Uploaded June 2023 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
I tried to do actual LOS but I clearly lose it again after some distance because the road wasn't flat enough. Either way when it comes to "range" you could technically translate this test into saying that by removing a building corner from my LOS, I was then able to put roughly that same amount of obstruction in the way again.. but after going another 300 feet or so... That is the awkward way to break it down without getting too complicated regarding actual signal strengths. The road/trees/building corners are what attenuated the spreading signal too much and limited my range. How "far" I can actually drive in reality then boils down to at which point along my travels I decide to start putting those things in the way. I also wanted to note that my initial tests with the stock O3 antennas seemed to show me that they were doing better within a certain range. Their field propagation was somehow better at penetrating the closest building to me and going around it, but then as soon as I turned the corner of the 2nd closest building in the path I lost signal completely. I just got lucky guessing how to turn around blind and get video back. With these singularity antennas I noticed the signal wasn't quite as strong trying to go around the closest building to me.. but I was able to turn the corner of the 2nd building and explore around while still having at least 10Mbps signal.
Inverse square law explains the relation between output power and signal strength and why technically the further you travel the weaker the signal is going to get. In absolute space the signal is technically not getting weaker by attenuation but simply spreading out over space and becoming less dense at any point of reception (like visible light). On Earth the signal is automatically attenuating through space as well as becoming less dense as it spreads out because we have matter on Earth and in the air. Considering "ideal" conditions where you have good amplification and a sensitive enough receiver to make something out of the weakest signals... distance alone is not really a big consideration until you actually start bringing obstructions other than air into the equation. The waves will have no 'range' you need to worry about but obviously your equipment will ultimately have a minimum signal strength it can tolerate. With amplification there really shouldn't be a distance consideration over sheer LOS and lack thereof. If DJI can do 5 miles in the air then you already know distance doesn't matter on the ground. Where are you going to have a whole open mile long stretch on the ground with LOS unless you get on the highway or something?
I don't see why nearly any analog system even at 5.8ghz couldn't go tens of miles and beyond in the air. It's going to depend on what's in the air at the time including other radio waves. 1.3ghz will do better in that regard just because whatever is in the air at the time will attenuate it less. In the nearer field with much more signal strength that will mean more possible trees you can fly around or something. In the further field that will mean less. The distance it will take for this field to become less dense at a particular point of reception will mostly depend on the antenna. So obviously high gain directional antennas will have the upside of higher signal strengths at distance because they are spreading the field out less. Either way you will never see a truly consistent level of penetration needed from point A to point B unless you have the most ideal conditions possible with LOS. You could then technically quantify a maximum distance you'll travel with that equipment in certain ideal conditions, but then we're talking so damn far that your ground or air equipment is not going to handle that anyway.
I tried to do actual LOS but I clearly lose it again after some distance because the road wasn't flat enough. Either way when it comes to "range" you could technically translate this test into saying that by removing a building corner from my LOS, I was then able to put roughly that same amount of obstruction in the way again.. but after going another 300 feet or so... That is the awkward way to break it down without getting too complicated regarding actual signal strengths. The road/trees/building corners are what attenuated the spreading signal too much and limited my range. How "far" I can actually drive in reality then boils down to at which point along my travels I decide to start putting those things in the way. I also wanted to note that my initial tests with the stock O3 antennas seemed to show me that they were doing better within a certain range. Their field propagation was somehow better at penetrating the closest building to me and going around it, but then as soon as I turned the corner of the 2nd closest building in the path I lost signal completely. I just got lucky guessing how to turn around blind and get video back. With these singularity antennas I noticed the signal wasn't quite as strong trying to go around the closest building to me.. but I was able to turn the corner of the 2nd building and explore around while still having at least 10Mbps signal.
Inverse square law explains the relation between output power and signal strength and why technically the further you travel the weaker the signal is going to get. In absolute space the signal is technically not getting weaker by attenuation but simply spreading out over space and becoming less dense at any point of reception (like visible light). On Earth the signal is automatically attenuating through space as well as becoming less dense as it spreads out because we have matter on Earth and in the air. Considering "ideal" conditions where you have good amplification and a sensitive enough receiver to make something out of the weakest signals... distance alone is not really a big consideration until you actually start bringing obstructions other than air into the equation. The waves will have no 'range' you need to worry about but obviously your equipment will ultimately have a minimum signal strength it can tolerate. With amplification there really shouldn't be a distance consideration over sheer LOS and lack thereof. If DJI can do 5 miles in the air then you already know distance doesn't matter on the ground. Where are you going to have a whole open mile long stretch on the ground with LOS unless you get on the highway or something?
I don't see why nearly any analog system even at 5.8ghz couldn't go tens of miles and beyond in the air. It's going to depend on what's in the air at the time including other radio waves. 1.3ghz will do better in that regard just because whatever is in the air at the time will attenuate it less. In the nearer field with much more signal strength that will mean more possible trees you can fly around or something. In the further field that will mean less. The distance it will take for this field to become less dense at a particular point of reception will mostly depend on the antenna. So obviously high gain directional antennas will have the upside of higher signal strengths at distance because they are spreading the field out less. Either way you will never see a truly consistent level of penetration needed from point A to point B unless you have the most ideal conditions possible with LOS. You could then technically quantify a maximum distance you'll travel with that equipment in certain ideal conditions, but then we're talking so damn far that your ground or air equipment is not going to handle that anyway.
