Range between an O4 and O3 transmission systems are the same in my experience. I compared the Air 3, an O4 system, to Mav3Enterprise, and O3 system.

[StevenBrodsky]

My Air3 with the RC 2 (O4) loses connection at the exact same height and distance as my Mav3 Enterprise with the RC Pro (O3). The specs say the Air3 can fly 12 miles away and the Enterprise can fly 7.5 miles away. Maybe these specs are correct in a completely unobstructed path between RC and Drone. But, in my real world testing, they both are losing video transmission at the same point (distance and altitude) in my test comparison.

I flew both of them 1500 feet away and at 200ft to the ground. There is average ground clutter, i.e. trees, houses and other structures slightly in the way.

I actually bought the Air 3 thinking I could get closer to a subject than my M3E. But when ground clutter comes into play, the O4 system behaves like an O3 system and vice versa. I thought maybe, the O4 system's signal may be able to get through ground clutter a little bit better than the O3, but I was sadly disappointed.

I did find a solution though. I modded both the Air 3 controller and the M3E controller to allow attachment of a powered Alientech booster antenna. Now the ground clutter penetration has significantly improved, allowing me to fly moderately lower than with the stock antennae.

I also have an M30 with the RC Pro Plus (both are O3). It has the same issue with ground clutter. Maybe even worse than my Air3 and M3E. Because the RC antennae are made detachable, Alientech came up with a simple adapter I can put on the RC PRO PLUS and then attach their powered booster. I'm sure it will perform as well as the modded Air3 and M3E controllers.

 

[GFields]

ground clutte

What do you mean by ground cluter?

 

[mavic3usa]

Exactly why I believe any range-type comparisons between O3 and O4 are marketing techniques and have no decisive real-life differences. Depending on what the Mavic 4 in O4 looks like, I may just skip O4 altogether and wait for O5. Sad that DJI would give those of us looking for an excuse to take a pass....so far I'm still holding on Mini 3 Pro and Avata 1. Marginal increases alone that get you one more street over or one additional room inside a building while fly FPVs, that's good and all, but not at having to buy new ecosystem like remotes and goggles along with a new drone...every year. Maybe we are hitting up against the limits and it's time for 4G/5G.

 

[StevenBrodsky]

What do you mean by ground cluter?

Clutter in this context means buildings, vegetation, foliage, and cluster of vehicles. This can be generalised as land cover. The transmission path, between the transmitter and the receiver, can be either unobstructed, purely, line of sight (LOS), or obstructed by the presence of obstacles such as buildings, mountains, and foliage.
Publish Year: 2018
Cited By: 11
Published: 08 December 2017
Volume: 12, Issue1

 

[Droning on and on...]

No they are not simply marketing techniques, nor are they meaningless due to unrealistic conditions.

Successful reception and decoding of a radio signal is complicated. A minor blockage can kill the signal, and it won't matter what encoding protocol or bandwidth is used.

O4 doesn't penetrate obstacles any better than O3. Or O2. Or Lightbridge. Obstacle penetration is about one thing, as you've discovered: Power. And O4 is the same transmit power as O3.

So if you're flying around in an urban, EM noisy environment with trees and buildings all around, limiting you to about a quarter mile before you start having dropouts, the improvements in O4 over O3 will mostly be nonexistent. The extra antennas amplify the noise as much as the signal you're trying to capture.

Keep in mind you're breaking the law with a booster. You are not licensed to broadcast at that power level. It will very likely be a non-issue, but there is a small chance you might interfere with some other transmission, that may be important enough to find you, confiscate your equipment, and cite you.

Never heard of it happening though, at the relatively low boost with Alientech. I did have an acquaintance about 30 years ago that was running his own pirate AM radio station pushing out 100W (a modified CB linear amp, massively illegal), and he did get a visit and was shut down (and fined) because he was bleeding over a bunch of radio stations annoying his neighbors.

 

[mavic3usa]

Exactly why I believe any range-type comparisons between O3 and O4 are marketing techniques and have no decisive real-life differences.

No they are not simply marketing techniques, nor are they meaningless due to unrealistic conditions.

So far I'm not seeing it in real life broadly. It's turning into a marketing gimmick. DJI should go back to discussing the scientific aspects as you mentioned in your long post instead of the marketing con scheme they appear to be somewhat perpetrating against those who don't know better.

For example, if DJI said buy my O4 drone because it has a range of 22km over the O3 drone which has a range of only 18km, that's borderline disingenuous on a consumer (non-technical) level.

...and with that, here comes the same tired explanation about the asterisk and the laboratory conditions and ideal setup. I have no legal comments on this issue.

 

[3rdof5]

I don't see any difference in my experience either. In fact, my P3P with the gl300c RC with lightbridge got just as good of range in the same environment flying over trees and out over a lake near home here where I like to fly. All are excellent and very reliable.

 

[Dustydoug]

I would be interested in hearing from someone who has seen a difference between the two transmission systems.

DJI does use ideal conditions for its specifications and maybe a noticeable disclaimer would be in order.

But… unfortunately what DJI does is fairly commonplace. Caveat Emptor, buyer beware.

I can remember when I had the chicken pox as a kid and ordered from the back of a comic book a “remote control” bat that promised I could fly it myself. I had visions of me sending it down to my mom and having her send food and other things attached back to me.

It turns out it was a rubber bat attached to stretchy string.

Look at all the food items that come in the same size containers but with less product in them. A 12 oz soda can with 11.5 ounces. And then manufacturers say they are not raising prices. Well they are.

I am not saying we have to accept it. Some fighting back can be good.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You guys are focusing exclusively on range, when O4 was much more than that.

1080p live view is a big part of the improvement of O4 over O3, and I'm certainly seeing it. IMO that was the main intended improvement, not extending BVLOS flight.

you guys may be having video drop out at the same distance, but it's at 1080p, not 720p. Right there your seeing the improved transmission, it's just going to bandwidth, not signal strength.

Haven't checked with the M4P and A3, but with the Avata 2 you can dial down the bandwidth to match the Avata 1, get poorer quality, and increased range. I've done it.

 

[davidarmenb]

You guys are focusing exclusively on range, when O4 was much more than that.

1080p live view is a big part of the improvement of O4 over O3, and I'm certainly seeing it. IMO that was the main intended improvement, not extending BVLOS flight.

you guys may be having video drop out at the same distance, but it's at 1080p, not 720p. Right there your seeing the improved transmission, it's just going to bandwidth, not signal strength.

Haven't checked with the M4P and A3, but with the Avata 2 you can dial down the bandwidth to match the Avata 1, get poorer quality, and increased range. I've done it.

Correct. The bandwidth of the O4 is much higher than the O3. However, the O3 does supports a max live view of 1080p at 30fps. The O4 supports a max live view of 1080p at 60fps.

However, the resolution is a very small factor, as a 1080p video with very low bandwidth will look like total **** whereas a 720p video with great bandwidth will look crisp.

Bandwidth is what matters.

The big upgrade for the O4 was the increase in bandwidth, going from about 15-18Mbps max for the O3 to about 40Mbps max for the O4.
This change is even higher for direct Wi-Fi file transfers; going from 10MB/s for the O3 to 30MB/s for the O4.

So the O4 will have a better and clearer live view quality at all distances when compared to O3 and it will retain a much higher bandwidth (crisper live view video) 1080p feed when you have low signal (three bars or less) between the drone and remote.

 

[thispilothere]

I tested this last year with Air2 vs Air3 - as close to apples to apples as possible.

O4 gave a slight increase in both distance and video quality.

Here's the original post:

I have the N2, a friend has the RC2.

We did a very unscientific test on Sunday. The setting is through a lot of trees with plenty of local interference. No one needs to remind me that the test broke some rules.

Air 2 would typically get to 1-2 bars at 3400-3500 feet.

Air 3 with N2 got to 4200 and change but the signal strength went from 3 bars to 1 in fewer than 200 feet. Perfect signal with a sudden drop off.

Air 3 with RC2 got to about 4500 with a more gradual drop off.

Overall, the Air 3, either controller, gave better range and stability than the Air 2. The RC2 had a little better range but gave better warning before signal loss.

 

[Droning on and on...]

A possible even closer apples/apples comparison might be using the Avata 2, Mini 4P, or Air 3, fly with goggles Integra and MC2 – O3 – and then goggles 3 and MC3 – O4. I can't recall 100% if the M4P and A3 work with the MC2, I'm 100% sure the Avata 2 does.

That way same aircraft.

I've got all that equipment, I may do a test today if I can battle lazy – which right now sitting on the couch Sunday morning with a cup of coffee and a t-shirt full of holes that my wife hates and I absolutely adore and will never get rid of even when it's reduced to scraps of cloth hanging from the neckpiece (hey, I'm a man!)... I predict the chances are poor.

 

[moldorf]

Correct. The bandwidth of the O4 is much higher than the O3. However, the O3 does supports a max live view of 1080p at 30fps. The O4 supports a max live view of 1080p at 60fps.

However, the resolution is a very small factor, as a 1080p video with very low bandwidth will look like total **** whereas a 720p video with great bandwidth will look crisp.

Bandwidth is what matters.

The big upgrade for the O4 was the increase in bandwidth, going from about 15-18Mbps max for the O3 to about 40Mbps max for the O4.
This change is even higher for direct Wi-Fi file transfers; going from 10MB/s for the O3 to 30MB/s for the O4.

So the O4 will have a better and clearer live view quality at all distances when compared to O3 and it will retain a much higher bandwidth (crisper live view video) 1080p feed when you have low signal (three bars or less) between the drone and remote.

I'm curious....

I use a Tripltek 8 inch as my control screen. Those RC's from DJI have about a 5.5 inch screen which may only be slightly smaller than the phones many people use

those are not big screens and I'm skeptical there would be a significant difference on those screen-views between 720p and 1080p, especially considering how daylight and sunny days impact screen views anyway.

which leads to my curiosity....what are the 'live-view' functions that would make somebody say "wow, I sure am glad I have O4 rather than O3? After factoring in the very real possibility that transmitting to the RC at 1080 instead of 720 could cause image freezing and jerky video?

 

[rbad]

We just received an Air-3s and RC2 today.
Using this to compare 03 and 04 using a Mavic-3 (original model) and RC-Pro, RCN1 , RC and a “modified” RC-Plus.

btw: I need help with a “bricked” RC-Plus and left info in another thread. Looking to hire an Android/RC-Plus firmware flashing expert $$)

I compared the DISTANCE ONLY (video quality is not critical to us as we are using it to gauge wildfire size and terrain involved).

With fairly heavy foliage at the controller location, I was truly shocked at the performance. The Air-3s/RC2 gave us 20%+/- improvement before disconnect. I was testing in an unoccupied wooded area and set RTH height right at 300’ just to be safe.

Another surprise? The RC-Plus outperformed the RC-Pro by 10%+/-.

The RCN1 did poorly, something I expected, but it actually did a bit better than the RC.

The amazing thing? The Alientech Duo2 mounted on the adapter bar we mounted on the RC-Plus did very little to increase range.

Our new Duo3 did better, but nothing like I had expected.
Especially considering the work involved in installing RF connectors on other controllers. The RC-Plus makes it easy, but it is still quite pricey for the minimal improvement.

It doesn’t even pay to use the Alientech considering the extra weight, concerns with another device to charge and maintain and the need to be careful aiming the directional antenna/amp.

I have no real way to test the Duo2 / Duo3, but think the best method is to setup an omnidirectional antenna connected to a spectrum analyzer and maintain the exact distance and height between the controller with OEM antennas and the Alientech gear.

It’s easy enough to monitor the spectrum used and identify signal strength. My portable Agilent SA goes up to 18GHz and has logging capabilities. I’d love to see the differences AND test out the “remote cables” I made up. 8’ and 12’ RG400 and a few RG223 assemblies. The QMA connectors were definitely pricey (Pasternak crimp type = $28@) and I’m tempted to just jump to BNC to QMA adapters and terminate the coax assemblies with BNC.

This is to get the Alientech up off the controller and onto a tripod OR the rooftop of our rescue apparatus that has cable pass thru. Of course, the longer the cable, the more attenuation and at the low power we are dealing with, everything becomes an issue.

I just wish DJI would add external antennas to every remote controller and make them removable with a “standard” and easily accessible style RF connector. (small size and somewhat durable = SMA / BNC / TNC with TNC being the most rugged.)

 

[GadgetGuy]

We just received an Air-3s and RC2 today.
Using this to compare 03 and 04 using a Mavic-3 (original model) and RC-Pro, RCN1 , RC and a “modified” RC-Plus.

btw: I need help with a “bricked” RC-Plus and left info in another thread. Looking to hire an Android/RC-Plus firmware flashing expert $$)

I compared the DISTANCE ONLY (video quality is not critical to us as we are using it to gauge wildfire size and terrain involved).

With fairly heavy foliage at the controller location, I was truly shocked at the performance. The Air-3s/RC2 gave us 20%+/- improvement before disconnect. I was testing in an unoccupied wooded area and set RTH height right at 300’ just to be safe.

Another surprise? The RC-Plus outperformed the RC-Pro by 10%+/-.

The RCN1 did poorly, something I expected, but it actually did a bit better than the RC.

The amazing thing? The Alientech Duo2 mounted on the adapter bar we mounted on the RC-Plus did very little to increase range.

Our new Duo3 did better, but nothing like I had expected.
Especially considering the work involved in installing RF connectors on other controllers. The RC-Plus makes it easy, but it is still quite pricey for the minimal improvement.

It doesn’t even pay to use the Alientech considering the extra weight, concerns with another device to charge and maintain and the need to be careful aiming the directional antenna/amp.

I have no real way to test the Duo2 / Duo3, but think the best method is to setup an omnidirectional antenna connected to a spectrum analyzer and maintain the exact distance and height between the controller with OEM antennas and the Alientech gear.

It’s easy enough to monitor the spectrum used and identify signal strength. My portable Agilent SA goes up to 18GHz and has logging capabilities. I’d love to see the differences AND test out the “remote cables” I made up. 8’ and 12’ RG400 and a few RG223 assemblies. The QMA connectors were definitely pricey (Pasternak crimp type = $28@) and I’m tempted to just jump to BNC to QMA adapters and terminate the coax assemblies with BNC.

This is to get the Alientech up off the controller and onto a tripod OR the rooftop of our rescue apparatus that has cable pass thru. Of course, the longer the cable, the more attenuation and at the low power we are dealing with, everything becomes an issue.

I just wish DJI would add external antennas to every remote controller and make them removable with a “standard” and easily accessible style RF connector. (small size and somewhat durable = SMA / BNC / TNC with TNC being the most rugged.)

Back in the early days of the P3P and P4 with plain old Lightbridge's 3 mile range and 20 minute flight times, we had to add external batteries and heavy Star Wars like amplification mounted onto the controller (requiring a tray harness to support its weight!) just to achieve 30 minute flight times and a 5 mile range.

Once DJI came out with OcuSync and 25 minute flight times on the P4P, external batteries were impossible to connect safely, and the extended OcuSync 5 mile range made the Star Wars setup completely unnecessary. The range already exceeded the capacity of the internal battery.

With the advent of the Mavic 3 series averaging 35 minute flight times and OcuSync 3 enhancements for range, nirvana was achieved natively.

OcuSync 4 on the Air 3 series and Mini 4 Pro has pushed the envelope even further. Happy to hear that your testing confirmed a 20% increase in range over OcuSync 3 with OcuSync 4. It's been reported but not really clearly documented that well by users until now.

 

[DarR-T]

I have an Air 3S with OcuSync 4.
Without getting into a BVLOS discussion, what's most restricting for me is radio range.
I fly in a G airspace mountainous area where signal strength is easily lost.
I would buy the DJI Cellular Dongle 2 right now if it was available in Canada.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I have an Air 3S with OcuSync 4.
Without getting into a BVLOS discussion, what's most restricting for me is radio range.
I fly in a G airspace mountainous area where signal strength is easily lost.
I would buy the DJI Cellular Dongle 2 right now if it was available in Canada.

I think you are conflating signal strength with signal obstruction. The best signal range is always achieved with clear LOS. Even OS4 cannot penetrate large obstructions, but can it handle wifi interference better and potentially extend the range over OS3.

The Dongle 2 also only helps if cellular service is available in the mountainous area where you are losing signal. It suffers from the same issues as OS4 in a mountainous areas where cell signals are blocked by LOS obstructions and from a lack of sufficient cell towers in the area to overcome all LOS blockages. The Dongle 2 works best in urban areas where cell signals from above can overcome high rise obstructions that obstruct LOS with OS4. It can enable flying behind and around high rises that would otherwise cause an OS4 signal loss.

 

[DarR-T]

I think you are conflating signal strength with signal obstruction. The best signal range is always achieved with clear LOS. Even OS4 cannot penetrate large obstructions, but can it handle wifi interference better and potentially extend the range over OS3.

The Dongle 2 also only helps if cellular service is available in the mountainous area where you are losing signal. It suffers from the same issues as OS4 in a mountainous areas where cell signals are blocked by LOS obstructions and from a lack of sufficient cell towers in the area to overcome all LOS blockages. The Dongle 2 works best in urban areas where cell signals from above can overcome high rise obstructions that obstruct LOS with OS4. It can enable flying behind and around high rises that would otherwise cause an OS4 signal loss.

For me, Loss of signal is loss of signal whatever the reason.
Cell service is very strong where I fly. Cell towers are everywhere.
A Dongle 2 here would be a "Buy" for me.