BoomerBoy17
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2099
 | | 09 Oct 2008 03:46 AM | | Sounds like you have a good system going Kitori | | | Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
-Psalm 23. | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 09 Oct 2008 03:51 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by Kotori87
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).
Do you think that if you were working with a computer, that could maintain a constant speed, and had a consistent firing delay it would be possible to fire while moving? "Helm steer 60deg port. Ahead 1/4; Forward guns 60 deg. starboard. Helm 10 degrees right rudder." Wait for your guns to come across the hapless target then; "Forward guns range 2 ft, (wait) Fire! Helm, Hard to port. New heading 180 degrees. Ahead full..."Anybody know if the Navy really did/dose control ships this way. This could all be Hollywood hype. Terry | | | Terry | |
|
DELETED
[ROLES:Veteran]
Ensign
Posts:67
| | 09 Oct 2008 07:59 AM | | I saw a preview on cable (didn't catch what show or channel) but they were building an Ultimate Ship I guess. Looked like a half size viking ship vs another similar type ship. Did catch much of but they appeared to be using R/C and the weapon of choice----FLAME THROWER
Danny | | | Danny #3 | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1416
| | 09 Oct 2008 08:09 AM | | heck, with the right sensor (for speed) and a pic chip you could maintain constant speed and set a firing delay. | | | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 09 Oct 2008 11:01 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by Greg McFadden
heck, with the right sensor (for speed) and a pic chip you could maintain constant speed and set a firing delay.
Even without the sensor a PICK chip would be more consistent than the average human hearing and attention span coupled to thumbs on a couple joy sticks.[;)] | | | Terry | |
|
Greg McFadden
Rear Admiral (RDML)
Posts:1416
| | 09 Oct 2008 11:46 AM | | one thing I was looking at, when I had time... was using a microcontroller (pic in my case, since that is what I have around) to read from a sufficiently accurate gps (some tiny ones claim errors in velocity of only 0.1m/s which would be good enough for us) and limit the esc to prevent overspeeding/set a readily programmable actual max speed. That has the advantage of having a sensor that is not messed up by moss and other junk in the pond... adding a firing delay would be easy.
As a side note, I still have a board here somewhere that a buddy of mine made up. It has two firing modes, one shot per signal and full auto. One fires only once for every valid cycle of a TX stick (effectively) and the other fires continuously so long as the stick/switch is in the appropriate position.
It has an adjustment for the on time of the fet used to power a solenoid so you set it to stay on for only the amount of time it needs to actually fire the cannon (a gas savings measure). It also has a delay setup, from 50ms to 10 seconds before it will allow you to fire (one shot mode) or fire again (full auto mode).
| | | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 09 Oct 2008 05:52 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
...
Anybody know if the Navy really did/dose control ships this way. This could all be Hollywood hype.
The "Hollywood hype" part is the Captain, standing on the bridge barking detailed helm & gun orders. In reality, there's a conning officer who gives those commands to the enlisted men at the controls. Captain's in CIC keeping up with the "Big Picture"; maneuvering orders are signaled from the flagship to direct where & how the fleet/task group is moving; each ship has its station within the group that it needs to maintain. There's a pretty good description of the conning process here (critique of the Destroyer Command game by an actual ex-SWO): http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_005a.html JM | | | |
|
Kotori87
Rear Admiral (RADM)
Posts:2279
| | 09 Oct 2008 06:12 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
Of course you would also have the option to use a push-to-talk switch, and put out a little disinformation.[}:)]
I can see it now. "pump on. Pump on! Oh, come on, PUMP ON!!!" (without pressing the push-to-talk button) | | | There are 101 different types of people: those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who just can't count... | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 10 Oct 2008 09:21 AM | | quote:
Originally posted by JohnmCA72
quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
...
Anybody know if the Navy really did/dose control ships this way. This could all be Hollywood hype.
The "Hollywood hype" part is the Captain, standing on the bridge barking detailed helm & gun orders. In reality, there's a conning officer who gives those commands to the enlisted men at the controls. Captain's in CIC keeping up with the "Big Picture"; maneuvering orders are signaled from the flagship to direct where & how the fleet/task group is moving; each ship has its station within the group that it needs to maintain.
There's a pretty good description of the conning process here (critique of the Destroyer Command game by an actual ex-SWO):
http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_005a.html
JM
Interesting. I suppose getting this kind of control in an RC warship would mean having an advanced navigation AI on board and going over to the darkside (Direct linked automated fire control).[:0][;)] No one said we had to be historically accurate in the control system anyway. Terry | | | Terry | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 10 Oct 2008 05:50 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
Interesting. I suppose getting this kind of control in an RC warship would mean having an advanced navigation AI on board and going over to the darkside (Direct linked automated fire control).[:0][;)]
I don't see any need for AI. Voice recognition certainly isn't in that realm. Mapping commands to actions is going to be a bit of work, but nothing terribly difficult. Fire control was being done over 100 years ago. The only area where I'd have an issue would be directly linking sensors to weapons, in effect taking the human captain (& the element of skill in the execution, as opposed to the building) out of the loop. That's not really what we're talking about here, though. quote:
No one said we had to be historically accurate in the control system anyway.
Why not? I'd love to see a trailer, outfitted with what looked like a ship's wheel, engine order telegraph, etc. - all the authentic-looking equipment & instruments that you would have found on a real WWII warship. I think that would be pretty cool, especially if it were functional. No doubt it would take a lot of work & money, but I'd sure tip my hat to the 1st guy to build one! JM | | | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 14 Oct 2008 06:46 PM | | Sorry for the delay. Somehow I missed the reply email. quote:
Originally posted by JohnmCA72
quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
Interesting. I suppose getting this kind of control in an RC warship would mean having an advanced navigation AI on board and going over to the darkside (Direct linked automated fire control).[:0][;)]
I don't see any need for AI. Voice recognition certainly isn't in that realm. Mapping commands to actions is going to be a bit of work, but nothing terribly difficult. Fire control was being done over 100 years ago.
The only area where I'd have an issue would be directly linking sensors to weapons, in effect taking the human captain (& the element of skill in the execution, as opposed to the building) out of the loop. That's not really what we're talking about here, though.
quote:
No one said we had to be historically accurate in the control system anyway.
Why not? I'd love to see a trailer, outfitted with what looked like a ship's wheel, engine order telegraph, etc. - all the authentic-looking equipment & instruments that you would have found on a real WWII warship. I think that would be pretty cool, especially if it were functional. No doubt it would take a lot of work & money, but I'd sure tip my hat to the 1st guy to build one!
JM
When I said AI and direct linking I was referring to the review from the link you posted. It seemed to me that reviewer was saying that the captain only gives very general commands, and leaves it up to his subordinates to make the decisions about the details of maneuvering and fire control. My thought was that you would need an AI to take care of all those other function so the captain can concentrate on tactics. That didn't sound like fun, which is why I said we don't need to be that authentic. You were apparently looking at it from a very different perspective. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I do like the idea of mimicking the controls that the ships crew really had in a trailer. Did you plan on having it set up like a real bridge with a 4 or 5 man crew? Terry | | | Terry | |
|
JohnmCA72
Commander
Posts:701
| | 14 Oct 2008 07:42 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
When I said AI and direct linking I was referring to the review from the link you posted. It seemed to me that reviewer was saying that the captain only gives very general commands, and leaves it up to his subordinates to make the decisions about the details of maneuvering and fire control. My thought was that you would need an AI to take care of all those other function so the captain can concentrate on tactics. That didn't sound like fun, which is why I said we don't need to be that authentic. You were apparently looking at it from a very different perspective. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
OK, I get it. I'm still not so sure that AI would be necessary - maybe some sort of rules-based programming. AI implies (to me, at least) that there's some "learning" going on within the system. I don't think anything that advanced would be necessary, just a very thorough "Operations Manual" programmed in. quote:
I do like the idea of mimicking the controls that the ships crew really had in a trailer. Did you plan on having it set up like a real bridge with a 4 or 5 man crew?
I don't plan on any such thing, but I'd love to see somebody else do it - I'd even pay good money to see it! I'll certainly offer ideas, inspiration, encouragement, & maybe even active help to anybody who wants to give it a shot. To me, that's in the realm of actual R/C flight operations from an under way R/C carrier (another thing that I'd pay to see, but is so far down on the "To Do" list...). JM | | | |
|
Droidling
Ensign
Posts:101
| | 14 Oct 2008 10:15 PM | | quote:
Originally posted by JohnmCA72
quote:
Originally posted by Droidling
I do like the idea of mimicking the controls that the ships crew really had in a trailer. Did you plan on having it set up like a real bridge with a 4 or 5 man crew?
I don't plan on any such thing, but I'd love to see somebody else do it - I'd even pay good money to see it! I'll certainly offer ideas, inspiration, encouragement, & maybe even active help to anybody who wants to give it a shot. To me, that's in the realm of actual R/C flight operations from an under way R/C carrier (another thing that I'd pay to see, but is so far down on the "To Do" list...).
JM
Hey now, you set up the rules here. Remember money is no object. You can always pay someone "To Do".[:D] And if you think that 1:144 scale flight operation will never happen take a look at these links. Visit this site Visit this site It's all a matter of time and money. Terry | | | Terry | |
|