Web-Based Control

That's an interesting point of view, & I'm really interested in this one. It's a basic philosophical issue that might really belong under a different topic, but I'm curious what others think about it.

Let's apply the "5 Whys" technique & see if we can figure it out:

Why would it be against the best interest of the hobby, to have some people only building ships & other people only fighting them?

JM

 

Yes very good point but fun (and beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. Did you ever wonder why there are so many people flying planes, driving cars and trucks, etc. ? For them (me) the fun is the battle for others its the building. Granted its a combination of the two (model building and r/c hobby) but why cant we have both in the hobby? With well desigined wiring harnesses and other systems that are 'drop in' the r/c guys could maintain their own ships.

BUT with all that said I am proud of my new skills but two years is a long time to wait to battle.

 

To me( my opinion) to build your own ship, and then fight it, it what makes our hobby so much better than other hobbies. You cant just pick up a kit and put one together. It takes time and when its done, you go out and shoot other people's pride and joy. Now to remove either half of the equation would disturb the balance. And it might bring in more people, but i think that the build is what deters people who aren't going to stay and contribute. I just think separating the builder and the fighter is like separating a child from its mother. Just my two cents anyway.

 

Well I dont want to hijack this thread so I will finish with this and say I hear you and completely know what you mean seeing that my ship will be done soon and I will soon know the feeling of blasting others 'pride and joy'. However all I hear in our group is how can we get more boats on the water or add members. I think in many areas 4 boats can be a big battle. So if we make it more accessible we have more boats on the water.

 

I totally agree, but i just dont think that is the way to do it. and ill end my two cents there. I just started my first build jadfer, a Graf Spee.

 

I'd like to hear more than $0.02-worth, even if it has to be offline. The topic is drifting away from strictly Web-Based Control, & maybe ought to be moved, but I think it's valuable to hear & understand a variety of viewpoints. I'm not trying to change anybody's opinion, just drill down to figure out what's behind it. Somewhere, there's a reason behind your opinion. Your viewpoint is valid, & probably shared by plenty of others. My theory is that, if we can get to the primary, root "Why's", we can use that knowledge to figure out appropriate "Whats" & move forward.

I may know plenty, but I don't know everything! [] I'd like to fill in the gaps.

JM

 

Ok, web based control. Are we grouping remote viewing with this or is it strictly controlling the ship from a web page and thats it. If its only a web page then WHY is a really good question. There would be more simple ways to offer control to handicapped via radios and remote viewing, so why use the web page? We have to depend on IE or Firefox to function perfectly, hopefully no virus scans are scheduled to run, hopefully no pop-ups will be generated mid-battle. As for practicality what type of computer would be drug around in the car? It would most likely have to be ruggedized or mounted in the auto-pc enclosures to prevent hard drive and component damage.

I think remote viewing with the speed of radio control for navigation would be a better choice. However at this time the only way I am aware to get good streaming video would be to use WIFI which means using a computer (or possibley an IPHONE). It would require at least 4 cameras in order for you to have a great view of gunnery and navigation I would think which means either 2 large monitors or 4 other monitors setup in a place where they can be viewed (not in sunlight).

Now if the Xbee Pro chips (2.4ghz) have enough bandwidth to support streaming video at the ranges it should support then a cool embedded device could be made. This system could be installed independently from the radio.

When I first ordered a hull I had a vision of having a bank of Lcd monitors in the back of my company van on a desk being able to control the ship remotely. Of course this was before I saw my first battle and saw ships that went under bridges, got beached, among other things. But wow that would be cool, no easy or practical but cool.

Now if I had an EE degree and could program in C then I would make it....

 

What I thought about when this topic was started was the web page I had listed earlier. web based control to allow more complex ships be controled with the aid of a computer pond side, allowing for a host of other techs to be implimented. I was thinking about doing this for my bigger ships because it would be cheaper than buying a comparable system in the traditional transmitter/reciver form

 

Done, under General/General/ see: Build? Captain? Both?

JM

 

I think that control probably requires viewing of some sort. There's an underlying need, I'm sure, to somehow provide information about the location, orientation, etc. of the controlled ship as well as other "objects of interest" on the water. Viewing might involve 1 or more web cams in locations TBD, which may or may not include aboard a ship that's being web-controlled. It may also involve some sort of a "tactical plot", or even some sort of imaging that looks like a video game, but derived from actual instead of virtual objects. It might involve something else altogether. The exact "Hows" & "Whats" aren't important right now though. At this point, I think that it's probably enough to note that an ability to view the action, or some representation of it, is going to be necessary to achieve any meaningful level of control. The alternative would be like trying to operate your ship via conventional R/C, without being able to see the ship, other ships, the water, the shore, or anything else, not able to hear anything, or even have anybody tell you what's happening.

Short answer: Because it's convenient & fairly easy; technology is pretty-well established so there's not a lot to have to "invent".

That is a good question, though, & the answer may have something to do with who, exactly, we might want to extend the capability to? If it's just somebody pond-side, or sitting in a car a few hundred yards away, then maybe web isn't the best choice for strictly "remote" access. The next question to ask, then, might be: "Why web (vs. some other method)?"

Valid concerns, but premature, I think. Also, not really related to the question of why we might want to do something. These are all obstacles to be overcome, once (if) it's decided that this is a thing to do. There's also a presumption that a viewing computer needs to be in a car; I don't think that's been established. It comes back to a definition of who might be doing the controlling.

After we've done a few more iterations of "Why?", & determine who the reasonable set of users is, what they need, & whether or not it's worth trying to accommodate them, there will be more decisions to be made regarding "How" to implement various "Whats". That might involve things like browser support, whether to develop a thin or thick client application instead of using a browser at all, & plenty of others, but I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet. The more doors we can leave open, longer, the better.

I don't understand what this means.

This may be getting too deep into trying to solve problems that may or may not be real, depending on requirements that don't exist yet. Rather than let technology limit what we can do, I'd like to define what we want to do, then search for technologies to achieve it. It may be that we can't do everything we want, right now, at a price we can afford. But we've got to know what we want first, so that we know what to look for & recognize it when it does show up.

An EE degree isn't necessary to figure out what ought to be built, & why. It might actually be a hindrance in some cases. Same with being able to program in C, especially if it limits our thinking to that which has already been done.

JM

 

i found a 8 servo controler that has a serial connection for the computer, now if you could get a wireless serial connection, you could control your ships by touch froma tablet pc.

 

It seems like we are going (my post included) about this one level too low. Technology (ie remote viewing) is only useful if we have a problem to solve.

What are we trying to solve? Do we want to control our ships from our house or just give spectators a different view? Or somewhere in between?

The other part of the question is what is the return on investment. Ok, so the spectators now have a different view... but does that help them enjoy what they are seeing more? Or more specifically, will that make them want to join our hobby more?

 

Why does everything have to be useful? Whats wrong with just doing things cause you can? Or for the gee wiz thats cool factor? Its a hobby its supposed to be a waste of time and money that you get enjoyment out of.

 

What I meant by this is that I would think that controling the boat visually using remote viewing but controlling movements using standard radios.

 

Wow Scott you just made a couple of things pop up in my mind.

1. Virtual Capt. for those unable to attend or for prospective captains in other areas. This is where a web based control would be ideal.
2. Spectators - IE: Auto racing and in some cases r/c cars. At a large event like Nationals each boat could have 1 or 2 spectator cameras mounted on each ship that would then display on a bank of monitors so that it could be viewed by spectators and such in a safe place and for simultaneous broadcast on the internet. I think a live feed would blow peoples minds if it could be done.

 

Exactly. Those are the "Whys" I'm trying to smoke out. A lot of times, people seem to want to just throw "solutions" out, without really understanding what the problems are.

JM

 

Nothing, really, except that it's only good for the guy doing the doing. That's fine for that 1 guy, & if you want to do something just "because", then go ahead & do it.

Beyond the basics of food, clothing, & shelter, everything else is just recreation, anyway.

JM

 

Nothing posted for awhile, so let's see if I can stir something up again:

Here's what we've got so far, to answer that question:

OK, now why is Web Control, specifically, needed to achieve any of these goals? You can visit other people's battles without Web Control of a warship. You can record your own battle without Web Control of a warship. You can show off a 'battle in progress' without web control of a warship.

I vote we strike this one, at least within the current context (maybe consider elsewhere?). The ideas themselves are interesting & valid, but really don't apply to Web Control of a warship.

Again, something that doesn't require Web Control of a warship to achieve. This can be done with wireless video cameras, some of which are pretty tiny & even "waterproof". Also, digital camcorders are getting pretty small, & even come waterproof or with cases that are waterproof to considerable depth (for divers, etc.), so eliminating an onboard recorder shouldn't necessarily be a requirement.

I vote to scratch this as well.

I think that's a valid point. It may not serve enough of an audience to justify the project on its own, but it's one of perhaps several good reasons.

OK, to shorten it a little: "Allow more complex ships be controlled with the aid of a computer, allowing for a host of other techs to be implemented." I removed "pond side", because I don't think it's necessary to restrict the controlling location (feel free to disagree). This begs the follow-up question: What "other techs" might be implemented?

Here's a great chance to start drilling a little deeper:

Why would we want to control our ships from our houses?

Why would we want to give spectators a different view?

Why would we want spectators to have a greater interest in joining?

Neither one of these really apply to Web Control. It sounds a lot like watching a NASCAR race (on TV or on the web) with all the in-car views, telemetry displays, real-time position/status info., etc., but I can't get on the web anywhere & actually control what a car on the track does. Not that this kind of thing isn't probably terribly interesting, fun, & even useful - maybe, when it comes right down to defining a technical solution, a prerequisite to even do Web Control - but it's not really a reason for doing Web Control of a warship.

I'd like to add a question of my own, here:

Why web, as opposed to any of a number of other "remote" methods of warship control? Basically, using hobby R/C does provide a method of controlling ships from a position other than onboard the ships themselves. There's an implied presumption that this "standard" method of exercising remote control isn't enough for some purpose. What is (are) the purpose(s)? Why is (are) the purpose(s) important? What does anybody gain from it? Who gains? Why would it useful, important, interesting, or fun to address this purpose? (Not really multiple questions, just trying to frame the question different ways)

JM

 

I think that this is interesting, but i think, for me, the only great thing about this web-based ship, would be to stream a battle, live to any one in the world. I also would mind seeing someone bring an inflatable airship (think Hindenburg, but smaller, obviously) that can record the battle, even multiple cameras to catch individual sorties within the battle. That would provide a good perspective of the battle and maybe help rookies see and learn tactics easier.

John said "Here's a great chance to start drilling a little deeper:

Why would we want to control our ships from our houses?

Why would we want to give spectators a different view?

Why would we want spectators to have a greater interest in joining?"

1) I personally wouldnt want to, there's something about being there, being able to see the other competitors.
2) Its obvious to me, the current view from lake side isnt great, and i dont think ship-board cameras would be any better, hence, airship.
3)Obviously, the more who join the hobby, the more fun it is.