[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
There's not much published on the adaptability of Wi-Lan to a mobile environment.
What is published is mainly for car usage. Apparently speeds above 40mph start to
affect link quality due to doppler shift.
What I have read suggests that 802.11b would probably be more reliable in an R/C
ground (bouncy) application because of the less complex encoding methods.
Especially if it was throttled down to 1mb per second.
Basically someone is going to have to experiment with 802.11b and g to see if it
would work on the battlefield.
I had a 2.4gh (probably 802.11b) camera system on my tank during the last battle.
It worked great when the tank was standing still. It also worked OK when the turret
was rotating. When the tank started bouncy around was another matter. The picture
would cut out and then re-acquire. After about 10 seconds or so of bouncing the
picture would never re-acquire. I had to power reset the camera system to get a
I have a new 900mhz camera system I'm experimenting with. So far it seems much more
resistant to shock and vibration.
If someone wants to bring a Wi-Lan equipped vehicle to a future event I could
provide a 100mw 802.11b access point and 180 degree antenna to cover the battle
> Are there problems with 802.11b and g? or is it mainly with
> g+ and the rest?
> I was planning on using 802.11b because its pretty cheap. I
> haven't bought any wireless parts yet - I'll wait for a group
> agreement on a standard before I do.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: XP_ert <xp_ert-at-cox.net>
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:10 am
> Subject: RE: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
> > One Known problem is with the 802.11g+ lack of standards. I've also
> > beentoying with the idea in using a Via Mini-ITX
> motherboard in a tank
> > for quite some time now. But back to the problem. The 802.11g+ when
> > running in its
> > 108bps mode will cause interference with other devices in the
> > vicinity such
> > as 802.11b/g and possibly a. I believe it would be polite to pick a
> > standardfor RC Tank Combat BEFORE this technique becomes popular. I
> > believe 802.11g
> > should be used because of its wider bandwidth and compatibility.
> > Just my
> > $.02
> > PS. The Bradley is still in CAD stage
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com
> [tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
> > Behalf Of adt22-at-drexel.edu
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:33 PM
> > To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
> > They're coming out of the woodwork now!
> > -Amir
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aahz." <erickkilmer-at-comcast.net>
> > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:16 pm
> > Subject: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]
> > > > Ah, so I'm not the only one who has the dream of integrating
> > > wireless> networking and RC tank Combat:)
> > >
> > > Oh, not by far :)
> > >
> > > Aahz.
> > >
> > >