RE: RE: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]

["XP_ert" <xp_ert-at-cox.net>]

B and g are compliant with each other in a way that they can communicate
with each other without interference but b only having 11mbps bandwidth and
with g having 54mbps but b and g can communicate in harmony at 11mbps to
each other. G+ causes interference because of its extremely strong signal
used on channel 6 right in the middle of all the channels causing
interference with all other connections. So basically we could have
unlimited tanks using 802.11a (bad because of short but very strong
wavelength) 802.11b (ok but lacks in bandwidth) 802.11g (I would think
preferred because of bandwidth and compatibility) together or unlimited
802.11g+ but only 802.11g+. Depending on how long you think its going to
take to make your tank hold off on the actual wireless part until the end
there may be new standards out by then and or the current (b, g, g+) may be
cheaper. Heck they may eventually fix this interference problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com [mailto:tanks-admin-at-rctankcombat.com] On
Behalf Of adt22-at-drexel.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:24 AM
To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]

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. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>