Quality Requirements for First Person View Unmanned Systems Control Service
https://doi.org/10.31854/1813-324X-2026-12-1-7-15
EDN: OGFQRW
Abstract
Unmanned systems' first-person view control requires transmitting the video stream from the unmanned system to its operator. The quality of the transmitted video stream directly affects the external pilot's assessment of the current flight situation and the formation of appropriate and timely control commands. The paper investigates the dependence of the unmanned system's operational objective achievement probability on the objective video stream quality metrics (SSIM, PSNR). Relevance of this work is based on the necessity to determine the unmanned system FPV control video coding system parameters depending on the specified unmanned system’s operational objective achievement probability.
Methods used. When processing the results of natural experiments, methods of statistical analysis, experimental design theory and probability theory were used.
Results. Quantitative values of video stream quality metrics requirements are justified when using standard video codecs for a given operational objective achievement probability in unmanned systems FPV control for various purposes.
Novelty of the results is that the requirements for the transmitted video stream quality metrics are determined not by experts, but by experiments based on the analysis of the transmitted video stream quality, which allowed to develop the unmanned system control that achieved its operational goals.
Practical significance. The required values of FPV video stream quality metrics have been determined, at which FPV control is possible with a given unmanned system’s operational objective achievement probability.
Keywords
first person view control,
unmanned system,
unmanned ground vehicle,
video stream quality,
requirements estimation
Supporting agencies: The scientific article was prepared within the framework of applied scientific research SPbSUT, registration number 1025040100166-2-2.2.4;2.2.5;2.2.6 in the information system (https://www.rosrid.ru/information).
About the Author
A. A. Berezkin
The Bonch-Bruevich Saint Petersburg State University of Telecommunications
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Chen J., Sun J., Wang G. From Unmanned Systems to Autonomous Intelligent Systems. Engineering. 2022;12:16–19. DOI:10.1016/j.eng.2021.10.007. EDN:ZERUNX
2. Ni J., Hu J., Xiang C. A review for design and dynamics control of unmanned ground vehicle. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering. 2020. 235(4):1084–1100. DOI:10.1177/09544070209 12097
3. Liu Z., Zhang Y., Yu X., Yuan C. Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges. Annual Reviews in Control. 2016;41:71–93. DOI:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.04.018
4. Wibisono A., Piran M.J., Song H.K., Lee B.M. A survey on unmanned underwater vehicles: Challenges, enabling technologies, and future research directions. Sensors. 2023;23(17):7321. DOI:10.3390/s23177321. EDN:AJQRAP
5. Laghari A.A., Jumani A.K., Laghari R.A., Nawaz H. Unmanned aerial vehicles: A review. Cognitive Robotics. 2023;3:8–22. DOI:10.1016/j.cogr.2022.12.004. EDN:PYFLLT
6. Berezkin A.A., Chenskiy A.A., Kirichek R.V., Zaharov A.A. Research of latent video stream compression methods for FPV control of UAVs. Electrosvyaz. 2024;6:26–36. (in Russ.) DOI:10.34832/ELSV.2024.55.6.014. EDN:FWBEQE
7. Berezkin A.A., Chenskiy A.A., Kirichek R.V., Zaharov A.A. Research of neural network codec configurations for adaptive FPV video stream frame compression system when controlling unmanned systems. Part I. Methodology. Electrosvyaz. 2024;9:28–37. (in Russ.) DOI:10.34832/ELSV.2024.58.9.004. EDN:MWXFXN
8. Berezkin A.A., Chenskiy A.A., Kirichek R.V., Zaharov A.A. Research of neural network codec configurations for adaptive FPV video stream frame compression system when controlling unmanned system. Part II. Experiment. Electrosvyaz. 2024;10:59–69. (in Russ.) DOI:10.34832/ELSV.2024.59.10.009. EDN:IWGJLY
9. Krátký V. Alcántara A., Capitán J., Štěpán P., Saska M., Ollero A. Autonomous Aerial Filming With Distributed Lighting by a Team of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2021;6(4):7580–7587. DOI:10.1109/LRA.2021.3098811. EDN:KUQTMX
10. Pirmagomedov R., Kirichek R., Blinnikov M., Koucheryavy A. UAV-based gateways for wireless nanosensor networks deployed over large areas. Computer Communications. 2019;146:55–62. DOI:10.1016/j.comcom.2019.07.026. EDN:WTWZWC
11. Dinh T.D., Pham V.D., Kirichek R., Koucheryavy A. Flying Network for Emergencies. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Distributed Computer and Communication Networks, DCCN, 17–21 September 2018, Moscow, Russia. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p.58–70. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-99447-5_6. EDN:XXXINF
12. Grois D., Nguyen T., Marpe D. Performance comparison of AV1, JEM, VP9, and HEVC encoders. Proceedings of the Conference on Optical Engineering + Applications “Applications of Digital Image Processing XL”, 6–10 August 2017, San Diego, United States. SPIE; 2018. vol.10396. p.68–79. DOI:10.1117/12.2283428
13. Mansri I., Doghmane N., Kouadria N., Harize S., Bekhouch A. Comparative evaluation of VVC, HEVC, H. 264, AV1, and VP9 encoders for low-delay video applications. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multimedia Computing, Networking and Applications, MCNA, 19–22 October 2020, Valencia, Spain. IEEE; 2020. p.38–43. DOI:10.1109/MCNA50957.2020.9264275
14. Layek M.A., Thai N.Q., Hossain M.A., Thu N.T., Tuyen L.P., Talukder A. Performance analysis of H.264, H.265, VP9 and AV1 video encoders. Proceedings of the 19th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium, APNOMS, 27–29 September 2017, Seoul, Korea (South). IEEE; 2017. p.322–325. DOI:10.1109/APNOMS.2017.8094162
15. Jia Z., Li B., Li J., Xie W., Qi L., Li H., Lu Y. Towards Practical Real-Time Neural Video Compression. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, Nashville, USA, 11–15 June 2025. 2025. p.12543–12552.
16. Berezkin A.A., Vivhcar R.M., Kirichek R.V. Approach to Video Stream Quality Requirements Justification for FPV Control of Unmanned Systems. Proceedings of Telecommunication Universities. 2024;10(4):7–15. (in Russ.) DOI:10.31854/1813-324X-2024-10-4-7-15. EDN:JQQCXK
17. Berezkin A.A., Vivhcar R.M., Kirichek R.V. Model of the mobile robotic complex management system. Electrosvyaz. 2023;8:12–18. (in Russ.) DOI:10.34832/ELSV.2023.45.8.002. EDN:XXOJNM
18. Fardo F.A., Conforto V.H., De Oliveira F.C., Rodrigues P.S. A formal evaluation of PSNR as quality measurement parameter for image segmentation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07116. 2016.
19. Nilsson J., Akenine-Möller T. Understanding SSIM. arXiv preprint. 2020. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2006. 13846
20. González N., Solera M., Ruiz F., Gijón C., Toril M. A quality of experience model for live video in first-person-view drone control in cellular networks. Computer Networks. 2023;237:110089. DOI:10.1016/j.comnet.2023.110089. EDN:NLXOYI
21. Li S., Zhang Y., Edwards S., Blythe P.T. Exploration into the needs and requirements of the remote driver when teleoperating the 5G-enabled level 4 automated vehicle in the real world-a case study of 5G connected and automated logistics. Sensors. 2023;23(2):820. DOI:10.3390/s23020820. EDN:JJHIFE
22. Jarvis B., Toumieh C., Floreano D. First-Person View Interfaces for Teleoperation of Aerial Swarms. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2025;10(5):4476–4483. DOI:10.1109/lra.2025.3553062. EDN:EKKALY
23. Inam R., Schrammar N., Wang K., Karapantelakis A., Mokrushin L., Feljan A.V., Fersman E. Feasibility assessment to realise vehicle teleoperation using cellular networks. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC, 01–04 November 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. IEEE; 2016. p.2254–2260. DOI:10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795920
24. Silic M., Suznjevic M., Skorin-Kapov L. QOE Assessment of FPV Drone Control in a Cloud Gaming Based Simulation. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience, QoMEX, 14–17 June 2021, Montreal, Canada. IEEE; 2021. p.175–180. DOI:10.1109/QoMEX51781.2021.9465385
25. Streijl R.C., Winkler S., Hands D.S. Mean opinion score (MOS) revisited: methods and applications, limitations and alternatives. Multimedia Systems. 2016;22(2):213–227. DOI:10.1007/s00530-014-0446-1. EDN:FYGVYF
26. Xu J., Xing L., Perkis A., Jiang Y. On the Properties of Mean Opinion Scores for Quality of Experience Management. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Multimedia, 05–07 December 2011, Dana Point, USA. IEEE; 2011. p.500–505. DOI:10.1109/ISM.2011.88
27. Ribeiro F., Florêncio D., Zhang C., Seltzer M. CrowdMOS: An approach for crowdsourcing mean opinion score studies. Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP, 22–27 May 2011, Prague, Czech Republic. IEEE; 2011. p.2416–2419. DOI:10.1109/ICASSP.2011.5946971
28. Tommasi F., De Luca V., Melle C. Packet losses and objective video quality metrics in H.264 video streaming. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation. 2015;27:7–27. DOI:10.1016/j.jvcir.2014.12.003
Review
For citations:
Berezkin A.A. Quality Requirements for First Person View Unmanned Systems Control Service. Proceedings of Telecommunication Universities. 2026;12(1):7-15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31854/1813-324X-2026-12-1-7-15. EDN: OGFQRW
Views:
257
JATS XML
Email this article 