Huginn Kenningar
Second Officer
Flight distance : 49635259 ft
Spain
Offline
|
luciens Posted at 7-16 04:57
For me, the RC pro has two huge advantages: HDMI output and almost 2 watts maximum (33dbm) effective radiated power output of its transmitters. The RC has no HDMI out and is only capable of a much lower power output - a maximum of only 26dbm (approx. 400mw EIRP) - so it'll have significantly reduced range/penetration/solid connection with any aircraft, including the M3, than the RC Pro.
But the most important item is HDMI out, which allows you to use an external monitor and/or FPV goggles (with HDMI input of course). With a large screen or goggles, it makes it much easier to precisely frame your shots than with a teeny, tiny, reflective, almost invisible screen on the unit itself. As nice as the built-in screen is on the RC pro, it's still way too small and limited to really precisely manage the shot.
Yep, that's true for anyone flying in the US, but in Europe all the three controllers and the M3 itself are heavily bottle necked to the same power output due to CE regulation, and the only one that can be set to FCC, at least for the moment, is the RC-N1.
In Europe default RC-N1, RC, RC Pro and the M3 transmit at 100mW on the 2.4Ghz and only 25mW in 5.8Ghz, so the you'll be always flying in 2.4Ghz.
But with the FCC mod on the RC-N1 you can transmit at 400mW both for 2.4 and 5.8Ghz, so it's the best option for Europe. Note that setting the controller to FCC will also make the Mavic 3 transmit at it's full power (2000mW).
In US RC Pro transmit at 2000mW both for 2.4 and 5.8 while the RC-N1 and the RC both transmit at 400mW.
PS: Of course if in the future we are able to get a permanent FCC mod for the M3 the RC pro will be the best option then, although a bit pricey it has a massive output power.
|
|