R/C Naval Combat

This came up in another Topic on the forum. We were talking about hulls and I brought up I didn't have a battling Robot yet. Have you noticed that a lot of people including the media refer to Radio Control as Robotic? When ever you mention Robotic or Robots? it certaintly gets people's attention. The question is should RC Naval Combat be changed or maybe add a subtitle to it? IE: Naval Robotic Warfare..or Robotic Nava Warfare?   A lot of these "Robot"s are using Radio Control Transmitters and servos like our ships. Robot Wars is just RC vechicles that can hack and smash. Why not call this RC Naval Combat-Robotic Naval Warfare or Robotic Water Combat.. ect ect.. you get the idea. The younger generation can certaintly connect the Tie in. It may help stir up interest  in the hobby just by name alone.

Any thoughts?

I absolutely hate the terms "robot wars", "battlebots", and "robo-sports". It always bugs the @#$% out of me whenever I hear the term "robot wars" applied to any machines that aren't autonomous. Autonomous vehicles are robots, human-controlled industrial vehicles are ROVs, and human-controlled sport vehicles are R/C. It's like calling some grass a tree, they are barely related. Confuse those terms around me at your own risk.

That said, while "robots" is not an accurate name for the sport, I think it's a very useful tag on websites and such for attracting attention. At the Maker Faire in California last year, the Western Warship Combat Club changed the name of our game from "Big Gun Radio-Controlled Model Warship Combat" to "robotic warship combat". The word "robotic" drew the notice of people interested in the battlebots, and was so successful that we were the single most popular show at the faire, beating out the battle-bots guys by a noteworthy margin. The moment I found out about the name change, I added the tag "robotic" to all my youtube videos. It's probably a good idea to make "robotic" one of the keywords for this website, so search engines pick it up, but keep the correct name in most places.


(OT rant) I do admit a certain kinship with other R/C combat sports, and I would love to participate in all of them, but there are a few things that they shouldn't do no matter how cool they are. The name "robot combat" is a big no-no. Another one that really tweaks me is how many people I talk to assume "robot combat" came before RC Naval Combat. I always remind these people that "robot combat" is RC Naval Combat's immature younger brother who hasn't learned how to play with his toys without breaking them. But the worst habit comes from the Aircraft branch of the hobby: they have the nerve to call their variant "RC Combat", as though they're the only ones who ever thought it'd be neat to simulate battles with our toys. Everyone else is RC tank combat, or RC warship combat, or whatever, but they're the only branch that can be THE "RC Combat". Any time I see that, I wanna break something! (/OT rant)

I confess: I coined the term, "Robotic Warship Combat" last year, when the prospect of battling in front of thousands of spectators actually became reality at Maker Faire 2008. I coined the phrase because "Robot Wars" is a staple at such events, and I wanted to differentiate between what we do and what the "landlubber" RC combat guys do. I also confess that I deliberately used the word "robot" to shamelessly attract mobs of spectators to our arena, and considering that we had over 5,000 people watch us in the 2 days we were there, I guess it worked. This year, we are the main attraction, with a "pond" we are building that's larger than last year's, and with 6 shows per day scheduled, and bleachers to hold 500 people per show.

Now, I hear the arguments about the word "robot," but what is a robot, exactly? There is no universal definition of the word, actually, but a general definition that might satisfy most people is this one:

Robot: a device that automatically performs complicated, often repetitive tasks

My combat ships are controlled by a programmable computerized radio. I have automatic pumps installed. My travel volume and center (neutral) servo arm positions are programmed. My electronic speed controls are programmed. By that definition, my combat ships are robots.

If you define robot as an autonomous machine that thinks for itself, well, there's no such thing. Even fictional androids are only as human-like as their programming, and they behave in predictable, automatic fashion.

Bottom line: Our combat ships are robots. The only difference between ours and any other robot out there is the number and type of automatic systems and behaviors programmed into them.

Rob

Rob, by your definition a car engine could be considered a robot. The problem is that it is very difficult to come up with a definition for a robot. An assembly line arm is a robot, while a CNC mill is usually called a machine. Military drones are called Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Underwater, they are called Remotely Operated Vehicles, but at UCD I joined the Underwater Robotics Team.

are clearly robots.  Some famous guy once said that he couldn't define a robot, but he'd recognize one if he saw it.   I think we are more like remotely operated vehicles or toys than robots. However, "robotic warship combat" is very catchy and has a wide appeal (like "robot wars"). I don't see a dire need to change the name of the hobby immediately, but if I had to choose, it would be Robotic Warship Combat.

I look at it like this:

I may not know what a robot is, but I know what I like.

Seriously, If the radio controlled contraptions with whirring metal saws and flying hammers mounted on them, ripping one another into pieces in an arena, are robots, then our radio controlled contraptions with CO2 guns mounted on them, ripping each other to pieces in an arena, are robots. It works for marketing purposes to fill the bleachers with spectators, get video production companies to do shows about us, and  - last, but certainly not least - to encourage event promotors to hand us thousands of dollars to pay for our portable pond.

Re: the YouTube video of "Soccer Robots." You say they are clearly robots. OK, if so, here's a question: why are those human beings sitting there in the background, each with a laptop in front of him? Why aren't they sitting in the audience, watching their little contraptions play? Here's my answer: They are operating the robots. True, they can only alter the programming during timeouts and halftime, but the supposedly "autonomous" robots can't play soccer without radio communication with those external operators and their laptops. My point here is that, if you are determined to define a robot as a machine that is truly and fully capable of independent, autonomous action, you aren't going to find any on planet Earth. Just because the organization says they're autonomous, doesn't make it so. The officials have defined autonomy by their own standards, and use the word as though it were synonymous with independence. It's all a matter of degree. In the same vein, I have defined our radio controlled model ships as robots, and I can fully defend my position.

Is a car a robot? My wife's car seems to be. There are things it simply will not agree to do, no matter what I ask of it. We traveled across the US in it this past fall, and it has a handy-dandy GPS unit built into it that is really like the computer in Star Trek. It won't produce "tea. earl Gray" yet, but that's coming. At any rate, the thing wouldn't let me input a destination into it, or search for a restaurant, if the car was moving - even though I was in the passenger seat. It seems to know better than I what is safe for humans to do. Just because the thing looks like a car, doesn't mean it's not a robot. 

In the not too distant future, human beings will climb into automobiles, program their destination with pit stops along the way, and then settle back and enjoy the ride. Will those vehicles then be robots? Would people 20 years after that capability became commonplace look back on that moment, and consider those vehicles to be true robots?

Rob,  Director of Robotic Warship Combat competition at Maker Faire '09.

Posted By Gascan on 07 May 2009 05:12 AM

Rob, by your definition a car engine could be considered a robot. The problem is that it is very difficult to come up with a definition for a robot. An assembly line arm is a robot, while a CNC mill is usually called a machine. Military drones are called Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Underwater, they are called Remotely Operated Vehicles, but at UCD I joined the Underwater Robotics Team.

These things

are clearly robots.  Some famous guy once said that he couldn't define a robot, but he'd recognize one if he saw it.   I think we are more like remotely operated vehicles or toys than robots. However, "robotic warship combat" is very catchy and has a wide appeal (like "robot wars"). I don't see a dire need to change the name of the hobby immediately, but if I had to choose, it would be Robotic Warship Combat.

Posted By Gascan on 07 May 2009 05:12 AM

Rob, by your definition a car engine could be considered a robot. The problem is that it is very difficult to come up with a definition for a robot. An assembly line arm is a robot, while a CNC mill is usually called a machine. Military drones are called Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Underwater, they are called Remotely Operated Vehicles, but at UCD I joined the Underwater Robotics Team.

Good point! Glad to see you are are a little more open minded than your brother. I've been in a lot of these discussions over the years, and have developed my own definition of robot.

"A robot is a device that performs a function normally  performed by a human being or other living creature."

In the 50's dishwashers were called robots. Now that they are common place no one would say such a thing. RC cars, planes, tanks and ships don't really fit, since they are just minatures of larger mechanical devices.  Battlebots are very borderline. I suppose you can look at them as the mechanical gladiators, or cock fights. I think of it more like R/C distruction derby. 

Back to the topic at hand. Combat warships don't fit my definition of robot., so I wouldn't change the name. However whether to use the term in advertizing the sport is a marketing decission. As such it has little to do with truth, and a great deal to do with emotional response. I say if you're marketing to techno-geeks use robot. If you're trying to attract the the 'Man Show' crowd naughtybots (I love that) is a possible. For the average guy, big gun, cannon, combat, warfare, and battleship ought to be enough.

Well, let's see...

You said, A robot is a device that performs a function normally  performed by a human being or other living creature.

By that definition, something like a power saw would be a robot, since it's a device that automatically moves teeth back and forth through a piece of wood - a function "normally" performed by a human being before the invention of the power saw. All you're illustrating in your post is that the definition of a robot is quite subjective. I'm a bit confused about this statement you made, though:

Battlebots are very borderline. I suppose you can look at them as the mechanical gladiators, or cock fights. I think of it more like R/C distruction derby.

What is the difference between a "battlebot" and a radio controlled, armed model ship? They are both controlled by an operator, and they both battle, and they both inflict and receive damage in the course of competition.

Rob

Posted By Rob Wood on 07 May 2009 02:07 PM

Well, let's see...

You said, A robot is a device that performs a function normally  performed by a human being or other living creature.

By that definition, something like a power saw would be a robot, since it's a device that automatically moves teeth back and forth through a piece of wood - a function "normally" performed by a human being before the invention of the power saw. All you're illustrating in your post is that the definition of a robot is quite subjective. I'm a bit confused about this statement you made, though:

Battlebots are very borderline. I suppose you can look at them as the mechanical gladiators, or cock fights. I think of it more like R/C distruction derby.

What is the difference between a "battlebot" and a radio controlled, armed model ship? They are both controlled by an operator, and they both battle, and they both inflict and receive damage in the course of competition.

 

Rob

 

It depends on the definition of normal you use. I had meant it in the sense that this is a task that it would be abnormal to see anything other than a human or living creature perform that function.  My point is that once a task becomes commonly done by a machine then the general public stops thinking of the machine as a robot. Power saws have been around since before the term robot was invented. It makes sense that people don't think of it as a task that a human should be doing.

I tried to hint at the fact that I don't really consider a Battlebot a robot. I can understand those who do by saying that this is a machine that is replacing the human body in a gladiatorial duel, Like Kick boxing, or pro wrestling. We simulate WWII naval combat by replacing the ships controls with radio gear and the ships other systems with miniature machines, but the crews tasks (navigation, targeting, maintenance, etc) are still done by a human being.

Just my opinion.In the end, the only definition that matters is common usage. If that ever becomes clear, we can always rewrite the dictionary then.

I do see your point, Terry, within the context of your own definition of robot. (As an aside, I covered the first ever "Robot Wars" event for Air Age Publishing. At the time, there were no robotics magazines out there, so my article ran in RC Car magazine. My job was to shoot photos and write the story, and as a long time RC pilot and science fiction buff, it was difficult to reconcile what I was seeing with my own ideas of what a robot was. What I saw was a bunch of guys with 2-stick hobby radio transmitters in their hands, driving dangerous-looking RC vehicles around, whacking away at one another's creations.)

Today, despite the number of years that have passed since then, I don't see that anything has changed except degree of sophistication. And I certainly don't see any tangible difference between "Robot" war-type competition and what we do. The environments are markedly different, of course, and that difference impacts the design and engineering of the "robots" we build, and the rules we play by. (Traditional combat robots are not allowed to fire projectiles, for example.) Otherwise, the goals are the same: disable the other guy's toy, before he disables yours.

Interestingly, the editor-in-chief of the Air Age Publishing magazines I wrote for is now editor-in-chief of Robot Magazine. He's the one who convinced me to think of our combat boats as robots. He calls them "Boatbots." And when you look at something like Stephen Morgret's Command & Control System, it's not much of a stretch to imagine the day when we can fully program our ships to fight on their own. Although that would be interesting, the fun factor would be decidedly limited (for me, anyway). I like the physical, adrenalin rushing direct input/hand-eye coordination aspects of what we do, and I believe we would always want to preserve that for excitement's sake.

Rob

Posted By Rob Wood on 07 May 2009 04:47 PM
... And I certainly don't see any tangible difference between "Robot" war-type competition and what we do. The environments are markedly different, of course, and that difference impacts the design and engineering of the "robots" we build, and the rules we play by. (Traditional combat robots are not allowed to fire projectiles, for example.) Otherwise, the goals are the same: disable the other guy's toy, before he disables yours.

I would say that there is one major diference. Our goal is to build a replica of a ship that within a set of safety rules, that as nearly as possible replicates the weaponry and abilities of a prototype ship. The goal of a combat bot builder is to build something completely original. It is much easy to convince people that a something they have never seen before is a robot. If it looks like a ship you will have an up hill battle trying to call it a robot.

Interestingly, the editor-in-chief of the Air Age Publishing magazines I wrote for is now editor-in-chief of Robot Magazine. He's the one who convinced me to think of our combat boats as robots. He calls them "Boatbots." And when you look at something like Stephen Morgret's Command & Control System, it's not much of a stretch to imagine the day when we can fully program our ships to fight on their own. Although that would be interesting, the fun factor would be decidedly limited (for me, anyway). I like the physical, adrenalin rushing direct input/hand-eye coordination aspects of what we do, and I believe we would always want to preserve that for excitement's sake. 

I didn't make it to the 1994 Robot Wars, but I have been building robots since 1992 and competing in robot events since 2002. I looked up Tom Atwood. I couldn't find a picture, so I'm not sure if we have met. I do know Dan Danknick editor of Servo magazine and Dave Calkins who teaches robotics at SFU and runs Combots and Robogames. Both of them have have told me that while combat bots are not really robots they are included because 'that's what sells'. It might be that the editor of Robot magazine would be under similar pressure to include us.

I agree that Stephens control sysetm is getting pretty close to robotic control. I could see someone adding an auto targeting feature in the near future. From there who knows. We may end up with a separate autonomous class. It would definitely make for a very different game.

Here is a link you may not have seen to an automated gun made for a competition from a couple of years ago. It's completely autonomous, and uses web cam video to regularly hit 1' , 2' and 3" targets at 10 feet. Mounting something like this in your ship would seriously change the balance of power on the pond.   

www.youtube.com/watch

Posted By Kotori87 on 08 May 2009 01:46 AM
I agree with Droidling: "robot" wars most likely uses that label for marketing purposes, not because they're actually robots. I have no problem with using the "robot" label for recruiting, marketing, etc. Whatever puts more targets on the pond... I mean, gets new members to join, is good. On the other hand, I don't think we should go changing the name of the hobby. It's wrong to call our hobby something that it isn't. It bugs me when the "robot" wars guys do it... it bugs me when the airplane combat guys do it... It'd bug me if we did it, too.

On the other hand, this is a really small issue compared to a lot of the other issues we face. I mean, how can you compare changing the name of the hobby to deciding whether or not to put a GPH limit on pumps, or allow fully-armed ships? In the grand scheme of things, I'm not about to roll over and die if the name of the hobby changes. It'll just be a mosquito buzzing around in the tent.

Excellent point! But what is the name of our hobby, actually? Consider this website: RC Naval Combat. That term was coined by Justin, wasn't it? (If not, then by someone else.) Robotic Warship Combat was coined by me. And RC Warship Combat was coined by someone else. It doesn't make any difference to me, what it's called. It could just as easily be called, Model Ship Demolition Derby.   And, who cares how many GPH a pump can deliver? Every ship with even so-called "super pumps" installed in it sinks, eventually. So it takes an extra minute or two. What does it matter? We get hung up on trivia.

Posted By Droidling on 07 May 2009 10:55 PM

Posted By Rob Wood on 07 May 2009 04:47 PM
... And I certainly don't see any tangible difference between "Robot" war-type competition and what we do. The environments are markedly different, of course, and that difference impacts the design and engineering of the "robots" we build, and the rules we play by. (Traditional combat robots are not allowed to fire projectiles, for example.) Otherwise, the goals are the same: disable the other guy's toy, before he disables yours.

I would say that there is one major diference. Our goal is to build a replica of a ship that within a set of safety rules, that as nearly as possible replicates the weaponry and abilities of a prototype ship. The goal of a combat bot builder is to build something completely original. It is much easy to convince people that a something they have never seen before is a robot. If it looks like a ship you will have an up hill battle trying to call it a robot.

I'm not sure that's a major difference. How could the overall shape and engineering requirements have anything to do with defining a piece of machinery as a robot?

www.youtube.com/watch

That link doesn't go to a particular video. I did some searching, though. Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ndkxEuISzg

Fun discussion.

Rob

I just spent an hour writing a sincere well though out reply to Rob and Gascan. The system droped it when I tried to edit the link to look like a link. I may try to reconstruct it tomorrow. Are there instructions for this editor?

For right now a quiz. Are these robots, and why?

Android Stair Climbing

My robot is the last one in the video. I know that there is nothing in him that is any more advanced than what is in a ship with Stephens new control system. Yet I call the ship a ship and this a robot.