Web-Based Control

What you're talking about is a whole different animal entirely. You're talking about video coverage of a battle, camera angles, videography, etc. The topic is using the web to control the actions & movements of a ship. There's really nothing connecting the 2 concepts. Granted, exercising control would probably be a little easier & more convenient with a video stream directly to the same browser that you're controlling from, but it's by no means a prerequisite. Maybe some other graphical representation of the action could (should) be used? I don't know, & that's not at issue. That sort of thing is very, very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the fundamental question. Maybe we aren't all clear about what "Web-base Control of a Warship" means. Here's how I see it (which may or may not be "correct"; feel free to set me straight if it's not):

"Web-based" means use of a web browser such as Internet Explorer, Fireforx, Safari, Mosaic, etc. A web browser is a general-purpose client software application that uses HTTP to communicate with a remote server. Use of a general-purpose web browser precludes (to me, at least) the use of a custom, special-purpose client application.

"Control" means to affect actions. In this context, "control" means that the actions (clicks, mouse movements, keystrokes, etc.) taken by a user directly correlate to actions (propulsion, steering, firing, etc.) of a warship.

So, "Web-based Control of a Warship" literally means that somebody sitting at a computer with a web browser can cause a warship to sail, steer, aim, and fire. The computer (& user) could be anywhere. That includes pond-side as well as Timbuktu. It has absolutely nothing to do with cameras, number of cameras, camera angles, blimps, or anything else other than using a computer, with a web browser, to exercise operational control over a warship.

That sounds like a vote not to proceed, which is certainly valid. I like to be there in person, myself. There certainly are issues that might make it less than desirable for some people to have to deal with a (potentially) remote user controlling a ship via web. For one thing, who's going to prepare the ship, launch it, rearm & regas it, patch holes, pull it off the water at the end of the battle, or pull it up from under water when it gets sunk, etc.? That guy won't get to enjoy the fun of actually running the ship in combat; that goes to the "remote" guy! So, it seems to me, that there should be some other, really important reason to go ahead with a project like this. For some people, "Because it's cool, & because I can" might very well be good enough reasons. For myself, & possibly many others, it's going to take something more. That's really what I'm trying to find, at the bottom of all of this: What compelling reasons might there be, to go forward with this? Maybe there aren't any.

The "alternative view" here, really is something other than the live, in-person experience that I think most of us prefer. So, maybe what we should be thinking about is what sort of "alternative experience" might we be able to offer, & how can this be an enhancement over the live, in-person perspective? The ability to offer multiple cameras and viewing angles is one enhancement, & I think that's how we ought to view it. It's not an automatic, built-in feature, but it certainly is an enhanced capability that becomes available. Let's look at the way some other "events" look live, vs. online. Football, for example, is pretty boring to watch live, especially from the nosebleed seats. It's especially boring for people who don't understand the game. On TV or the web, though, it's another story. Football (NFL in particular, but also college) has done a masterful job of creating compelling content. They use commentary, multiple camera angles, graphical information (diagrams, Telestrator, etc.), replays, etc. to provide an experience that not only "shows" viewers what's going on, but also helps explain it in detail. The result is that just about everybody is not only a fan, but an "expert" on football. It's no accident that this has happened.

Nothing is obvious. When we assume that anything is obvious, we tend to ignore other alternatives that might actually be more desirable. Even the notion that more people == more fun might be debatable. I get a strong impression that there are a lot of people who want to keep R/C warship combat "just the way it is". How, exactly, would more people make it more fun? Would it be more fun to show up at a battle & not know most of the people there? Would it be more fun if you had to sit & wait because all the radio channels were tied up? Would it be more fun if there were 30 more-or-less identical ships on the water (in addition to the 20 or so familiar ones), & you couldn't tell who was who? At some point, maybe more people become too much of a good thing. Then again, maybe Web-Based Control could be at least part of a solution to help manage growth, as well as promote it. We've go to think of all these things, & more.

JM

 

I am definetly vote against this idea, but i am saying that we can use the web to expand a little. And i do not believe that there are enough people who are both interested in WW2 navy things and rc and modeling(one of my strikes against the pre-built ships making it to easy). I think that to involve more of those who like all of those things, wold improve the fun. Having to travel less distances for a good scale battle would be nice. But i really do understand, flooding our hobby with wannabes would be bad, but im just saying there isnt enough to make that happen. In conclusion, yes, i am against this web-based control.

 

I don't think webcontrol is a useful technology for our ships. We have no use cases for extreme remote control... just 50ft @ the pond.

 

I wouldn't say we have no use cases. The cases most certainly exist, & can be documented as thoroughly as anybody would ever need to be able to build products to support them. Those use cases may represent such a small volume that it's hard to justify them. There may also be plenty of issues created that we might not care to deal with.

I've documented plenty of use cases in my time, & I can see enough of them here. Whether or not they're worth the effort is another matter.

JM

 

Then I'm completely missing them... what use can you see from lashing this technology to a boat?

 

I think thats it is an interesting idea, but of the people who are unable to move around to battle, how many can build and find someone to be the boat-jockey of sorts to patch and pick it out of the water? I just think it is a feasible, but unnecessary idea.

 

I think we've seen at least a couple of good ideas in this thread. There may very well be more. What I've been trying to do is draw out of people what they really hope to achieve. "Gee-whiz" stuff can get people thinking sometimes, but it's a lot more useful to explore why an innovation might be useful than to get all wrapped up in the tech itself.

A couple of uses that come to mind from this discussion so far:

- Make it easier, or even possible in some cases, for people who have trouble walking around pond-side to participate. The terrain often prevents people with wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, etc. from being able to get close to the action. Others with a variety of ailments may not be able to stand long enough. The ability to control a ship from a laptop PC on a picnic table may get a few more people engaged that wouldn't be able to otherwise.

- Provide an opportunity to engage prospects without them having to make the "investment" of a trip to the lake. I've found that giving people a taste of combat is a very valuable recruiting tool. I've used unarmed cargo ships as "loaners", so that prospects can drive but not shoot, & I've let people run a shore battery to shoot but not drive. If they want more, then they'll have to invest more. I see web control as another option - another "tool" in the "toolbox", so to speak, of things I can do to try to engage people & draw them a little further in. It could be another option to give people a taste of combat, so that hopefully they'll want more. It's never going to measure up to the live experience, & I wouldn't want it to. It would be great if it could exceed the experience that somebody could get from a purely computer-based game, though.

The common theme in both of these ideas is to engage people. They can look at photos & videos forever, & all the hit counts at YouTube, etc. show that that's happening. But there's a big jump between "That looks cool!" & actually doing it. I'd like to find ways to add more "steps" between those 2 points. The more steps, the easier it is to move from one to the next. In our scale navies, everybody basically goes from "Recruit" to "Captain" in a single step. In a real, 1:1 navy, there are a lot of ranks to go through before someone takes command of a ship. Maybe web control could provide one of those steps?

JM