R/C Naval Combat

quote:

---

Originally posted by crzyhawk

Have you looked into big gun at all?

---

Yes...

The set of rules I have been working on for my ideas is loosely based on Big Gun...

Having battled in Big Gun for several years now, I have found that the varying gun calibers and armor thicknesses naturally mandate different engagement ranges. The big 1/4" guns on battleships enable them to regularly damage each other from 6-10 feet away. Further than that and causing damage is much harder, and some duels can get as close as 1-2 feet in the quest for holes below the belt. Smaller 7/32" cannons don't carry their punch over as long a distance and can't travel through as much water and still make holes. 3/16" cruiser guns and .177" destroyer guns are much lighter, and can't penetrate battleship armor unless they're about 3 feet away. Thinner armor is noticeably weaker, so the gun-cruisers are mostly used against lightly armored ships like destroyers, transports, and french/italian cruisers. Torpedo cannons are naturally depressed to score below-the-waterline hits, which mandates point-blank attacks from a foot or less. I've played a few naval wargames, especially one from the russo-japanese war of 1904, and overall the Big Gun battles are similar. The two big differences are that Big Gunners don't do much teamwork, and the ranges are significantly less. But a lot of the relationships between guns, armor, and range are all there.

I think, PreDread, that all you are really trying to do is extend the battle ranges. One thing's certain, if you get a compressed-gas torpedo that really works, you'll be able to make one awesome submarine :D

Yes, I am trying to increase the battle ranges.

In fact, I want to make point-blank battleship duels totally pointless, but not allowing large caliber guns to depress. Sure you could still fight that close, but the ships would only shred each others superstructures...

Another goal of mine is considerably reducing the pump rates of ships. My rules allow a certain number of bulkheads in ship based on tonnage. I believe clever use bulkheads will allow ships to remain afloat with more damage than the pumps can handle, some areas simply flood while the pumps keep flooding in other compartments under control. So a ship won't sink but will be handicapped be the weight of all of the water in it.

And oh yes, a workable compressed gas torp will finally make subs a really viable build option by allowing them to actually use their greatest feature... stealth. A sub captain would probably have to at least keep a periscope up so he could see where the sub is, but if your in the middle of gun duel would you really notice it? [8D]

If you are using a 2.4 GHz radio you will need to keep an antenna above water too.

I would be sneaky and try to hide the antenna in the periscope [8D]

Of course, when you fire off a spead of torps everybody is gonna know where you are...

quote:

---

Originally posted by PreDread

One of my goals is to create a fire control system.

I want to create a system using microcontrollers for rotation and bearing of the guns, elevation and depression, and firing.

My goal is to have one knob to adjust bearing in relation to the bow, one knob to control elevation, and a single firing button for the guns on the ship. The microcontrollers should be able to rotate all cannon that can fire on that bearing, and know which weapons to fire based on elevation. The microcontrollers should also "shut down" turrets that don't response to the commands. This would prevent damage to turrets jammed by BB's or debris.

My goal is to create a streamlined, "smart" control system that is easy to use. I want to custom build my own hand held "console" that has:

A stick to control the rudder.
Twin throttles, to steer with the props if the rudder is damaged.
Main fire control, bearing knob, elevation knob, and one firing button.
Torpedo control, a selector switch for different tubes, and one firing button.
A few other buttons for things like bilge pumps.

---

Now that's just plain silly! Believe me, I know! I've been through it before.

This whole idea runs counter to several immutable laws of the hobby:

- Every input on the part of the user MUST directly correlate to an action on the ship. Practical effect: You must aim guns, not designate targets.

- One turret (or group of turrets, physically "ganged" together) must be the "master" turret(s) that directly correspond to user inputs as noted above.

- A target is only of interest if it falls within the field of fire of the "master" turret(s). Exception: Directly astern.

- All data transferred from the user to the ship must be encoded as Proportional Pulse Modulation (PPM; "servo pulse"), even if this means multiple conversions from digital to PPM & back again. Practical effect: Increased complexity.

- All data transferred from the user to the ship must be "channelized", or organized into multiple channels of PPM pulses (see above) according to each shipboard device controlled. Practical effect: Pretty much forces the use of standard R/C gear; reduced data throughput; reduced flexibility.

- It's necessary to get all jazzed up over some technology/component/language/etc., declare it to be "The Solution(tm)", & define the problem to fit this solution. All subsequent problems must also be defined according to The Solution(tm). You have violated this law by proposing an application first, without having already defined a technology/component "solution" to which the application (i.e. the problem to be solved) can be modified to fit.

Above are all technical laws. You are also flying in the face of the First General Law:

- The hobby (not sport) is what it is, & can never be anything else.

Be careful what you suggest. This hobby is pretty good at stifling innovation of any kind.

JM

PS: You might want to use a slider instead of a knob to indicate range. It's a little more intuitive for that sort of thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72
This hobby is pretty good at stifling innovation of any kind.

---

Which is exactly why the current hobby will fail, sooner or later. Not trying to be mean, but anything that cannot adapt to change dies...

Ok, so my fire control idea breaks the rules, so what? Maybe the rules need to be changed. A real warship is filled with sailors that all have their own job to do. Our ships are controlled by one person. So one person has to be the entire crew.

Real battleships had fire control centers, in fact, I've been in the one on the Uss Texas. Its a big room full of primative computers trying to do exactly what my idea proposes. It directs all availible weapons on a target, computes the range, and fires the guns.

Its easy to generalize what I'm proposing as simply "picking targets" and pushing the magic button like some Playstation game. But it much more difficult than that if you battle at increased range. Your ship and the target are both in motion, the range might be constantly changing, and the enemy is shooting back. Even a streamlined fire control system would require constant attention to keep rounds on target.

Standard R/C equipment has alway been a handicap, and new technology is not helping it any...

quote:

---

Originally posted by PreDread

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72
This hobby is pretty good at stifling innovation of any kind.

---

Which is exactly why the current hobby will fail, sooner or later. Not trying to be mean, but anything that cannot adapt to change dies...

---

I think of it more as, "If you're not moving forward, you're falling backward." There is no "status quo", much as many people seem to wish there were. Same basic idea, though.

quote:

---

Ok, so my fire control idea breaks the rules, so what? Maybe the rules need to be changed.

---

I can't help with that. I don't make the rules. I don't even understand many of them, especially the "immutable" ones that aren't written down anywhere but seem to govern the hobby more tightly than the ones that ARE written.

That's largely behind my interest in the "Next Generation" of warship combat. Most of those currently involved wouldn't be interested, but a few might. It's funny that, in a hobby that's 95% talk, people would get so worked up over talk, when the topic is only a part of that other 5%.

JM

PreDread, your fire control idea does NOT break any WRITTEN rules of Big Gun. In fact several other people have had the same ideas as you about the importance of bringing all guns to bear, and are developing very similar systems. The general term we invented for it is "director-based fire control". I am one of those people, and I hope to have a fully functional example working and installed in a battleship by 2009. Here's where it gets tricky.

I do not keep any of my projects secret. I talk with other members in my club about them, so they have plenty of time to prepare. I have told many club members about director-based fire control, and the fact that I will have it installed in a heavily armed and highly maneuverable battleship by 2009. Many of the older club members (including half the founders of Big Gun) are not very thrilled at the idea. I'm not sure if it's my reputation for building good boats and battling very agressively, or the technology that will effectively double my firepower in many situations, or a combination of the two. But there are a lot of people in this hobby who are technophobes.

When I first came into the hobby, I was as full of enthusiasm and new ideas as you. I wanted to dramatically change the club, increase firepower and damage, and up the carnage. I learned very quickly that people are scared of that thought and would oppose any dramatic changes. So I adoped a policy of gradual change, building better boats and slowly changing the rules in favor of more action and more carnage. It wasn't until recently that the nay-sayers even noticed that things have changed, and they still don't understand the full extent.

I think I want to put John's comments into perspective... He has designed a target-based fire control system; and (apparently) has gotten some flack for it. I believe John is disenfranchized with his local group right now.

His comments are always very accurate. There seems to be two (major) groups of people in this hobby, those who battle but nay-say any and all innovation, and those who love to dream but don't battle. There aren't too many in between. I hope this forum accepts dreamers and never discourages them, but at the same time encourages them to actually perform... we need more people in the middle.

I fully agree with you justin. I try to be in the middle as I love the innovation and love to battle. You will find that the WCC will be fairly accomadating of new stuff as long as it is not seen as someone trying to make a super ship (I.E. there must be give and take... I come out with the uber fire control system, my ship is also worth the weight of all the other ships in the club when it is enabled...). We talked about that a bit, and if I can ever get converging fire and all that in a fast gun ship, we'll play, but if it is all functional, we would quickly have "Maul greg's ship" which I don't mind at all. :). My proposal was simple (for fast gun) the ship gets one point for each cannon, one point for each rotating turret, and one point for each turret controlled by a fire control system, and teams (and damage points) are split up accordingly. They seemed ok with that, with the understanding that any ship built to that spec could be run in irc legal mode as well.

Justin, you should shoot me your phone number so we can chat sometime, now that you are only 2.5 hours from me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kotori87When I first came into the hobby, I was as full of enthusiasm and new ideas as you. I wanted to dramatically change the club, increase firepower and damage, and up the carnage. I learned very quickly that people are scared of that thought and would oppose any dramatic changes. So I adoped a policy of gradual change, building better boats and slowly changing the rules in favor of more action and more carnage. It wasn't until recently that the nay-sayers even noticed that things have changed, and they still don't understand the full extent.

---

Boiling the frog slowly eh?

Part of the opposition is that people don't want to see boats they've sweated over be made suddenly obsolete. We can't all be budding evil geniuses [:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anachronus

We can't all be budding evil geniuses [:D]

---

Ha ha [}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JustinScott

I think I want to put John's comments into perspective... He has designed a target-based fire control system; and (apparently) has gotten some flack for it. I believe John is disenfranchized with his local group right now.

---

Let me clarify this: I am not a member of NTXBG. I still remain friendly with them & battle as a guest at times.

quote:

---

His comments are always very accurate. There seems to be two (major) groups of people in this hobby, those who battle but nay-say any and all innovation, and those who love to dream but don't battle. There aren't too many in between. I hope this forum accepts dreamers and never discourages them, but at the same time encourages them to actually perform... we need more people in the middle.

---

I think that there are a whole lot of those "in-betweeners". There just isn't much for them yet.

JM

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72
I think that there are a whole lot of those "in-betweeners". There just isn't much for them yet.

JM

---

Truly spoken.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72
[brLet me clarify this: I am not a member of NTXBG. I still remain friendly with them & battle as a guest at times.

---

Well you are always welcome here, with or without your ideas and opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JustinScott

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72
[brLet me clarify this: I am not a member of NTXBG. I still remain friendly with them & battle as a guest at times.

---

Well you are always welcome here, with or without your ideas and opinions.

---

This site and these forums are and were needed. I have learned a ton from them. Met (virtually) many interesting folks too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JustinScott

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnmCA72
[brLet me clarify this: I am not a member of NTXBG. I still remain friendly with them & battle as a guest at times.

---

Well you are always welcome here, with or without your ideas and opinions.

---

The waters grow stagnant if they're not stirred occasionally ;-)

JM

What about a torpedo based on a co2 cartidge that has a pin or something on the front or it and when it hits it pierces the cartridge and I suppose its possible that the air could blow a hole in the balsa.

OR

do it the other way and the when the pin is hit it launches this torpedo. the force of the air should be enough to penetrate the hull.

I realise that if it has enough air to whiz around for a couple of minutes it wouldnt be safe but I have not pierced one and let it go so I dont know.

OR a co2 launching system for solid balsa torpedos...

Something to think about

quote:

---

Originally posted by jadfer

What about a torpedo based on a co2 cartidge that has a pin or something on the front or it and when it hits it pierces the cartridge and I suppose its possible that the air could blow a hole in the balsa.

OR

do it the other way and the when the pin is hit it launches this torpedo. the force of the air should be enough to penetrate the hull.

I realise that if it has enough air to whiz around for a couple of minutes it wouldnt be safe but I have not pierced one and let it go so I dont know.

OR a co2 launching system for solid balsa torpedos...

Something to think about

---

1. Build it
2. Test it
3. Report back

JM