FPV tanks

[Evan D]

I haven't seen many put FPV in their tanks but I am really into FPV especially on airplanes where I have quite a few and many are digital and many have head tracking where the camera turns where you turn your head.

While I just started into tanks this year I now have seven all Heng Long. Started with the T-90, bought a second hand (unassembled but second hand) Abrams, then a leopard, Challenger2, Bulldog, T-34 and last the King Tiger.

The T-90 went FPV very soon after getting it with a tiny all in one (AIO) tucked under the machine gun, The T-34 got a small camera in the drivers hatch on the front of the hull, The Bulldog got an AIO simply heat shrinked to the IR sensor. All are powered from the MFU through a BEC voltage reducer to 5V and can be turned on and off via the HL transmitter.

The Challenger just received it's system and I tried head tracking on it. The Heng Long tanks have their own controller and it's not compatable to a head tracking system as far as I know. So the head tracking requires a separate transmitter. I have my Fatsharks with a Trinity going to my DX which transmits the HT signal to a small 4ch receiver in the tank separate from the normal tank controls. I can turn the video and the receiver off from the tank controller.

Here are some pictures of what it took to make the Challenger head tracking.

https://youtu.be/vdubbVWeujc

.

[SoCalBobS]

Clever idea for head tracking, the limited field of view is a real chokepoint for FPV on tanks. I've tried pan & tilt combinations on planes and found panning is the main necessity. So it would be for tanks. nice engineering, by the way. If you're of a mind to, a list of components would be cool!

[Evan D]

The AIO's mostly have a very wide angle view, really bad for airplanes... Almost acceptable for tanks but in an open field battle they are still too wide angle. As you know when you add pan or pan and tilt you can go to a much narrower field of view since you can look around.

In this build I have these.

Amazon.com: AKK A5 5.8Ghz 25mW FPV Transmitter 600TVL CMOS Micro Camera Support OSD Switchable Raceband for Quadcopter Drone Like Tiny Whoop Blade Inductrix : Toys & Games

Amazon.com: Wolfwhoop PW-D Control Buck Converter 6-24V to 5V 1.5A Step-Down Regulator Module Power Inverter Volt Stabilizer : Electronics

In other builds I have a real AIO. The antenna pointing straight up hinders hiding them but you can unsolder it and solder it horizontally and hide it a bit better. Here is my preferred AIO.

Amazon.com: AKK C1T Super Mini 5.8GHz 25mW FPV Transmitter 600TVL Micro AIO Camera Only 2.8g with Dipole Antenna for FPV Drone : Electronics

Both camera systems are only 25mW which is great for tanks but not so good if you are thinking airplane where 200mW and a circular polarized antennae is better. The little BEC is just right for these and is really tiny. It also has the right connector for the camera. To go to the MFU I use a regular male to male extension and cut off the third wire/ plug. Actually pretty simple.

The servo was just a left over 9g metal gear servo from a crashed EDF. Mounting it in the bird cage mount took a little modeling skill but wasn't hard.

I'm going to do the same exact thing to the Leopard.

On my T-90, which has a fixed camera off set from the barrel I made a aiming sight to help aim the main gun.


BTW on my site there are a few airplane videos too...

[Evan D]

Some video today...

https://youtu.be/Ltnc8AUQnCI

[cpt.chaos canada]

Hello,
I was wondering if we could use this thread to exchange experiences, recommendations and Ideas around FPV and Video shooting around the tanks?
I just started with my first AIO (All in One) FPV camera.
I bought a ZOHD set. Just for simplicity as a beginner.
As well as a 7" screen with shades.
Also bought a 2S 800ma lipo with a jst connector that plugs right into the ZOHD set.
My Idea at this point is to find a good position for this camera on the tanks.
Therefore I just atached the cam via velcro to the batt and to the tank.
Here is what that looks like:

To my surprise there is no sound, is that normal for AIO sets?
---
Besides the shakiness due to the temp attachment, it was really cool to drive from the FPV seat.
CCC

[joseph.g.briggs]

I am a total newbie, but am interested in doing something similar with a Heng Long M1A2 Abrams that I recently received for my birthday. I was thinking of also splitting out control of the tank functions so i could have a 3 people -- a driver, gunner and commander -- controlling the single tank. Thought it would be cool for each of them to be able to have their own fpv from that particular station.

Here are my initial thoughts on a design and blurbs I collected from reference materials.

[cpt.chaos canada]

I am a total newbie, but am interested in doing something similar with a Heng Long M1A2 Abrams that I recently received for my birthday. I was thinking of also splitting out control of the tank functions so i could have a 3 people -- a driver, gunner and commander -- controlling the single tank. Thought it would be cool for each of them to be able to have their own fpv from that particular station.

Here are my initial thoughts on a design and blurbs I collected from reference materials.

Wouw, that is a very ambitious thought/plan!
Way over my paygrade for now but I think the "Tank-Tinker Specialsists in Hobbysquak will join you and comment.
Please keep us posted.
CCC

[Evan D]

Of course post here, I think that's great.

Joseph, great ideas but I'm not sure how you would separate the controls without having more than one MFU controller and radio. Putting three MFUs in an Abrams might be doable especially since you can take the commander and gunners ones out of the cases and they would just need basic power into them and the few connections for that persons position. You can use a non Heng Long radio/ receiver/ servo for the commander since his would be a one channel set up to move the camera. I assume "he" wouldn't be moving the turret, firing, driving, etc. A singe channel RC system is tiny and would be super easy to do. So then you'd just need the second Heng Long RC system for the gunner, turret, raise the gun and shoot, The driver would have the driving functions only and maybe machine gun (could be given to the gunner too).

But then having three FPV systems takes up room. I would have the VTX's inside the tank and micro/ nano cameras at the proper position for each person. Making the cameras movable would add a whole other level of complexity to. The commander and drivers cameras should be movable. Maybe not the gunner.

Zoom... While there are some zoomable lenses around (for security camera's but modifiable for FPV) they are very large and bulky.

[SoCalBobS]

JB, looks cool. I once had a PC video game that required two operators per tank, driver and commander.

There are some considerations; what use will you be putting your tank to? If you're planning on battling other tanks via IR, then the other tank would need to have the same functions you're planning. Otherwise, your vision will be severely restricted compared to your foe who is looking down from on high, so to speak. However, if it's just going to be a drive-around fun activity or exploration, then no problem. However, before investing in a lot of FPV components, I recommend you look through an onboard camera. Resolution can be quite coarse. The limitation is the VTX, or video transmitter. Most inexpensive ones are 480x320 or 600x480. Of course, more money will yield clearer results. Now the third issue, range. The same VTX that can give 300' in the air may only give 30 or 40 feet on the ground transmission before interference becomes heavy, especially if there are objects in the way.

If you were to proceed in this as you'd described it, you'd need a camera, a VTX and a monitor or goggles for each station, for separate video feeds.

I've operated FPV extensively in my r/c airplanes, so that's where my experience comes from. I'd recommend you try out the minimum as CCC on post 5 has. Then decide how far you want to go. Either way, good luck and have fun.

CCC, the cheapest AIO's don't have sound (at least mine didn't), but if you hook a GoPro, Runcam or such to a VTX, you can get sound.

[joseph.g.briggs]

Thanks, Evan D!

Joseph, great ideas but I'm not sure how you would separate the controls without having more than one MFU controller and radio. Putting three MFUs in an Abrams might be doable especially since you can take the commander and gunners ones out of the cases and they would just need basic power into them and the few connections for that persons position. You can use a non Heng Long radio/ receiver/ servo for the commander since his would be a one channel set up to move the camera. I assume "he" wouldn't be moving the turret, firing, driving, etc. A singe channel RC system is tiny and would be super easy to do. So then you'd just need the second Heng Long RC system for the gunner, turret, raise the gun and shoot, The driver would have the driving functions only and maybe machine gun (could be given to the gunner too).

I was wondering if the Heng Long MFU would allow more than one transmitter to bind to it. I guess probably not. I tried looking around to see if I could find anyone who had done so, but my search-fu doesn't seem to be that good. Probably means looking to replace all the electronics in the tank.

But then having three FPV systems takes up room. I would have the VTX's inside the tank and micro/ nano cameras at the proper position for each person. Making the cameras movable would add a whole other level of complexity to. The commander and drivers cameras should be movable. Maybe not the gunner.

Yes, great feedback. Lots of fun problems to play with and solve. I hope to leverage your experience as I stumble may way through this.

Zoom... While there are some zoomable lenses around (for security camera's but modifiable for FPV) they are very large and bulky.

Yeah, this one is tricky. I don't really know anything about what is possible in FPV. I thought maybe some may have electronic zooming, but if not i thought i could use a tiny servo to swing a lens in front of the camera to zoom and away to go back to normal.

[joseph.g.briggs]

There are some considerations; what use will you be putting your tank to? If you're planning on battling other tanks via IR, then the other tank would need to have the same functions you're planning. Otherwise, your vision will be severely restricted compared to your foe who is looking down from on high, so to speak. However, if it's just going to be a drive-around fun activity or exploration, then no problem.

Great questions! I don't really have anyone/clubs in my area that do rc tanks, let alone IR battles, so I was thinking that I would use this tank as a dedicated rig for running a tank biathon. Every team would use the same tank to run a course and they compete for the best time.

However, before investing in a lot of FPV components, I recommend you look through an onboard camera. Resolution can be quite coarse. The limitation is the VTX, or video transmitter. Most inexpensive ones are 480x320 or 600x480. Of course, more money will yield clearer results. Now the third issue, range. The same VTX that can give 300' in the air may only give 30 or 40 feet on the ground transmission before interference becomes heavy, especially if there are objects in the way.

Those are great points. Some of the video examples I have seen on line are pretty grainy. I was thinking that I would have the FPV be shown on a screen or smartphone mounted on the transmitter so the person could either look directly at the tank or look down and consult the FPV.

I hadn't even considered that there would be a difference in range due to ground interference. Thank you for that. I will probably be picking your brains more on that as I adjust my aspirations to what is actually feasible.

If you were to proceed in this as you'd described it, you'd need a camera, a VTX and a monitor or goggles for each station, for separate video feeds.

I've operated FPV extensively in my r/c airplanes, so that's where my experience comes from. I'd recommend you try out the minimum as CCC on post 5 has. Then decide how far you want to go. Either way, good luck and have fun.

CCC, the cheapest AIO's don't have sound (at least mine didn't), but if you hook a GoPro, Runcam or such to a VTX, you can get sound.

Great advice! Thanks SoCalBobS!

[SoCalBobS]

I can guarantee you we've all daydreamed about doing something like this. And, a tank biathlon would be a perfect use for your modifications!

[cpt.chaos canada]

I can guarantee you we've all daydreamed about doing something like this. And, a tank biathlon would be a perfect use for your modifications!

Hmm, although I'm new to this here is my Idea for a multi tank crew operating the same tank.
Based on all above posts.
What if you create a wooden stand for 3 equal tx.
one in the middle and two in a 45 degree angle at the side.
The one in the middle hollds the board and binds to the tank.
Now the wiring has to be fed into the other TX's according to the desired crew man functionalities.
Questions are:
... if the wire length is limited from the actuating device to the control board/
... will the extra TX's have to have a board on their own in order to power up?
---
Since this is a special use for tank teams I could see this being of interest even for a first non fpv test.
---
As Bob already stated: a lot of daydreaming may be involved.
But I'm having fun imagine it already.
CCC

[Evan D]

What functions are you expecting the commander to perform? My vision is the functions are split between gunner and driver with the commander having his own 360 view but just giving orders.

[joseph.g.briggs]

What functions are you expecting the commander to perform? My vision is the functions are split between gunner and driver with the commander having his own 360 view but just giving orders.

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking.
I was thinking about rolling out the FPVs in this order:
* First, gunner fpv. This would be with a single person still controlling the whole tank with one tx.
* Second, driver fpv. At this point, I would look to split up driving from shooting functions with two people. Each with their own Tx.
* Third (if i ever get here), commander fpv. This would allow a third person with just controls for their independent fpv functions, no other tank functions. IOW, just to be able to pan and zoom their fpv.

[cpt.chaos canada]

What functions are you expecting the commander to perform? My vision is the functions are split between gunner and driver with the commander having his own 360 view but just giving orders.

Well it all depends if such a 3way TX wiring would be possible.
Which means someone with enough skills has to slaughter at least 2 TX in order to test it.
---
Non fpv: I'd say two crew members like you mentioned combined Commander and Driver and a Gunner.
Fpv: 3 crew members. except the T34 where the Commander was also the Gunner, which sucks.

---
If the function could be wired activ for two TX, I would give the commander control over the turret side movement as well.

[joseph.g.briggs]

What if you create a wooden stand for 3 equal tx.
one in the middle and two in a 45 degree angle at the side.
The one in the middle hollds the board and binds to the tank.
CCC

That is an interesting thought that I hadn't considered! In my case, I imagine folks would want to be able to walk around as tanks are running the biathalon course to get a better view w/o the fpv, but for a use case where you expected goggles only that would be an interesting way to do it!

[edit: spelling, twice, grrrr]

[cpt.chaos canada]

That is an interesting thought that I hadn't considered! In my case, I imagine folks would want to be able to walk around as tanks are running the biathalon course to get a better view w/o the fpv, but for a use case where you expected goggles only that would be an interesting way to do it!

[edit: spelling, twice, grrrr]

Spelling - I hate it, a bit.

---
The non fpv or cheater look option was the reason I suggested 45 degree angles.
That way all three ops could have a glimpse at the battle ground.
First I thought 90 degrees would give the shorter wire length, but "Nah"

[joseph.g.briggs]

I am new here and don't want to hijack this thread, but I thought I could post a few more mockups of some far-off-in-the-future UIs that would be cool to implement for the fpvs.

Let me know if that is something you would like to see posted here, or if I should start a different topic to lay out my thoughts for building this biathalon tank. Or if something this detailed for a particular build is not in keeping with these forums.

Let me know. Thanks for all the thoughts so far!

[joseph.g.briggs]

Spelling - I hate it, a bit.

---
The non fpv or cheater look option was the reason I suggested 45 degree angles.
That way all three ops could have a glimpse at the battle ground.
First I thought 90 degrees would give the shorter wire length, but "Nah"

Ah that make sense. Thanks for the clarification.