RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]

["XP_ert" <xp_ert-at-cox.net>]

I think I will be taking my laptop and base station across the streat to
this nice war zone looking area to test the mobility capabilities of 802.11b
g and g+. I will post my results as soon as I finish... now just to wait for
these rains to go away. I'm fairly sure there mobility is perfect since ive
streamed movies to my laptop from my desktop while walking around the house
just for kicks.

-----Original Message-----
From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
Behalf Of Steve Tyng
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:06 PM
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>