It is possible for it to be deemed illegal, but there are reasons for it not to be considered such. The ship has no sensors to tell where the target is or its distance. The operator has to instruct the ship what direction the target is in and what the distance is. All that the ship does is point the turrets at the position specified by the operator. The object of the system was to make operating a complicated ship easier, not to turn the operator into an observer of an automated ship. Stephen
I remember asking about that rule in Fast Gun clubs before. IIRC, the Fast Gun rule about automated tracking and ranging was to prevent systems with onboard sensors that automatically track and target a ship, so all the human has to do is pull the trigger in order to score a hit. For example, if someone were to couple a laser-rangefinder to a depression servo on his sidemount, so that it always scored hits exactly at the waterline, that would be an automated tracking and ranging device. Unlike automated tracking and ranging systems, Stephen's Fire Control still requires the human to input the range and bearing to the target. The human says: target at bearing X, range Y. The fire control then thinks about it, and tells each individual turret where to aim in order to hit the point at bearing X, range Y. Of course, since it's up to the human to specify what bearing X and range Y are, they are subject to the same human error that other systems suffer from. The only significant improvement is that it allows you to bring more turrets to bear. I'll bet someone might try to argue that it's an automated tracking and ranging device, but in actuality it's an automated turret rotation device. All it does is make rotating a bunch of turrets easier, and if your aim is off, it won't correct for you. Stephen has proven plenty of times that just having his fire control is no guarantee of a hit. Justin's idea of automatically bringing only the turrets to bear that can legally bear on the target is a great example of what Stephen's fire control is capable of. I'm not sure if he has programmed that feature in yet, but it's a software change, not a hardware change.
Yeah, I can't see why this would be illegal. It is no different than using one or more sticks on your DX6. So I'm large battleship driver, so I won't even discuss smaller ships. MWCI Rules: Maximum of three sidemount cannons with a maximum of two firing cannons covering a specific side. When two cannons are firing into the same quadrant, they must be in separate turrets. All quadrants may be covered. -->Yamato, Iowa, Richelieu, Vanguard, and Rodney classes: These ships may carry a maximum of four sidemount cannons with a maximum of two firing cannons covering any specific side. When two cannons are firing into the same quadrant, they may be mounted in a single turret. All quadrants may be covered. Rotating turrets (turrets that traverse from one quadrant to another) are allowed on classes 4-8 provided that they do not violate the above restrictions. Don't see why (with some careful human-machine teaching) this would be illegal. Especially with Iowa... A&B are 2 gun turrets C is 3 gun 'A' turret to rotate (-15) - 90+ degrees 'B' to rotate 15 - (-90+) degrees 'C' to pivot (-15) - 15 degrees Poof! You're done! Completely compliant, much simpler weapons interface... one stick and one trigger. God forbid someone 'crosses' the T with that Iowa... 4 BBs by as long as it takes to get out of the way!
Tirpitz, A 1 barrel B 1 barrel C 2 barrel D 2 barrel A&B rotate all the way, (-90+) - (90+) C (-15) to 15 pivot D (-15) to 15 pivot (flat on deck) What would be really cool though, is teaching the firecontrol system to 'not fire' based on depression as well as rotational position. D turret would not fire when depression is below a certain point @ +/- 15 degrees. C turret of course would, which makes Tirpitz into a twin cannon dual-side sidemount!
IRCWCC is just plain no fun when it comes to this. When I shifted over, I immediately grumbled when I saw: Any ship over 40,000 tons standard displacement or 60" scale length (in 1/144 scale) may have one rotating turret with one cannon.
In IRCWCC fast gun we find it is more effecient and quicker to turn the ship rather than the gun. Most people with rotates have trouble getting them on target quick enough and not taking loads of damage. It also opens the door to another system failure. It doesn't seem like the system being designed is a targeting system, just a fire control and gun moving system. Fast gun wouldn't need something this complicated because we can only rotate one cannon. In the past there have been designs that cut another gun out when the rotate violates it's quadrant.
Rob, remember to specify IRCWCC not just 'fast gun'. The rule regarding only 1 cannon can rotate is only valid for IRC. Rob is right about one thing... Big gun cannons rotate too slowly. I took my big gun alsace to a fast gun battle once... By the time the cannons rotated around the ship the target was already gone. So if a rotate system is implemented on a fast gun ship, we can't just use the standard winch servo... it has to be MUCH faster.
The rotate that I used when I was in the IRCWCC was a two position switch, left and right. It worked pretty well. Agree with Justin that only allowing one cannon to rotate doesn't make much sense, provided you don't violate the 2 cannons in one quadrant rule provided your ship can't have two cannons in the same quadrant.
don't fret justin... We are out in an area where folks are generally ok with trying out different things. Besides, if I ever get my Iowa done, I really want to do a fully armed, fully rotating battle with your tirpitz.
