Re: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]

[adt22-at-drexel.edu]

doppler effect - eh? I guess I'll plan to top off my tank speed at 39mph now.

I know this group is _RC_ tank combat but I was wondering if there are any rules or 
objections to having a backup tethered control system?

So if I show up with an 802.11b tank and it turns out I can't control it at the 
battlefield for whatever reason can I break out a 5-10ft cable that drives the tank?

I'm trying to minimize costs and I don't already have an RC system to use as a 
backup.



----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Tyng <stevet-at-stcharlesmd.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:06 pm
Subject: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]

> There's not much published on the adaptability of Wi-Lan to a 
> mobile environment.  What is published is mainly for car usage.  
> Apparently speeds above 40mph start to affect link quality due to 
> doppler shift.
> 
> What I have read suggests that 802.11b would probably be more 
> reliable in an R/C ground (bouncy) application because of the less 
> complex encoding methods.  Especially if it was throttled down to 
> 1mb per second.
> 
> Basically someone is going to have to experiment with 802.11b and g 
> to see if it would work on the battlefield.
> 
> I had a 2.4gh (probably 802.11b) camera system on my tank during 
> the last battle.  It worked great when the tank was standing still. 
> It also worked OK when the turret was rotating.  When the tank 
> started bouncy around was another matter.  The picture would cut 
> out and then re-acquire.  After about 10 seconds or so of bouncing 
> the picture would never re-acquire.  I had to power reset the 
> camera system to get a signal again.
> 
> I have a new 900mhz camera system I'm experimenting with.  So far 
> it seems much more resistant to shock and vibration.
> 
> If someone wants to bring a Wi-Lan equipped vehicle to a future 
> event I could provide a 100mw 802.11b access point and 180 degree 
> antenna to cover the battle field.
> 
> Steve T.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Are there problems with 802.11b and g?  or is it mainly with
> > g+ and the rest?
> >
> > I was planning on using 802.11b because its pretty cheap.  I
> > haven't bought any wireless parts yet - I'll wait for a group
> > agreement on a standard before I do.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: XP_ert <xp_ert-at-cox.net>
> > Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:10 am
> > Subject: RE: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
> >
> > > One Known problem is with the 802.11g+ lack of standards. I've 
> also> > beentoying with the idea in using a Via Mini-ITX
> > motherboard in a tank
> > > for quite some time now. But back to the problem. The 802.11g+ 
> when> > running in its
> > > 108bps mode will cause interference with other devices in the
> > > vicinity such
> > > as 802.11b/g and possibly a. I believe it would be polite to 
> pick a
> > > standardfor RC Tank Combat BEFORE this technique becomes 
> popular. I
> > > believe 802.11g
> > > should be used because of its wider bandwidth and compatibility.
> > > Just my
> > > $.02
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > PS. The Bradley is still in CAD stage
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com
> > [tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
> > > Behalf Of adt22-at-drexel.edu
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:33 PM
> > > To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> > > Subject: Re: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
> > >
> > > They're coming out of the woodwork now!
> > >
> > > -Amir
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Aahz." <erickkilmer-at-comcast.net>
> > > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:16 pm
> > > Subject: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
> > >
> > > > > Ah, so I'm not the only one who has the dream of integrating
> > > > wireless> networking and RC tank Combat:)
> > > >
> > > >         Oh, not by far :)
> > > >
> > > > Aahz.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>