warspiteIRC
Veteran
Lieutenant
Posts:451
 | | 05 Oct 2008 06:17 PM | | In the IRC, the action is too quick, the camera too slow. Perhaps in some of the other formats it would work, but not in the IRC. | | | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 05 Oct 2008 07:03 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by warspiteIRC
In the IRC, the action is too quick, the camera too slow. Perhaps in some of the other formats it would work, but not in the IRC.
Too slow? Are you saying that video signals, transmitted at the speed of light over a distance of only a few dozen feet or so, take too long to reach a monitor so that a shot that appears to be perfectly lined up will be gone by the time the captain sees it? Or am I missing something else? JM | | | |
|
warspiteIRC
Veteran
Lieutenant
Posts:451
| | 05 Oct 2008 08:57 PM | | No, you looking at the camera can not react as fast as someone looking at their ship in our rule set. The original Iowa had a camera tied to its main turrets and looked the same way that the guns faced. Other ships could approuch from directions that the camera was not facing and chew up the ship.
Marty | | | |
|
Gascan
Veteran
Commander
Posts:777
| | 05 Oct 2008 11:39 PM | | Danny, is this the video you were referring to? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpNEeYe1asY
This youtube video is of my brother's old Scharnhorst with a wireless camera attached to Bruno turret. We did not have a face mounted display at the time, so we simply sent the signal straight to a video camera which was used as a recorder. The wireless system would occasionally drift a bit, so it needed someone to constantly tune it. The club CO2 hadn't been refilled that day, and the camera was installed for the last battle of the day, so Scharnhorst ran out of gas after one shot, so most of the video is other boats sailing and shooting at Scharnhorst. As Danny said earlier, the quality is terrible. I have since purchased a face-mounted display that covers one eye with a small screen. Unfortunately, when the wireless system drifts out of tune, the FMD goes haywire, and takes a while to come back even when it is properly tuned. Perhaps with a different wireless system and a different FMD it might work better. I have used the FMD to help me film with the camera close to water, and I have found that it is difficult to use both the display and my uncovered eye at the same time. I have to spend a second to switch my focus between the two.
I believe that a wireless gun cam and face-mounted display would be useful in the following situations:
1) long range pot shots, which are unlikely to hit but may perform slightly better if you can use the camera to get correct bearing to the target.
2) pounding a disabled target more than about 20 feet offshore. If the victim is closer to shore, it would likely be more accurate to aim normally.
3) fighting when the boats are extremely far from shore. At that distance, captains are guessing whether their guns are on the right bearing, and the loss of situational awareness from a short pause to focus on aiming the gun-cam is much less risky.
4) having a second person steering the ship, issuing orders and directing or using a second radio to directly control the ship. This would provide the necessary situational awareness in a close-in fight.
I believe that a wireless gun cam and face-mounted display would NOT be useful in the following situations (which account for a large majority of the battling I see):
1) slugging match near to shore, where you need the situational awareness to avoid running aground or into weeds, bushes, and other navigational hazards, and where a human eye on shore would be almost as, if not more, accurate.
2) multi-ship furballs, where you need the situational awareness to avoid shooting friendlies, avoid rams, and avoid sneaky attackers taking advantage of a blind spot.
3) torpedo boat defense, where you need the situational awareness to spot the attacker (who loves blind spots) and bring guns to bear before he comes in like a bat outta hell.
Most of the time, I don't think a wireless gun-cam system would be particularly useful. However, in those few instances where a ship breaks down or you find it necessary to fight far from shore, I think such a system would be very valuable. I think the cameras and face-mounted displays have already been developed, if someone is willing to do the research and spend the money. | | | |
|
DELETED
[ROLES:Veteran]
Ensign
Posts:67
| | 06 Oct 2008 05:00 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by Gascan
Danny, is this the video you were referring to? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpNEeYe1asY
Nope, I was speaking of standard video. Sometimes anybody gets to run a camera. :) That video was cool. It gives you a different spectrum. I had the volume turned off. but just watching it gives me JAWS music. That video was better -it had color!! The video the IOWA had looked like a tv with rabbit ears and bad connections (some of the older guys knows the picture). After watching the video it makes me want to put a camera in. Even if it's record to tape and not live. It was just way too cool. Can you imangine the view when sinking!! Danny | | | Danny #3 | |
|
Bryan
Veteran
Ensign
Posts:260
| | 06 Oct 2008 06:25 AM | | look for a ATC2K camera online at e-bay or amazon, the amazon one comes
with a 2GB card all for under 100$, there is a newer one out that has
a 48degree angle as opposed to the 42 degree angle on the ATC2K the
newer one has better resolution and can be found with a 4GB card for
about 120$ ATC3K, the plus is when you sink they are waterproof to at
least 10 feet. | | | Bryan, ~~
Member of the OAF, ~~
Ontario Attack Force ~~
Happy dad to battling sons. ~~
~~ http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/
~~ Fleet:
DKM Bismarck
SMS Hindenburg
SMS Scharnhorst
DKM Adm Scheer
DKM Nordmark
~~ Molding:
USN Tennessee
USN Gearing
IJN Mogami
IJN Akizuki
and decks turrets etc.
~~ http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/photos/album/18# | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 06 Oct 2008 07:26 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by warspiteIRC
No, you looking at the camera can not react as fast as someone looking at their ship in our rule set. The original Iowa had a camera tied to its main turrets and looked the same way that the guns faced. Other ships could approuch from directions that the camera was not facing and chew up the ship.
There's nothing format-dependent about that. It's a matter of split attention, not reaction time. Somebody who's glued to a video monitor can react very quickly to a perfectly-lined-up shot when it's presented (print crosshairs or other reticule on a transparency & overlay it on the screen for even better results). The trouble is, they'd lose their ability to keep track of the "big picture" by doing so. I think it's possible for somebody to develop proficiency using a head-mounted display. Switch between viewing the display & the live action to get the best of both worlds. It would take some practice (just like effective combat captaincy in general) to achieve, but could be done & would give the captain who does it a considerable advantage over others who are unable/unwilling to spend the time to develop the skill, & money to acquire the equipment. That's why I suggested the rule allowing video targeting OR a direct view of the battle scene, but not both. JM | | | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1416
| | 06 Oct 2008 08:43 AM | | heck, you've already got the display, why not an overlay from a wider angle video feed or some form of 360 degree "radar" coverage near the ship? one does not necessarily need to have the camera's pointing at the target if one can come up with a system that shows on the screen the local targets and the aiming point of the cannons. Although the next thing would be automated IFF boxes... and spoofing/faking of IFF boxes... You end up, if someone can make a small enough system, with a video overview of the battle from bridge/mast mounted sensors as well as the cannon cam/targeting system. Picture in picture has been around for years :) | | | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 06 Oct 2008 08:53 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Greg McFadden
heck, you've already got the display, why not an overlay from a wider angle video feed or some form of 360 degree "radar" coverage near the ship? one does not necessarily need to have the camera's pointing at the target if one can come up with a system that shows on the screen the local targets and the aiming point of the cannons. Although the next thing would be automated IFF boxes... and spoofing/faking of IFF boxes... You end up, if someone can make a small enough system, with a video overview of the battle from bridge/mast mounted sensors as well as the cannon cam/targeting system. Picture in picture has been around for years :)
Maybe it's just cause I'm new but I don't understand why you would want to watch the whole battle on a monitor. It just seem like it would be like playing a video game. If you don't want to split your attention between a radar type display and looking at the boats, how about an audio targeting aid. It could go from a slow to fast beeping as you swing the turret to center on the target and change pitch to indicate the range/depression. | | | Terry | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1416
| | 06 Oct 2008 09:03 PM | | That would be part of the point. If you want to push the tech envelope well out there to an "ultimate ship", build yourself a command and control center that properly shows both the local tactical information as well as the strategic information in a manner that allows one to maintain an overview of the battle but focus on the immediate tasks at hand... | | | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 07 Oct 2008 07:18 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
Maybe it's just cause I'm new but I don't understand why you would want to watch the whole battle on a monitor. It just seem like it would be like playing a video game.
The big difference would be that all damage, sinkings, successes & failures of every type would be real, not virtual. There's no "re-spawning" with the push of a button; an actual recovery operation must be done, followed by actual repair. Then there's the matter of being out in the fresh air, instead of the parents' basement all day... ;-) quote:
If you don't want to split your attention between a radar type display and looking at the boats, how about an audio targeting aid. It could go from a slow to fast beeping as you swing the turret to center on the target and change pitch to indicate the range/depression.
That's a possibility, & probably about as close as one could get to a direct coupling between target acquisition/engagement & weapon launch without actually doing it (I would prefer to disallow such coupling except in pure robotic combat "classes" where it's normal & expected; indeed, a major part of that particular game). At the same time, I could see where it could lead somebody to pay such close attention to the subtleties of pitch & cadence that they lose track of the fact that they're sailing away from the action. JM | | | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 07 Oct 2008 08:01 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by Greg McFadden
That would be part of the point. If you want to push the tech envelope well out there to an "ultimate ship", build yourself a command and control center that properly shows both the local tactical information as well as the strategic information in a manner that allows one to maintain an overview of the battle but focus on the immediate tasks at hand...
I could see something like that happening within a larger overall framework where there are multiple "classes" of combat. At the "top end" might be a purely robotic format, with ships running autonomous missions that include attempting to defeat their opponents with force. With all the technical issues involving identification, targeting, deciding whether to engage, etc. this could be a very challenging activity for those so inclined. Other classes might include "crewed" ships, those with some limited sensor/control capability, etc., on to what might be termed the "classic", all-manual-controlled ships that just about everybody uses now. I think that it's important for the hobby/game/sport's future that we look in a variety of directions for new ideas. While it's important that innovations don't "drive off" those who are interested only in keeping things as they are, the same can be said in reverse: Let's not drive away those who are interested in something more than what there is now, by insisting that nothing change. I can't help wondering how many excellent potential captains have been "lost" because of institutionalized opposition in the hobby to anything that might upset the status quo. JM | | | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 07 Oct 2008 02:27 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Greg McFadden That would be part of the point. If you want to push the tech envelope well out there to an "ultimate ship", build yourself a command and control center that properly shows both the local tactical information as well as the strategic information in a manner that allows one to maintain an overview of the battle but focus on the immediate tasks at hand...
My question wasn't 'why would you want a better command and control system' it was 'why does have to be base around a computer monitor'. IMHO The ultimate ship should make the game more enjoyable. Consider the possibility of an entirely voice controlled ship. You could stand on the shore and bark commands at an automated helmsman and fire control officer like a real WWII Captain. It may not give me the ultimate tactical advantage. It just sounds like more fun to me.[:D] quote:
Originally posted by JohnmCA72The big difference would be that all damage, sinkings, successes & failures of every type would be real, not virtual. quote:
Ok. I do understand the increase in the pucker factor.
[quote][quote]If you don't want to split your attention between a radar type display and looking at the boats, how about an audio targeting aid. It could go from a slow to fast beeping as you swing the turret to center on the target and change pitch to indicate the range/depression.
That's a possibility, & probably about as close as one could get to a direct coupling between target acquisition/engagement & weapon launch without actually doing it (I would prefer to disallow such coupling except in pure robotic combat "classes" where it's normal & expected; indeed, a major part of that particular game). At the same time, I could see where it could lead somebody to pay such close attention to the subtleties of pitch & cadence that they lose track of the fact that they're sailing away from the action.
JM
Good point. It's probably the main reason real ships split the maneuvering, targeting, and strategic control responsibilities out to several different people. That's just a lot for one mind to keep up with. Terry | | | Terry | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1416
| | 07 Oct 2008 03:36 PM | | I just put monitor since I have seen such things done very well with current video games (and very poorly) incorperating all the cnc stuff in an easy to understand/use/task method. Goggles would be cooler with video overlay or something of that sort. | | | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 07 Oct 2008 04:45 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
My question wasn't 'why would you want a better command and control system' it was 'why does have to be base around a computer monitor'. IMHO The ultimate ship should make the game more enjoyable. Consider the possibility of an entirely voice controlled ship. You could stand on the shore and bark commands at an automated helmsman and fire control officer like a real WWII Captain. It may not give me the ultimate tactical advantage. It just sounds like more fun to me.[:D]
Making the game more enjoyable is the whole point of any sort of change, whether it's a technology update, scenario, organization, promotion, or whatever. A willingness to look for solutions in places where they haven't been found before is a good thing. Voice command recognition applied to a combat ship is an interesting idea. I've worked with it considerably in prior jobs (for other applications, obviously). While there are issues, I have no doubt that it could be done if somebody is willing to make the effort. Sometimes fresh ideas work out, & sometimes they don't. Sometimes you learn something useful that you never expected, even when the main objective fails. Being new doesn't have to be a disadvantage. Sometimes, great ideas come from people who don't know enough to know that "you can't do that!" & figure out how to do it anyway. JM | | | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2279
| | 07 Oct 2008 10:14 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by JohnmCA72
Sometimes, great ideas come from people who don't know enough to know that "you can't do that!" & figure out how to do it anyway.
Hey, I think that voice command idea is awesome! We do something kinda like that at G/M events, called "blind conning". You sail in teams of two people, one skipper and one "blind" helmsman, and try to navigate a complex course and shoot targets along the way. It's always a lot of fun, but the WWCC has never tried combat like that. Getting a voice-command computer would eliminate half the manpower of the operation, and make "blind conning" combat a lot more practical. Heck, I'd even run such a system in regular battles, just because it's so cool. | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
| | 08 Oct 2008 02:57 AM | | The problem with battling with voice-activated commands, besides cost of development, is that the other team can hear what your doing, and unless your telepathic, your apt to give up your strategy | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 08 Oct 2008 08:20 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by BoomerBoy17
The problem with battling with voice-activated commands, besides cost of development, is that the other team can hear what your doing, and unless your telepathic, your apt to give up your strategy
I was actually thinking of a wireless headset, or throat mic. Unless you are standing next to the opposing team you could probably speak quietly enough not to give your plans away. Of course you would also have the option to use a push-to-talk switch, and put out a little disinformation.[}:)] | | | Terry | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 08 Oct 2008 05:50 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by BoomerBoy17
The problem with battling with voice-activated commands, besides cost of development, is that the other team can hear what your doing, and unless your telepathic, your apt to give up your strategy
That kind of depends on how you structure your commands. If you're giving your ship broad, strategic objectives for it to figure out, then the lip-readers across the pond might intercept (like stealing signs in baseball). Myself, I envision something more like: "Turret 1, zero-four-five. Turret 1, fire!" etc. The bad guys would be alerted mainly by the sound of cracking balsa!. I'd use helm commands similar to those used in a warship: "Ahead/astern one-third", "two thirds", "full", "flank", "Left/right standard rudder", "rudder amidships", or specific number of turns (shaft)/degrees right/left rudder. If there's a compass onboard, one could even indicate a bearing to steer to. There are some cheap PC-based speech recognition systems available. I haven't used any of them, so I can't say how well they work. The stuff I used to work with was high-end, & very expensive. The biggest problem with voice command recognition in this application would be ignoring the captain's vocalizations that aren't intended to be ship commands. I'd define a limited command set & structure it so that casual speech is unlikely to be interpreted as a command. A prefix would help; address the "unit" (i.e. subordinate "officer") to whom the command is given, then tell it what you want it to do. Qualities of the captain's voice could be a wild-card, too. It would be a challenge to design a command structure that's very close to 100% positive detect, 0% false detect. JM | | | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2279
| | 08 Oct 2008 07:00 PM | | That sounds about right. Whenever I am the skipper in a blind-conning event, I use a very short, distinct set of commands that are very hard to screw up.
First, I say what major system I'm going to command. The systems are "engines" and "helm", which controls movement, and "guns", which control offensive systems.
Then, I choose which command I'm going to issue. For the engines and helm, I choose left, right, forward, back, straight, or stop. For the guns, I choose left, right, stop, fire front, or fire back.
Then, finally, I choose how much to execute the order. If I don't say anything for this part, then it means go all the way. Full speed ahead, hard a-port, etc. If I don't want to go all the way, I say "touch", meaning to throw the stick all the way over, then back to neutral, repeated as necessary. I have found through experience that attempting to do stuff like "ahead one-half" or "port two-thirds" is not very useful, as almost everything you need is either a fine adjustment (touch) or a major move (all the way).
Here's a few sample commands:
"engines forward"...... "engines stop"
"guns right"..... "guns stop".. "guns touch right".. "guns fire front" "guns fire back" (hehe got'im!)
"Helm touch left" "helm touch left" "helm touch left" "helm straight" "helm RIGHT!" (oh no!)
When working with a human assistant, I occasionally use a command "ready guns", to warn my assistant ahead of time which gun I plan to fire, to reduce mistakes and lag-time between the fire command and the actual shot. A voice-recognition computer won't have those problem, though. | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|