Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Cars, Buggies, Trucks, Tanks and more > RC Tanks
Reload this Page >

Towards Improving RC Tank IR battles: An Easy, Reversible Simple Process

Notices
RC Tanks Discuss all aspects of rc tank building and driving here!

Towards Improving RC Tank IR battles: An Easy, Reversible Simple Process

Old 12-11-2013, 09:57 PM
  #1  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Towards Improving RC Tank IR battles: An Easy, Reversible Simple Process

Hello RC tankers, modellers, armour nuts


I'm embarking on doing some systematic tests for later publication to the wider RC tank community towards improving the RC tank IR battle. A work in progress which you and you clubs may experiment on as well.


This is a three-point agenda, a balance of simplicity and realism whilst generating new interests and overall resurgence/revival of IR battling worldwide (through tactical gameplay).


A. Survivability= modelled via the IR receiver configuration
*(Tamiya, Impact, Heng Long IR receivers all have a single prism, fins and a single IR sensor)


WWII Category ___________Post War Category _____________Receiver Configuration_________________IR Penetrable range, m__________________Scaled up Pen Range, m
Light ___________________M41, Leo1________________________no fins________________________________40__________________________________ 600
Medium__________________T55_______________________ _____stock, as is____________________________30__________________________________ 480
Heavy ___________________MBT____________________________no fins and no prism_____________________(Tamiya) 3; (Impact) 5_________________ 80
__________________________________________________ ______no fins, with prism_________________________2.5_______________________________40




B. Firepower = All tanks set to Light Configuration (Max Hit: 3; Reload time, s: 3)
Normalised due to IR range; normalisation accounts for gunnery, optical technology, sit awareness spanning WWII to MBT gen
* this can be further explored if this becomes widely accepted thorough the addition of 500 ohm pot between IR emitter LED and MFU (as per Dan Crowley's design). for now, the focus is simplicity


C. Mobility = SUSTAINED CROSS-COUNTRY MOBILITY not On-road speed
Can be done either digitallly (Transmitter endpoints), mechanically (DropDownGears) or physically (rubber band, blu tac to Heng Long transmitter)
*takes into consideration the specific power (hp per ton) suspension and track width, rubber pads, etc.

WW II Category:
Light < 30 kph
Med < 20 kph
Hvy < 10 kph

Post War Category:
M41, Leo1, T55 < 40 kph
MBTs < 50 kph




Will be publishing test results here and be updated as we go.


cheers,Rey

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-12-2013 at 05:39 AM.
Old 12-11-2013, 10:06 PM
  #2  
no12skyline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Portsmouth, NH
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Are you establishing benchmarks? The natural progression of technology favors the modern tank category. Do you plan to normalise this by assigning compensation points? For example, if a single MBT is so hard to penetrate and has high mobility, it would have to deal with four WW2 light tanks.

Otherwise, everyone would simply buy or play as an MBT; there is otherwise no incentive in driving a tank that is slow and wouldn't penetrate your opponent.
Old 12-11-2013, 10:32 PM
  #3  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi mate, thanks for the response. Appreciate discussions such as this as it progresses us further and limit falling out of the hobby.

The key here is simplicity and reversibility. Can be done within 1 minute, and reverse in 1 min...no fuss, no wires, no whining

All of us knows here that the clark board offers the next generation in IR battling...(i was kinda working on Gen 2 IR battles) but realised that progression is not that easy for most..especially Tamiya owners. That's why I'm kinda looking into Gen 1.1 IR battles, still based on the Tamiya technology.

No, benchmarking is not my aim here, simply putting this to the test (in a repeatable and verifiable manner) then publishing it in the open. It is up to RC tankers.

As for battle scenarios...this is based on simplicity, so WWII tanks would be one category, whilst Post WWII would be another....

However, its up to the battlers if they fancy a single Leopard 2A6 agains 4 King Tigers...but to make this work out....The MBT would now have "NO PRISM BUT WITH FINS" which in effect limits IR penetrable range to within an average of 2.5 m only (see test results below dated 12 Dec 2013). Meaning the King Tigers need to close in 40 m (real) (2.5 m in IR battle scale) to penetrate the Leopard 2A6 whilst the 4 KTs can be penetrated 80 m (real) away (5 m in IR battle scale).

As for mixing up fast tanks of WW2 era with modern-I guess, even with Leo2s mobility and armour advantage, the Leo would have a hard time killing all the 4 light tanks unless this was in open desert warfare.


cheers,
Rey

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-12-2013 at 05:55 AM.
Old 12-12-2013, 04:28 AM
  #4  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Test Results:
Date: 12 Dec 2013
Conditions: Indoors, Hallway (max 8 m), Fresh Battery (> 7 V)
Combatants: Tamiya Leopard 2A6 (Tamiya Receiver, Emitter) vs Heng Long Clark Queen Tiger (Impact Receiver, Clark Emitter)

First up is the test pertaining to Heavy (WW II Category) and MBT (Post War Category):


Figure 1. Percentage hit profiles (based on a 10 shot average) with respect to distance (m) of the Impact Receiver from the IR Emitter in various reciever configurations.


Figure 2. Percentage hit profiles (based on a 10 shot average) with respect to distance (m) of the Tamiya Receiver from the IR Emitter in various reciever configurations.


Figure 3. Summary of test results in tabulated form

Observations:
a. Impact Receiver unit displays better IR sensitivity
b. Absence of a top cover allows for better sensitivity (even without a prism and with fins)


In summary: ****to allow for both indoor and outdoor battling, the top cover is always considered to be fitted***

No Prism, No Fins = Registers hit consistently (100 %) if within 2.5 m for both Tamiya and Impact receivers. Beyond 3 m, Tamiya registers no hit. Impact can still register hits up to 5 m, but at a lower percentage of 40 %.

No Prism, With Fins = Registers hit consistently (100 %) if within 2.0 m for both Tamiya and Impact receivers. Beyond 2.5 m, both receivers are incapable of registering consistent hits.

Preliminary Recommendation: To better simulate heavy armour (WW II category) and MBT (Post War category), independent of the make of the IR receiver, the configuration best suited for this is "NO PRISM, WITH FINS".


Video documentation to follow: uploading in my youtube channel...

More tests to come, to cover the Light tank (WWII category) and M41, Leo1 (Post war category)...

cheers,Rey
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Impact Infrared Receiver Configs for Heavy or MBT.jpg
Views:	241
Size:	51.3 KB
ID:	1946964   Click image for larger version

Name:	Tamiya Infrared Receiver Configs for Heavy or MBT.jpg
Views:	191
Size:	51.6 KB
ID:	1946965   Click image for larger version

Name:	Infrared Receiver Configs for Heavy or MBT.jpg
Views:	215
Size:	177.1 KB
ID:	1946966  

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-12-2013 at 06:15 AM.
Old 12-12-2013, 02:06 PM
  #5  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sample Test Videos:

Impact IR Receiver: No Prism, with Fins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7duScQBpSI Tamiya IR Receiver: No Prism, with Fins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q-QvGetPIo Impact IR Receiver: No Prism, No Fins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_spSeOzLIww Tamiya IR Receiver: No Prism, No Fins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQI_z2cToIw
Tamiya IR Battle Receiver: Removing the prism within 60 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8FG0BbrExs

Impact IR Battle Receiver: Replacing the prism within 60 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WSobC9w9sY&feature=youtu.be Impact IR Battle Receiver: Removing the prism within 60 seconds
uploading...


Next up repeat tests, test for Heng Long IR receiver, sensitivity test (switch tanks), tests using other tankers' IR receivers...

cheers, Rey

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-12-2013 at 03:08 PM.
Old 12-14-2013, 09:31 PM
  #6  
Martellus
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: WV
Posts: 828
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

how are you going to deal with TDs
Old 12-15-2013, 06:00 AM
  #7  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Martellus
how are you going to deal with TDs
Hi mate, not sure what you meant? Can you be more specific.

Below is one of the tables I made a couple of months ago for Gen 2 type IR battles...more like a Clark-based game with ammo and sorts of strategic gameplay put into it- but having realised that really, there is no interest in it, stopped working on it.

Looking at this for example, the Hellcat, Stug and Elefant as TDs...you can pretty much relate them to the current available rc tank line up.

As far as the IR battle is concerned, armour "survivability" is relative in nature, whislt mobility and firepower are all intrinsic.

Meaning, if all tanks in the field are composed if KTs and Pershings...then there is no point in modding the IR receiver.

However, if there is a mix of M4, Pershing, Hellcat and KTs, Tigers, Ferdi, KV2 and T34-85s, then the IR receiver can be modded as applicable.

Table 1. Apparent armoured vehicle attributes for Gen 2.0 IR Battles.


[TABLE="width: 778"]
[TR]
[TD]AFV
[/TD]
[TD]Gun
[/TD]
[TD]Firepower
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Survivability
[/TD]
[TD]Mobility
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]AFV
[/TD]
[TD]Gun
[/TD]
[TD]Penetration @ 500 m, RHAe mm
[/TD]
[TD]Front,
RHAe mm
[/TD]
[TD]Side,
RHAe mm
[/TD]
[TD]hp/t
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M18 Hellcat
[/TD]
[TD]76 mm AT M1A2 gun
[/TD]
[TD]109
[/TD]
[TD]22
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[TD]20
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M4(105)
[/TD]
[TD]105 mm Howitzer M2A1
[/TD]
[TD]102
[/TD]
[TD]92
[/TD]
[TD]42
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M4A3(105)
[/TD]
[TD]105 mm Howitzer M2A1
[/TD]
[TD]70
[/TD]
[TD]92
[/TD]
[TD]42
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M4
[/TD]
[TD]75 mm M3 L/37gun
[/TD]
[TD]70
[/TD]
[TD]92
[/TD]
[TD]42
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M4A1 (76)W
[/TD]
[TD]76 mm gun M1
[/TD]
[TD]78
[/TD]
[TD]90
[/TD]
[TD]47
[/TD]
[TD]12
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M4A3E8
[/TD]
[TD]76 mm gun M1
[/TD]
[TD]78
[/TD]
[TD]92
[/TD]
[TD]47
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]M26 Pershing
[/TD]
[TD]90 mm gun M3
[/TD]
[TD]126
[/TD]
[TD]123
[/TD]
[TD]70
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stug III Ausf. F/8, G
[/TD]
[TD]7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48
[/TD]
[TD]96
[/TD]
[TD]82
[/TD]
[TD]30
[/TD]
[TD]16
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Panzer III Ausf. N
[/TD]
[TD]7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24
[/TD]
[TD]39
[/TD]
[TD]66
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[TD]18
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Panzer IV Ausf. G,H,J
[/TD]
[TD]7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48
[/TD]
[TD]96
[/TD]
[TD]67
[/TD]
[TD]31
[/TD]
[TD]13
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Panther G
[/TD]
[TD]7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70
[/TD]
[TD]124
[/TD]
[TD]111
[/TD]
[TD]47
[/TD]
[TD]14
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tiger VIE
[/TD]
[TD]8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56
[/TD]
[TD]110
[/TD]
[TD]104
[/TD]
[TD]73
[/TD]
[TD]9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tiger VIB early
[/TD]
[TD]8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71
[/TD]
[TD]185
[/TD]
[TD]168
[/TD]
[TD]85
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tiger VIB prod
[/TD]
[TD]8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71
[/TD]
[TD]185
[/TD]
[TD]168
[/TD]
[TD]85
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Elefant/Ferdinand
[/TD]
[TD]8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71
[/TD]
[TD]185
[/TD]
[TD]188
[/TD]
[TD]81
[/TD]
[TD]9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]T-34-76
[/TD]
[TD]76 mm S-54
[/TD]
[TD]75
[/TD]
[TD]77
[/TD]
[TD]53
[/TD]
[TD]17
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]T-34-85
[/TD]
[TD]85 mm ZiS S-53
[/TD]
[TD]111
[/TD]
[TD]90
[/TD]
[TD]61
[/TD]
[TD]15
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KV1
[/TD]
[TD]76 mm S-54
[/TD]
[TD]75
[/TD]
[TD]88
[/TD]
[TD]69
[/TD]
[TD]9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]KV2
[/TD]
[TD]152 mm M-10
[/TD]
[TD]125
[/TD]
[TD]110
[/TD]
[TD]69
[/TD]
[TD]10
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Actually, there is a more elegant way to distinguish relative survivability:

Say for instance, all the tanks above are in the battlefield, the average gun penetration (based on 500 m, at 1:16 scale corresponds to ~ 30 m) is 122 mm (RHAe). As such, the following AFVs; M26 Pershing, King Tigers and Ele/Ferdi are virtually inpenetrable from the front (IFA- and can be simulated by putting up Al or Pb tape reflectors )...

Anyways, there is no point really of going to develop such and invest such ideas...as we're stuck in the 70's type game really.

This thread is of an experimental type where data can be used for modelling and predicting trends later on, is open access for all to use - where data presented is repeatable and verifiable.
Its up to the community in general to use or not use as such.

cheers,Rey
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Gen 2 IR Battles Table 3.jpg
Views:	283
Size:	101.3 KB
ID:	1947646  

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-15-2013 at 06:14 AM.
Old 12-15-2013, 07:33 AM
  #8  
YHR
Senior Member
 
YHR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie, AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Hi Rey

I have tried to get people interested In changing up the status quo, but I have found most people just want to watch their model tanks move, and be engaged in a simple battle. In short, just keep it simple. I think between the variable limiting resistor pot on the IR emitter, and your idea of modding a stock Tamiya apple by simply removing "Parts" of it, are enough ideas to see if people a really interested in changing anything.

These two ideas are available to all and are easily reversible to get the equipment back to stock with no harm done.


Personally I would like to see all tanks set to the medium status, and then use IR range and speed to distinguish from light to heavy.

I think you will see over time some of these ideas may be used for experimentation, and perhaps one off type battles during club meets. My observation over the years is that the standard of the Tamiya system game give 80% of the people all they want. What they want is a system that is rock solid and consistent. Why the Clark and the DBC3 are being accepted is not because of much else other then they can use a Tamiya apple, and blend in perfectly with the Tamiya's. If people are enjoying what they are doing it is pretty hard to gain any momentum to change anything.

You may find a club here or a club there doing something more, but universally it is almost impossible to change the game.

I think it is good for us to continue reminding people of the options available to easily tweak the standard base system, and just see what happens over time. More advanced games are probably best left to computer simulations of tank battles. This 1/16 IR thing is more about scale modelers watching their models perform than it is about realistic battle simulations.

What really changed my mind on this was my Danville experience. There is a lot of preparation required to ensure all tanks meet the Tamiya minimum standard. If you start complicating the set up more then this the logistics of ensuring all the tanks are set up as they should be would be a daunting task for some poor soul.

I am sure people are already discovering the fact of the systems that are using something else other then the Tamiya apple causing some doubts and complaints about how "fair" the fight is. The Tamiya apple has a bunch of defensive characteristics on the one hand, and the work bench built sensors are so random in their effectiveness they cause concern on the other. This leads to meaningless battles where you don't really know if the outcomes are a measure of anyone's skill or just people capitalizing on a non standard quirk of a particular piece of the IR system. There is the inherent problem of trying to advance the game. IF the advancements create doubt among the participants the fairness of the game comes into doubt, and this becomes a very bad thing.. People just don't want to be cannon fodder out there. They want a game system that gives them a chance to win a battle. The basic Tamiya system does that, and very few really care how prototypical the fight is.

Last edited by YHR; 12-15-2013 at 07:38 AM.
Old 12-15-2013, 04:30 PM
  #9  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi Dan,


Yes, you are right. No point really in progressing as simplicity is the flavour of the month -and as I've also realised - is not the way for now. However, in the future, if some are left wanting, at the very least, we have data to back up development. These data sets are what i want to put out, and really not charging up to change the status quo. Just to let some newcomers and old timers alike know that the technology for IR battling has actually progressed (Clark has offered a better system), and some variations can be made to Tamiya-based games (version 1.xx) - but its up to the general community to either try it out or stay as is.

With hit classes 3,6 9 as simple and widely accepted, but from the outside looking in, is a great turn off from outsiders who wanna come into the hobby, and a source of falling-off from the hobby for some. Its like spending $$$ on details and modding the tank, but when it moves, sounds and function- seems like a child's toy and not really a "model". Personally, I want my tanks to sound, function and look like one (in this order of priority) - after all its modelling the real ones.


Since starting with the hobby in 2008, I've observed that once the novelty of shooting and jack rabbit "tanking" wears out, progress takes a backsit and eventually die down. This is just me, but, I know its a slow process of upping up the modelling community.

Indeed, a simple stepping up is a way forward. But will let that be decided in the future. As for now, all we need is data as basis for further development or non-development.


Indeed really, a very simple step up (not that its gonna be Gen 2 battles), but a very simple version 1.01 would be something like this:


Tamiya Based version 1.01
A. Survivability (Front Armour)
Category 1: < 100 mm RHAe = no fins = pen at 40 m
Category 2: > 100 mm RHAe = stock = pen at 30 m
MBT Category: > 500 mm RHAe = no fins, no prism = pen at 3-5 m

B. Firepower (Normalised IR range)~ being 500 m is viewed as effective gunnery range and simulated in IR battles with max emiiter range output to ~ 30-40 m (scaled up to 480 -600 m)
All: 3 Hits, 3 sec reload (LGHT Setting)


C. Mobility (specific power (hp/t), sustained combat/cross country)
Category 1: > 15 hp/t = 30 kph
Category 2: <15 hp/t = 10 kph
MBT Category: ~ 40 kph



...and a little step further: taking both IR receiver (my proposition) and emitter mods (your proposition )

version 1.02
A. Survivability (Front Armour)
Category 1: < 100 mm RHAe = no fins = pen at 40 m
Category 2: > 100 mm RHAe =stock = pen at 30 m
MBT Category: > 500 mm RHAe = no fins, no prism = pen at 3-5 m

B. Firepower (Apparent (IR range) = use Trimpot to limit firepower to simulate kinetic round penetrating armour from 500 m away (real) ~ corresponds to 30 m IR scale range
Category 1: Penetration at 500 m > 100 mmRHAe = 50% resistance
Category 2: Penetration at 500 m < 100 mmRHAe = 75% resistance
MBT Category: Penetration at 500 m > 100 mmRHAe = No resistance

C. Mobility (specific power (hp/t), sustained combat/cross country)
Category 1: > 15 hp/t = 30 kph
Category 2: <15 hp/t = 10 kph
MBT Category: ~ 40 kph

Well, anyways, for now, I just wanted to share data and what could be done. By doing such, all my tanks are backward compatible (Tamiya -based) and forward compatible (Gen 1.xx, Gen 2) with just a minute or so of simple mods.


cheers,
Rey

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-15-2013 at 05:28 PM.
Old 12-16-2013, 07:09 AM
  #10  
heavyaslead
 
heavyaslead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Loganville, GA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes on 25 Posts
Default

I will be conducting some experiments using collimnating lenses on the IR emitter as most people would like to avoid the spread of the IR pattern.

If this works out well, a simple removable sleeve attachment to the end of the IR tube would likely be attractive to many players.

Less friendly fire and better aiming tactics may improve the game.
Old 12-16-2013, 07:57 AM
  #11  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by heavyaslead
I will be conducting some experiments using collimnating lenses
Hi, i tried similar collimating lens from a Raman spectrometer (the focussing sleeve for the probe) and it sure does increase the IR to about 50m. But as it is a highly focused light, hitting the IR apple 50 m away is a challenge-did have to fire more than 10 shots to hit the TBU.

mine lens was from a Renishaw Raman spectro, and does look like this: http://www.lumenflow.com/Images/successes_image03.jpg
It has 5.5 mm inner diameter enougn yo fit the IR bulb, let me get a video of it in action soon...


This way, firepower can be modelled! But an fpv tank might b needed to fire more accurately

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-16-2013 at 08:08 AM.
Old 12-16-2013, 09:51 AM
  #12  
ausf
 
ausf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: , NY
Posts: 3,084
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I applaud your attempts (or anyones) to induce more realism into IR battling and especially when it's just a simple mod, but as Dan said, you're fighting an uphill battle. Most just want to get together and have some fun. Many rules and mods lead to confusion and more battle prep than most are willing to put up with.

Best analogy I can think of is Axis and Allies vs Avalon Hill. Avalon Hill makes the most amazing war stragedy games, but some are so involved like The Third Reich, that the 300 page rulebook makes it impossible for any but the extremely dedicated player. Axis and Allies offers much simpler games, less realistic but still a heck of a lot of fun and most anyone can jump in. In the end I play a lot of A and A with my sons and played Third Reich once in 25 years.

As it is I 'tune' my emitters so they can only hit a tank-width area at 30 feet. That makes things more interesting when I battle my kids, but puts me at a great disadvantage in a club setting.

If more realism was really what large groups wanted, I would think ElMod or the IBU systems would see more widespread use since they definitely add to it over the TBU.

Don't take what I say as discouragement, keep at it, just don't be bothered by resistance.

Ideally, I'd love a club setting where you check in with the tank you plan to run, say a Tiger I. You get handed the club owned emitter and apple tuned for a Tiger I, plug it in and you're off. Problem with that would the club would need to buy and set up the gear, which would mean a committed membership paying dues and the it would mean havng to be consistent with the tanks, like only Tamiya.

I don't mind the fact my son can run his M4 in circles around my Tiger and shoot away while I'm waiting for 9 seconds. It still takes him 9 shots to my 5 and that's enough to make it damn fun. My peeve is the turning the turret for defense. The apple should be in the hull.
Old 12-16-2013, 05:36 PM
  #13  
cleong
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,005
Received 78 Likes on 64 Posts
Default

YHR and ausf both made great points. I will add that simplicity is hardly "flavor of the month" as the simple Tamiya battle rules have endured since the IR battle system was first launched. Along the way it accepted a Leopard 2A6 into the gameplay without too much problems. Sure, there were advantages that the Leopard had in speed of movement as well as speed of rotation, but Tamiya artfully hampered the Leopard from firing on the move and freezing when it got hit. So any advantage conferred onto a class of tank should not come without a corresponding penalty. And WW2 tanks could actually strategize to take out a Leopard, even if it was a one-on-one situation.

Realistic, it is not, but it sure is fun. In Danville, Doug Gasser was driving around in a pokey little M4 Sherman, but he was easily one of the best tankers out there. Its not about the shape of the tank, its about the driver.
Old 12-16-2013, 08:31 PM
  #14  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi Ausf and Cleong,

Thanks for the responses, all well taken guys.

Gents, just to be clear about this that this thread do not assert to overthrow the "status quo". I'm playing by it, but left wanting.
Southeast Armoured Division (SEAD) mentioned about interesting data regarding the presence or abscence of fins, prisms a few years back, as seen here in under their tech notes:http://www.sead.us/technology6.html



Hence I've embarked on conducting experiments to ascertain if really, these very simple enhancements (under 60 sec, reversible) are possible and drawing from there a set of repeatable, verifiable quantified results.

This thread provides an avenue for publishing experimental data towards which very simple mods (I emphasize,very simple, simpler than TFA, fan ban, IFA), from which, could be drawn in the future to improve the state of the art. And such the word "Towards" is in the title; we are not there yet to improve, much more so, argue a case for or against the status quo.

So the arguments or debate whether to move on or not will be later on - so save your discourse guys for that later.

As such I urge all who contribute to this thread to publish data from any of their experiments relating to the above primary post.

Ausf, same as you mate, had made the armoured column tailored fit to conform to the norm, as well as, tunable to your own needs. And yes, not bothered by resistance instead, tailoring the IR config of my tanks to standard, improved and backyard setting.I have tuned my emitters to be recessed 9, 20, 30, 40 mm to make it more realistic. The one I tried with a collimating lens was emitter recessed 40 mm- and hitting the apple 50 m away (but took several attempts).

Cleong, "flavour of the month" does not really mean only for this month - we all knew that Tamiya had the battle system started way back about ≥ 8 years ago.
And yes mate, I agree with you. Its the driver not the tank. Is really becomes a function of whether or not the modelling side is only on the aesthetics and not on functionality or- as for me, better for both.
As the situation calls...one can go the "gamey" way (status quo) or "realist" way (improved). I drive my Tiger 1 hard the jack rabbit way to score kills, but when doing filming or showing to the public to gain interest, i set it back to realist mode (slow, sure driving and revving).


cheers,
Rey
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	SEAD.jpg
Views:	172
Size:	350.7 KB
ID:	1948160  

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-16-2013 at 11:03 PM.
Old 12-17-2013, 03:52 AM
  #15  
reyemmanuel
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
reyemmanuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

just an update on repeatability tests for both Impact and Tamiya IR receivers.

In essence, in all configurations for (Heavy/MBT Category), Impact has variability (error bar, +/-) of about 0.25 m and 3 % hit whilst Tamiya with 0.5 m and 5 %.


Figure 1. Percentage hit profiles (based on a 10 shot average) with respect to distance (m) of the Impact Receiver from the IR Emitter in various receiver configurations- with uncertainty estimates (error bars).


Figure 2. Percentage hit profiles (based on a 10 shot average) with respect to distance (m) of the Tamiyat Receiver from the IR Emitter in various receiver configurations- with uncertainty estimates (error bars).


Also tried to do the Heng Long and Taigen IR receivers, but---these simple mods cant be done. Meaning, the prism and fins can't be removed independently of each other. The prism and fins are both integrated into the top cover of both units. As per prior experience, HL units (silver coated prism) has better reception than the blue colored Taigen receiver...

Anyways...here is a video of how the Taigen receiver faired up to 6 m...pretty consistent up to that range.
uploading...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nY0SylbQO8&feature=youtu.be

cheers,Rey
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Impact Infrared Receiver Configs for Heavy or MBT_Repeatability.jpg
Views:	196
Size:	53.5 KB
ID:	1948221   Click image for larger version

Name:	Tamiya Infrared Receiver Configs for Heavy or MBT_Repeatability.jpg
Views:	163
Size:	53.7 KB
ID:	1948222  

Last edited by reyemmanuel; 12-17-2013 at 05:49 AM.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.