Topsky F7X V2 Review and Teardown

By Whiffles on Jan 10, 2018

7  4,388  3

The Topsky F7X V2 is a 16:9 42 degree field-of-view FPV goggle. This is the updated V2 release which came 3 months after the failed V1 model from October, 2017. V1 had several issues and most reviewers declared it a failure. Did Topsky fix the issues and are these worth buying? Let's find out.

On paper this sounded like a wonderful new goggle. Unfortunately we were let down. The displays exhibited ghosting, the module bay wasn't the right size and there was a lot of light leakage. Topsky made some mistakes. They did a poor job of planning and testing their product, but they've been working hard to redeem themselves. So that being said, let's take an objective look at these for what they are, $350 goggles. I'll compare them to a number of similarly priced goggles and see how they stack up.


Topsky VS FatShark Dominator V3

The FatShark Dominator V3s are arguably the most popular $350 goggle. The biggest difference between the F7X and the Dom V3s is the field of view. The Dom V3s have a considerably smaller FOV at only 30 degrees. With that in mind the displays are crisp, clear and bright. They don't suffer from any edge blur and the white balance is quite good. On the other hand Topsky offers a far greater FOV at 42 degrees, but there are some caveats particularly concerning the display technology. The displays aren't as bright, the white balance is off, and they suffer from "ghosting".

Stock set

The ghosting is an artifact of the LCoS technology. Liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) displays are not transparent which means they do not use a backlight. They rely on reflected light and mirrors. Practically speaking the image exhibits a lot more glare than traditional WVGA modules. This is particularly obvious in high contrast elements like OSD lettering. Fortunately this is not a huge issue when flying as we mostly fly in low contrast, outdoor settings.

Winner: Topsky
While the displays aren't perfect they are sharp and the FOV is huge compared to the Dom V3s. For this reason alone I'd put my money on the Topskys. FatShark does offer great customer support, but I really can't go back to 30 degrees after flying something as large as 42 degrees.

Topsky VS Aomway Commanders V1

The Aomway Commanders offer nearly identical optics to the Dominator V3s, so a lot of the points I made above are also relevant here. The big difference is that the Commanders use an internal diversity receiver. It works quite well, but you cannot upgrade the receiver. This gives the Topskys a slight edge as they feature a module bay. Now in terms of cost this means you don't need to buy a receiver for the Commanders, but you do need to buy a battery. Topsky includes a 2200mah battery and a charger. Another thing I don't like about the Commanders is the faceplate and the battery placement. They just aren't very comfortable to wear IMO.

Winner: Topsky
While many might disagree I think Topsky is the winner here. Again it comes down to the large FOV. Also, I've had issues with Aomway's customer support. My unit was defective and they offered no recourse and very little support. I'm still stuck with a unit that has no HDMI input and a dead pixel. Topsky's customer support is unproven, but they've been very responsive.

Topsky VS FatShark Attitude V4

Now this is a tougher choice. So far all the headsets I've mentioned use 16:9 displays. Aomway lets you crop to 4:3, but it's still 16:9 native. The FatShark Attitude V4s are 4:3 native with a 32 degree FOV. While the FOV is smaller than Topsky's offering the experience is much different. Personally, I prefer 4:3 for the taller vertical space. The Attitude V4s also feature a premium build quality and include an OLED, removable receiver. The displays are quite crisp and despite their lower resolution (640x480) they're just as bright and rich as any other FatShark. Given that they're 4:3 native you've got a lot more camera options plus you get FatShark's customer support. Now that being said I was told by Topsky that they'll have a firmware update that lets you switch to 4:3. It'll be cropped down from the native 42 degree FOV, but it should still be larger than the Attitude V4s.

Winner: FatShark Attitude V4
I'll have to give the FatShark Attitude V4s the win here. It's a great headset for the price and FatSharks always retain a high resale value. If you prefer 16:9 and want a larger FOV then go for the Topskys, but you can't go wrong with the Attitude V4s.

Topsky VS FatShark HD3

This isn't a fair comparison because the FatShark HD3s cost a bit more than the Topskys, but maybe you're on the fence about spending the extra money. I primarily fly the FatShark HD3s. They're great goggles, but they do have some flaws. Most notably they exhibit edge blur. This can be mitigated with diopters, but it still doesn't go away fully. It's not a major issue when flying, but it's a quirk. Like the Attitude V4s the HD3s have 4:3 native displays and the screens are crisp and bright. The Topskys do not have any obvious edge blur, but the displays just don't have the vibrance of the HD3 SVGA displays.

Inside mask

Winner: FatShark HD3
It's hard to match the HD3s, but Topsky offers an experience that closely rivals them. They both offer a 42 degree FOV, but I prefer the 4:3 ratio of the HD3s. The Topskys don't exhibit the edge blur that plagues both the HD3s and HD2s, but they don't compare in terms of clarity, brightness and white balance. If you must have 42 degrees but you're on a budget then Topsky will serve you well. If money isn't an issue then nothing beats the HD3s, yet.

Now if you already own any of these goggles you'll be just fine keeping what you've got. These comparisons are mainly to help you choose your first goggle. If you've got Dom V3s and you're happy with them, then you might as well just hang onto them. You may not find that these are such a big upgrade.

Topsky F7X FatShark Dom V3 Aomway V1 FatShark Attitude V4 FatShark HD3
Displays 1280x720 LCoS 800x480 WVGA 800x480 WVGA 640x480 VGA 800x600 SVGA
FOV 42° 30° 32° 32° 42°
Aspect Ratio 16:9 16:9 16:9 (crops to 4:3) 4:3 4:3
DVR Resolution 1280x720 640x480 640x480 640x480 640x480
Module Support Yes Yes No Yes Yes



There isn't much to speak of here. There's a single Brightness, Contrast, and Color (Saturation) menu with the option to toggle between English and Chinese. To open the menu pull the joystick toward you for a couple seconds. It is dismissed in the same manner. Other than that, the frequency appears on the top left corner in a large pixelated font. It is not persistent and only appears when changing channels with the hardware buttons. It is irrelevant when using an OLED receiver. There is also a volume OSD which appears on the bottom of the screen. There are no fancy OSD features like a band scanner or channel selection interface like Skyzone offers.


The DVR interface is quite different. It uses a different font and is a higher resolution menu. The instruction manual was not very helpful so I put together a little cheat sheet. Legend: Up = Push stick away from you, Down - Pull stick toward you.

  • Turn on DVR - Down for 2 seconds (double beep)
  • Start Recording - Down (single beep)
  • Stop Recording - Down (double beep)
  • Take still image - Right (slow double beep)

  • DVR Menu - Long press center
  • Play current video - Down
  • Pause video - Down
  • Next video - Right
  • Previous video - Left
  • Exit playback to menu - Up
  • Exit DVR menu - Up
  • View still images - Long press center

I could not find any way to fast forward and there was no way to play the videos in reverse. FatShark does both. The interface does make it a little easier to find videos as you are presented with a grid of video thumbnails. FatShark does not do this. Another feature that's missing is auto-record. You need to manually start recording every time you fly. The quality of the DVR video is just fine. The videos are encoded in 720p and seem to be higher quality than the 640x480 videos FatShark creates. My only complaint is the recording is quite dark, so you'll need to adjust the brightness if you want to publish any footage.


Topsky has a history of making video glasses, so I thought the HDMI input might be fun to play around with. I spent quite a while using my computer with these goggles and the experience is very underwhelming. I don't think I'd find myself watching an entire movie or playing a game with these, but the resolution is decent. The 720p resolution is a lot more sharp than what the FatShark HD3s offer. Additionally the HD3s crop the displays from 4:3 to 16:9 and are not 42 degrees over HDMI. Topsky does HDMI at a full 42 degrees. Unfortunately the ghosting is very apparent over HDMI and it's difficult to get the full screen in focus. Another problem is there is no way to adjust the brightness or contrast. These settings only affect the analog signals. I don't have a DJI to test, but one advantage these have over any FatShark is the wider FOV over HDMI.

Fit and Finish

Carrying Case

I wouldn't call these premium goggles, but they certainly came close. The packaging is quite nice and the included carrying case is great. It's got a silicone handle, a nice matte feel, a soft interior with a mesh pouch and even a carabiner to hang it. The plastic of the goggles themselves has a smooth matte finish and the buttons and sticks are a shiny black. They function well and don't feel like cheap buttons that'll break right away. The silicone mask feels great. It's got a smooth leathery feel and I enjoy using it without the foam covers. The head strap is quite nice with the Topsky branding stitched into it. Overall it doesn't feel like a cheap product and Topsky did a great job here.

Final Thoughts

My biggest complaint is not with the ghosting, the module bay size or even the light leakage. What bothers me the most is the white balance. The displays are slightly on the cool side. I've taken this up with Topsky and I really hope they have a way to add a white balance slider. This can be fixed by adjusting the white balance on your FPV camera, but that will affect your DVR footage. In fact it's possible to make these displays look quite good by fine-tuning your camera.

Also, there is some light leakage without the black cover, but apparently it was much worse on the F7X V1. I'd love to use the black cover, but at the time of writing this the new diversity receiver was not available. If that receiver works well then the light leakage will not be an issue as it can accommodate the cover. I'll update this review when I receive it.

I like these goggles. They're a fresh take from a new manufacturer. Sure, they've got flaws, but considering all the technical hurdles and complexities in designing and manufacturing such a device Topsky has done an admirable job. They've put out a comfortable FPV goggle with a large field of view and sharp displays. With a couple more LCoS headsets on the horizon we'll see just how well Topsky did with the technology. They were first to the market and I hope they continue to support the community well into the future. I'll certainly continue to use these.

Full image


  • Large 42 degree FOV
  • Module support
  • Records at 720p
  • Comfortable silicone mask
  • Large 2200mah battery
  • Battery charger included


  • Ghosting
  • White balance too cool
  • Light Leakage
  • DVR footage too dark

Disclaimer: This headset was provided courtesy of in exchange for a fair and unbiased review. This article utilizes affiliate links and purchasing any product mentioned here will help support



Sign in to comment

Whiffles   Feb 05, 2018  

I finally had a chance to try Liftoff with these and the experience is quite good. The 720p displays make a huge difference over my HD3s. These are certainly the sim goggles to beat.

lazd   Jan 16, 2018  

I seriously cannot understand why a manufacturer would release goggles that don't have a 4:3 display mode. I don't know a single pilot that has 16:9 cams, and stretching 4:3 to 16:9 is a visually disgusting hack.

That said, if the forthcoming firmware fixes the issue, then that's great, and the fact that the firmware can be updated is another plus.

Whiffles   Jan 26, 2018 

Yep, the success of these goggles really comes down to the firmware updates. They need to come up with timely updates to address all the issues to prove themselves to the FPV community.