Re: 802.11 tank control & the Stuart is operational

["flier" <FLIER-at-sbcglobal.net>]

One of my concerns has been vibration and shock even 
with regular RC control.  Whatever components are 
used to implement wi-fi are going to have to be 
pretty rugged to stand up to the inherent forces of 
beating around on the ground.  I think the veterans 
apparently had trouble keeping X10 cameras operating 
during battle...

On a side note, the Stuart is now operational.  I've 
been out driving around shooting up trees and 
anything else I can hit. I finished my own PIC skid-
steer mixer with turret control and now have a Futaba 
5ch installed.  Works like a charm.  I've posted 
source code, schematics, pics and all that junk out 
on my site for both the existing radio mod and the 
5ch install version.

Next is on to the Panther.  Got a marker and plenty 
of treadmill belt...

Regards,

Ted
www.foxflier.com


--- Original Message ---
From: adt22-at-drexel.edu
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
Subject: Re: 802.11 tank control

>Not to worry, Its basically coming up with an 
alternative to radio.  You might think of it as a 
10,000 channel radio.  
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: SUSAN GUTBRODT <showa1-at-msn.com>
>Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 0:22 am
>Subject: Re: 802.11 tank control
>
>> OK,
>> I give up...You guys caught me....I haven't a CLUE 
as to what your 
>> saying....LOL
>> Kurt (Lost in cyber space) Gutbrodt
>>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>>  From: adt22-at-drexel.edu 
>>  To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com 
>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:39 PM
>>  Subject: 802.11 tank control
>> 
>> 
>>  Jon,
>>   I am pretty sure I will be using the parallel 
port.  I haven't 
>> come up with a good system for all tank control 
with 8 bits from 
>> the parallel port.  
>> 
>>   Basically what I am thinking of is 4 bits (16 
states) used for 
>> the drive motors.  4 bits for everything else.  So 
far "everything 
>> else" will be the turret, but I'd like to be able 
to add a lot more 
>> gadgets in later.  This system is pretty sloppy I 
am sure I can 
>> partition the bits better.  I think I can even use 
another 4 bits 
>> on the parallel port for 12 total.
>> 
>>   Ultimately the circuits will connect to the 
input of some relays 
>> that will turn the motors on.  I'll probably be 
implementing the 
>> tri-pact speed control 
>>  http://www.rctankcombat.com/articles/speed-
control/
>>  I'd like to be able to add at least another 
forward speed.
>> 
>>   I started to slouch off on the programming 
aspect of it.  I 
>> abandoned it for tank research for a while.  I'm 
starting to 
>> realize how little I have planned.  I think I'll 
have to actually 
>> do some parallel port programming before I settle 
on a plan.  Right 
>> now one of my main questions is: if, inside an 
infinite loop, I 
>> poll for user input and write a byte to the 
parallel port will the 
>> logic be "jumpy".  Meaning if I am pushing 
the "forward" button 
>> will the program write 0001 (forward code) to the 
port for 5-10ms 
>> then sit there (at 0000) for 5-10ms then in the 
next iteration of 
>> the loop write 0001 again.  Or does the last value 
written stay on 
>> the parallel port until something new is written?
>> 
>>   What are you planning to use to send/receive 
information?  A 
>> couple of ideas I had were:
>>   http server/browser
>>   raw IP datagrams
>>   udp/rpc
>> 
>>   I'd like to try my hand at implementing some 
sort of low level 
>> communication over ethernet in c by throwing and 
catching IP 
>> datagrams.   On the other hand a web server could 
do some pretty 
>> neat things if its fast enough.
>> 
>>  -Amir
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Jonathan Butler <jon.butler-at-atdesk.com>
>>  Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:14 pm
>>  Subject: Re: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
>> 
>>  > On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 19:38, adt22-at-drexel.edu 
wrote:
>>  > > thanks for the links, I'm gonna check the 
boards out.  I had 
>>  > looked into it a while ago but dismissed it 
because of cost.  
>> It 
>>  > definitely seems like the right way to go in 
terms of size and 
>>  > power consumption.
>>  > > So far for the wireless connectivity I've 
been planning on 
>> doing 
>>  > point to point as opposed to using a router - 
the disadvantage 
>> is 
>>  > that it caps you off at around 3 connections 
usually, but you 
>>  > don't need a router in the field.  
>>  > > 
>>  > > -Amir
>>  > > 
>>  > 
>>  > Yeah, the only reason I picked the router 
variant was so I 
>> could 
>>  > get the built-in 4 port
>>  > switch as a dedicated test network at home and 
in the field.  
>> The 
>>  > price was sure right, it
>>  > ran $73 with shipping, and I also will get a 
$20 rebate so for 
>> the 
>>  > net $53 I dont have to
>>  > mess with my normal home switch/wiring and 
setup.  This gives 
>>  > 802.11 b, g, plus their proprietary
>>  > 108Mb speed (fingers crossed).  I want to try 
using the 
>>  > switch/router in the car + my Mac
>>  > OS X laptop as the controlling machine.
>>  > 
>>  > I was interested in how you'll be controlling 
the motors.  I 
>> have 
>>  > some ideas, but have not
>>  > settled on any particular solution.
>>  > 
>>  > Jon
>>  > 
>>  > 
>>  > 
>> 
>> 
>