD, and that will be without an analogue module included.

(28-Nov-2021, 11:12 AM)kafie1980 Wrote: Frankly speaking, Skyzone 04x has recently had some bad press about their goggles. The others are not immune to defects: Fastshark HDO2 has the worst DVR and others have reported power issues with the OLED screens. ORQA FPV.One has issues with the OLEDs burning out.

The above is just a short account of the latest offerings from the vendors in the premium analog goggle range. I will let you imagine how cheaper goggles may have other issues.

ORQA has a new goggle due to be released soon (there are some strong rumours around this) and same goes with others as these models have been around for several seasons now.

I will also point out that not everyone feels comfortable with slim goggles and some users actually go back to box goggles.

Then there is also a question if you will ever go digital in the future? Which is the latest trend and not many people buying analog goggles. I only fly analog at the moment but I find it very hard to recommend anyone buy analog goggles.

So I will suggest you do your research.

your inputs are greatly appreciated! i was initially looking at the skyzone 04L with its lower price point in mind and overall good reviews. i did read about the fatshark dvr issues etc. sadly not even these higher tier equipment is not immune to premature failures…

curious about people going back to box goggles though. but i did see reviewers praising the virtues of decent box goggles comparing to their own slim types. i’d be in a better position to decide if i can only “audition” the slim types!

The reason why some prefer box goggles is because they have issues focusing on two displays and mentally blending the individual images.

With regards to reviews, just don't trust them too much. The only reviews I trust are when the reviewer has bought a product with their hard earned money and when they have used the product for a few weeks.

One thought that springs to mind is have you considered buying some pre-owned slim style binocular goggles? That would help to mitigate some of the gamble of not being able to try-before-you-buy by reducing the amount you would need to spend. There seem to be plenty of people leaving the hobby at the moment or people who have moved exclusively to digital and are trying to sell their analogue goggles.

(28-Nov-2021, 10:50 AM)hawk01 Wrote: on the matter of reading glasses, i presently have an Eachine EV800D which i consider flyable without the need to wear reading glasses. i just inserted an extender (15mm) which greatly helped and if it only had better resolution it would have been great. my only minor quibble is i have to squint the slightest bit in order to make the goggle display more readable as the green font does not stand out well enough. the OSD is readable after i chose a larger font size. but it is usable nonetheless.

     Where did you find the 15mm extender for the EV800D goggles ???  For me, the "stock" focal length requires 6+ diopter readers.

     My Viper goggles only require a 3+ diopter.

if this is a good reference point for not needing the focusing mechanism on the binocular goggles then that would be great! i notice they included two face plates to broaden user options. i would be so unlucky to encounter serious fitment issues…

once again, trying them out is a very long shot nowadays in my side of the pond. the best i can do is seek user feedback from the local fpv folks and hope for the best buying blindly at the end of the day.

Hi Hawk,

You mention the "poor" resolution of the EV800D goggles. Now, I am curious since my EV800D goggles seem to have very good
resolution; as good or better than my Viper goggles. Here is the thing, maybe it is not the goggles, but rather the camera on the
quad. {{ I am assuming that your goggles are not defective }}

Before continuing, let me say that the video systems on these quads is cheap analog. Not that it is a bad thing, but you just will
not get high quality images from them. That includes the cameras, the VTX, and the goggles. It simply is NOT high definition.

I have over 30 quads {minus the two that I lost} with a variety of camera and VTX options; all of which I have flown with the
Viper goggles. Plus, I use the Viper monitor on the bench for testing. Now, I will say that the camera makes a big difference
in the video quality. The VTX may also play a part in it. Furthermore, where I fly makes a difference. 

In the whole thing, the camera seems to make the biggest difference in image quality. I have noticed differences in image 
quality even between cameras with the same TVL. For example, 2 different cameras rated at 600TVL can have different
clarity. I will catch some disagreement here, but I can definitely tell the difference between 600TVL and 1200TVL cameras.

          Here is where the confusion comes in. From what people say and even my research, the VTX on these analog
          systems only transmit at 600TVL. So, the logic is that a camera having higher TVL is just a waste due to the
          restrictions of the VTX. While that may be "technically" true, I DO notice the difference with the higher TVL
          cameras. Keep in mind, that the stated TVL is only one measurement of the potential image quality. It could
          be other things in the higher TVL cameras are also different. I don't know, but I can tell the difference.

         What I am saying here is that the camera in the Moblite7 might be of a lesser quality 
         than some other cameras. It could be the system on the quad rather than the goggles
         that is generating the "poor" resolution.

If you know someone with different goggles, you might want to try them before going out and making another purchase.
You might also try to find a different quad to try which might provide a better resolution even with the EV800Ds. 
It could be that the "poor" image quality may actually be the quad, NOT the goggles. 

Another thing is the perception of image quality and what you are expecting.  If this is your first experience with
analog FVP, then you might be expecting something beyond what these little systems are capable of. 

Just a note: All of the "High Quality" video that you see on YouTube and most of it here on this site is from an HD
system; either a GoPro, other action camera, or an HD quad system which, by the way, is only HD on the video
recording and NOT on the FPV feed that is transmitted to the goggles.

(28-Nov-2021, 12:36 PM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: One thought that springs to mind is have you considered buying some pre-owned slim style binocular goggles? That would help to mitigate some of the gamble of not being able to try-before-you-buy by reducing the amount you would need to spend. There seem to be plenty of people leaving the hobby at the moment or people who have moved exclusively to digital and are trying to sell their analogue goggles.

from my side of the pond, i am still looking for options in the market place for used units but often see them bundled up as combos with quad etc. sellers prefer lot sale instead.

(28-Nov-2021, 02:02 PM)iFly4rotors Wrote: Hi Hawk,

You mention the "poor" resolution of the EV800D goggles. Now, I am curious since my EV800D goggles seem to have very good
resolution; as good or better than my Viper goggles. Here is the thing, maybe it is not the goggles, but rather the camera on the
quad. {{ I am assuming that your goggles are not defective }}

Before continuing, let me say that the video systems on these quads is cheap analog. Not that it is a bad thing, but you just will
not get high quality images from them. That includes the cameras, the VTX, and the goggles. It simply is NOT high definition.

I have over 30 quads {minus the two that I lost} with a variety of camera and VTX options; all of which I have flown with the
Viper goggles. Plus, I use the Viper monitor on the bench for testing. Now, I will say that the camera makes a big difference
in the video quality. The VTX may also play a part in it. Furthermore, where I fly makes a difference. 

In the whole thing, the camera seems to make the biggest difference in image quality. I have noticed differences in image 
quality even between cameras with the same TVL. For example, 2 different cameras rated at 600TVL can have different
clarity. I will catch some disagreement here, but I can definitely tell the difference between 600TVL and 1200TVL cameras.

          Here is where the confusion comes in. From what people say and even my research, the VTX on these analog
          systems only transmit at 600TVL. So, the logic is that a camera having higher TVL is just a waste due to the
          restrictions of the VTX. While that may be "technically" true, I DO notice the difference with the higher TVL
          cameras. Keep in mind, that the stated TVL is only one measurement of the potential image quality. It could
          be other things in the higher TVL cameras are also different. I don't know, but I can tell the difference.

         What I am saying here is that the camera in the Moblite7 might be of a lesser quality 
         than some other cameras. It could be the system on the quad rather than the goggles
         that is generating the "poor" resolution.

If you know someone with different goggles, you might want to try them before going out and making another purchase.
You might also try to find a different quad to try which might provide a better resolution even with the EV800Ds. 
It could be that the "poor" image quality may actually be the quad, NOT the goggles. 

Another thing is the perception of image quality and what you are expecting.  If this is your first experience with
analog FVP, then you might be expecting something beyond what these little systems are capable of. 

Just a note: All of the "High Quality" video that you see on YouTube and most of it here on this site is from an HD
system; either a GoPro, other action camera, or an HD quad system which, by the way, is only HD on the video
recording and NOT on the FPV feed that is transmitted to the goggles.

the EV800 is not literally poor as it is still flyable despite my less than perfecf eyesight. you may be right as i could be expecting too much beyond what it can deliver. you also provided another wealth of info in the video loop which also contributes another set of restrictions to video quality! 

in fairness to the EV800D it is really flyable indoors during the day with just ambient lighting where other parts of the house receiver less than ambient illumination. at night where i do not have extremely bright lighting it still impresses me with acceptably decent the picture quality. 

guess i am presently looking forward to something that can deliver better in the form of LCOS or OLED but the limiting factor of VTX and camera is something i did overlook. in the grand scheme of things, an audition of various drones with better onboard equipment with my EV800D is worth a lot! in the same manner my moblite7 paired with a higher tier binocular goggles will provide much info. 

i really need to get hooked up with the local fpv group in order to validate the performance of my equipment. so far everyone here has been truly helpful easing my way into this hobby. looking forward to another session of bashing into furntiure around the house! cheers!

(25-Nov-2021, 03:39 PM)sevro Wrote: I've only been flying for 7 months, mostly freestyle and I'd say that I'm fairly comfortable with my 5" setups. Just got in this week an Acrobee65 v3 and it took about 4 packs before I was able to dial it in and fly it inside (narrow condo) without crashing it every 20 seconds. While people always recommend the prop guarded models for beginners for obvious reasons as also mentioned they're a little harder to fly. Love how quiet it is compared to 2.5" cinewhoops that sound worse than a vacuum cleaner in an enclosed space.

hello all! @sevro commented something here that piqued my curiosity. as i do not have any open prop drone yet, how they handle differently to those with ducts? prop guards?

is it (prop guarded) more difficult to fly? or is it case to case basis???

Indoors it becomes a necessity to avoid damaging anything or hurting people. If flying outdoors then prop guards only help if flying close to people or other soft targets.

Prop guards do affect flight performance and not many like that on freestyle quads.

newbie observation:

as i get to be more familiar with tiny whoop operation, i am beginning to nitpick on small observations which i hope the folks her can validate with their own experience.

on the get go i flew the moblite7 vtx set to MAX at 200mW. while i was getting decent flight times i somewhat noticed the higher load it poses on the battery in the form of sag as i had to constantly do corrective throttle input to maintain altitude. i set it to MIN at 25mW which fortunately did not drop video reception going up second floor into another room. though ii think there is still “some” amount of sag but i did notice the flight time improved a lot as i was able to scoot around for 6min landing with still 3.6V on tap. perhaps the sag may not be sag and is dirty air bouncing off the walls as i make 180deg maneuvers.

i am also considering what a three blade prop may contribute to performance. while many YT reviews show good speed and battery endurance with tow blade props, this comes at the expense of maneuverabilty and agility. what is everyone’s take on the prop choice matter? if ever i may want to try the three blade moblite6 props since either whoop shares the same ESC anyway.

as a follow up to my multi-blade prop curiosity, i would be more interested to get more control, grip without sacrificing much of the efficiency of the two bladed prop. hence i am not after max thrust output as the two blade has the best thrust based on a YT reviewer.

(30-Nov-2021, 01:05 AM)hawk01 Wrote: hello all! @sevro commented something here that piqued my curiosity. as i do not have any open prop drone yet, how they handle differently to those with ducts? prop guards?

is it (prop guarded) more difficult to fly? or is it case to case basis???

The various feedback I've noticed in passing is that a lot of the cinewhoop models are harder to fly which leads to less enjoyable overall for more freestyle or acrobatic flying. Why fly a clunky Diatone Taycan when you can rip with a more agile frame. But for someone that just wants to cruise around the field maybe those models are fine. 

It's hard to compare to these tiny whoops like you have as the larger quads can't do what they do in tight spaces indoors. Not to mention any of the larger prop guarded 2.5" and larger models sound like the worst vacuum cleaner noise dialed up to 11 when flying inside.

Personally, I have not noticed whooped or prop guarded quads being any harder to fly than open prop quads.

I will say, however, that a tiny whoop inside a house is harder to fly than anything outside including a tiny whoop.
It is more the confined space than whether the quad has whoops or prop guards. 

That said, the larger whooped or prop guarded quads tend to be heavier than a similar open prop quad. 
The power to weight ratio is generally not as good. However, it does not make the quad any harder to
fly, it just has a little slower response than a lighter quad. This is not a problem when the goal is smooth, 
easy cruising or smooth cinematic flights.  

The extra weight is only an issue if you are racing or doing hard pressed Acro stunts; in which case, 
performance and quick responsiveness become more important. I would suggest that it is the weight
more than any effect of the actual ducts. 

Inside a house, a ducted or prop guarded quad it basically a necessity especially if you have a wife, kids,
pets, or anything that could be damaged. If I fly a quad in the house, it simply must be ducted or I catch
the rath of my wife.