Why is the signal strength of the Avata seemingly so much weaker than other drones with the same transmission technology?

The Avata (1) uses 03+ transmission technology, the same as the Mavic 3 line-up and in advance of the Mini 3 Pro - which uses 03.  I own neither the Mavic 3 nor the Mini 3 Pro, but anecdotally, the transmission performance of those drone models appears to be way ahead of the Avata.  I still fly a Phantom 4 Pro v2, having upgraded from the v1 to the v2 specifically to take advantage of Ocusync 2.0 - which was a significant improvement on the v1's Lightbridge.  I fly the Avata and the Phantom in many of the same locations and have opportunity to compare them under the same degree of signal obstruction.  What I can say in terms of signal penetration is that both drones are very similar.  Sometimes the Phantom is marginally better and sometimes the Avata pips the Phantom.  Unobstructed range is more difficult to compare, as both drones are limited by their differently sized batteries.  However, my sense is that signal drop-off at distance is quicker with the Avata.  Keep in mind, the v2 is now 6 year-old tech, with a transmission system two generations behind the Avata.

So what's happening here?  I fly in a FCC country (Australia) and from what I can gather, my Avata is functioning without impairment.  My theory is that the Avata is hamstrung by the 5.8GHz transmission frequency.  Note when flying the Avata that the video connection (HD) always goes down before the controller connection (RC).  I've never found an explanation for this.  I've been told that in Manual mode, the drone will only use 5.8GHz, whereas outside of Manual mode it can switch between 2.4 Ghz and 5.8Ghz to find the strongest signal.  If so, why would you limit Manual mode in this way?  Although whether that applies to both HD and RC, or just one of them, I don't know.  The fact that the RC and HD signals differ so markedly suggests that they are using different frequencies.  However, this may not be the case, as the respective signals in Manual mode differ in the same pattern (HD dropping off first) when the drone is supposedly locked to 5.8Ghz.

I'm familiar with the 5.8GHz frequency on my P4P v2.  You can manually select it or allow the drone to automatically select whichever of the two frequencies is strongest.  5.8Ghz is worse in every way to 2.4Ghz, apart from in locations with interference on the 2.4GHz frequency (household wi-fi?), where 5.8Ghz enables an interference-free alternative.  I know that in most flight scenarios my Phantom would perform significantly worse than the Avata if I locked it to 5.8Ghz.

If you have experience with other drones, do you agree that the Avata's transmission performance is enfeebled by comparison?  If so, do you have an explanation?  And can anyone confirm, firstly, whether the RC transmission frequency can differ from the HD frequency (at the same time), and if so, why?  And secondly, in what circumstances the drone will use one frequency over another for either transmission function, HD/RC - if they can differ, or singularly if not?

I read that drones sold in Australia have their radios set to the CE EU mode and not to the stronger FCC mode.   Watch this video how to change that:

Zyxel Posted at 8-19 08:10
I read that drones sold in Australia have their radios set to the CE EU mode and not to the stronger FCC mode.   Watch this video how to change that:

Thanks for your input.   I'm aware of some confusion there.  However, I have seen Australia listed as an FCC country, and my own experience over seven years of putting DJI drones through their paces would indicate that we're not power-restricted vis-à-vis the U.S. or other known FCC countries.

My particular concern here is the Avata's poor transmission performance compared to other drones with the same or similar transmission technology.  This should be apparent, irrespective of CE/FCC variation, but I'm guessing is probably more obvious in CE jurisdictions where pilots reach the limit of their drone's transmission capability much sooner than we do.

I think the bit about manual transmission mode being limited to 5.8 only applies to your controller, since the video on Avata 1 is always at 5.8, even in auto channel mode. Avata 2 does do dual-band video and in CE mode it gets noticeably better range at 2.4 than 5.8 (you can select a band in manual channel mode), but I was still able to get over 4km out with no noticeable drops in bitrate on my Avata 1 (outside urban area with clean line of sight to the drone), so if you can't do that, there might be something wrong with your Avata or goggles.

fichek Posted at 8-20 00:26
I think the bit about manual transmission mode being limited to 5.8 only applies to your controller, since the video on Avata 1 is always at 5.8, even in auto channel mode. Avata 2 does do dual-band video and in CE mode it gets noticeably better range at 2.4 than 5.8 (you can select a band in manual channel mode), but I was still able to get over 4km out with no noticeable drops in bitrate on my Avata 1 (outside urban area with clean line of sight to the drone), so if you can't do that, there might be something wrong with your Avata or goggles.

Okay, this is helpful.  If the Avata 1's video stream is locked to 5.8 GHz, then this is our problem.  It explains why the signal strength is comparable to my old P4P v2 at 2.4 GHz, and significantly worse than newer drones with similar transmission technology that aren't locked to 5.8 GHz.  The Avata is supposed to be a 'dual channel' drone, but if the video channel is fixed at 5.8 GHz - even if the controller signal isn't, this becomes your limitation.  It begs the question, why handicap the Avata in this way?

I haven't range-tested my Avata 1, but 4km out is pretty damn good, and from what I've seen on YouTube is about the range limited by the battery (if not the signal) if you want to get the drone home again.   

GTHero Posted at 8-20 05:04
Okay, this is helpful.  If the Avata 1's video stream is locked to 5.8 GHz, then this is our problem.  It explains why the signal strength is comparable to my old P4P v2 at 2.4 GHz, and significantly worse than newer drones with similar transmission technology that aren't locked to 5.8 GHz.  The Avata is supposed to be a 'dual channel' drone, but if the video channel is fixed at 5.8 GHz - even if the controller signal isn't, this becomes your limitation.  It begs the question, why handicap the Avata in this way?

I haven't range-tested my Avata 1, but 4km out is pretty damn good, and from what I've seen on YouTube is about the range limited by the battery (if not the signal) if you want to get the drone home again.

Exactly, if you don't want a one-way flight, you're limited to about 4.3km give or take depending on wind. And 5.8 should do more than fine at that distance as long as you're not in a very noisy environment and have clear line of sight to the drone.

fichek Posted at 8-20 19:39
Exactly, if you don't want a one-way flight, you're limited to about 4.3km give or take depending on wind. And 5.8 should do more than fine at that distance as long as you're not in a very noisy environment and have clear line of sight to the drone.

I agree that extra transmission power wouldn't help the Avata distance-wise due to the battery limitation.  However, in most of the locations I fly, I'll bump up against the limits of the signal due to obstruction, not distance per se.  5.8 GHz has weaker penetrative ability.  I'd still like to know why DJI locked the Avata's video transmission to 5.8GHz - especially if that design flaw (?) explains the relatively poor performance.

By the way, DJI claim a 10km max video transmission distance for the Avata 1.  This is complete rubbish!  I just watched a video of an Avata 2 get to 5km (& back).  The video feed dropped to 10Mbps as it turned around.  An Avata 1 certainly wouldn't have video at 5km (let-alone the claimed 10km).  Similarly, DJI's claim of a 13km video transmission distance for the Avata 2 is nonsense.  It's all rather strange:  My Phantom's claimed 10km transmission distance is entirely plausible, as are, I believe, DJI's claims for its other cinematic drones.  Why would it overstate the Avata's (1&2) by more than double?   

GTHero Posted at 8-20 22:44
I agree that extra transmission power wouldn't help the Avata distance-wise due to the battery limitation.  However, in most of the locations I fly, I'll bump up against the limits of the signal due to obstruction, not distance per se.  5.8 GHz has weaker penetrative ability.  I'd still like to know why DJI locked the Avata's video transmission to 5.8GHz - especially if that design flaw (?) explains the relatively poor performance.

By the way, DJI claim a 10km max video transmission distance for the Avata 1.  This is complete rubbish!  I just watched a video of an Avata 2 get to 5km (& back).  The video feed dropped to 10Mbps as it turned around.  An Avata 1 certainly wouldn't have video at 5km (let-alone the claimed 10km).  Similarly, DJI's claim of a 13km video transmission distance for the Avata 2 is nonsense.  It's all rather strange:  My Phantom's claimed 10km transmission distance is entirely plausible, as are, I believe, DJI's claims for its other cinematic drones.  Why would it overstate the Avata's (1&2) by more than double?

We've seen O3 Air Unit (which is basically Avata 1 camera and transmission system) reach over 20 km, so I don't think the 10km range spec is overstated.

fichek Posted at 8-21 19:16
We've seen O3 Air Unit (which is basically Avata 1 camera and transmission system) reach over 20 km, so I don't think the 10km range spec is overstated.

And the 03+ system will do 15km in a Mavic 3, so clearly, other variables come into play.

I've watched quite a few range tests.  The very best results for signal strength show the Avata 1 at around 20Mbps at 4km and the Avata 2 at the same bitrate at the 5km mark.  There's no extrapolation from those distances that gets us a video signal through to 10km and 13km respectively.

GTHero Posted at 8-21 21:46
And the 03+ system will do 15km in a Mavic 3, so clearly, other variables come into play.

I've watched quite a few range tests.  The very best results for signal strength show the Avata 1 at around 20Mbps at 4km and the Avata 2 at the same bitrate at the 5km mark.  There's no extrapolation from those distances that gets us a video signal through to 10km and 13km respectively.

I have Avata 1 - the furthest distance I ever reached is 2.5 km away and it was due to batt No connection, Avata 2 is a lot better reaching 4.3 km away again due to battery restriction rather than comm, Avata's are meant for the wood where 300 meters are great reach under the trees ... all in all I am happy with their communications - Mavic 3 is a different beast I send him 9 km away without a hiccup (so I did with O3 Air unit on a 7"quad - so if You have a line of site (not necessarily naked eye but unobstructed ) they are fine according to my experience.

alex_markov Posted at 8-23 02:34
I have Avata 1 - the furthest distance I ever reached is 2.5 km away and it was due to batt No connection, Avata 2 is a lot better reaching 4.3 km away again due to battery restriction rather than comm, Avata's are meant for the wood where 300 meters are great reach under the trees ... all in all I am happy with their communications - Mavic 3 is a different beast I send him 9 km away without a hiccup (so I did with O3 Air unit on a 7"quad - so if You have a line of site (not necessarily naked eye  but unobstructed ) they are fine according to my experience.

Maximising range is typically less important for the Avata.  However, that max distance capability is indicative of obstructed signal strength at close range.  Most of my flights with the Avata (1) are within 1 km, and on most of these, at one point or another, I reach the limit of the signal due to obstruction.  Flying through a forest, you may be lucky to get 200 metres.

There is something amiss with this drone.  The specs (max transmission distance), despite being wholly unimpressive, appear to be overstated.  As I've discovered, the first Avata has its video transmission locked to 5.8Ghz, which may partly explain the poor performance.  However, the Avata 2, with its dual band transmission and impressive 04 transmission system, is also lacking.  By comparison, the Mini 4 Pro and Air 3 have an official transmission range of 20 km.  Even if the Avata 2 could theoretically have video signal at 13 km (as claimed by DJI), what explains its much poorer capability compared to other drones with OcuSync 4?  Remember, this lower max distance is indicative of less power at any distance, with a concurrently reduced ability for obstructed flight closer to home.