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

[adt22-at-drexel.edu]

I'll probably be taking your suggestion to wait until I have more done before I 
invest in wireless.

----- Original Message -----
From: XP_ert <xp_ert-at-cox.net>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:22 pm
Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Fwd: subscribing to RC Tank Combat]

> B and g are compliant with each other in a way that they can 
> communicatewith 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 
> signalused on channel 6 right in the middle of all the channels 
> causinginterference 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 
> unlimited802.11g+ 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 [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 
> therest?
> 
> 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. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>