i'm trying to have some...lol

" <strike>Some</strike> Much patience may be required." ...

First I've read about this issue, with boards supposedly sent / but not actually sent, from anyone. I wonder how many others, besides you two, this has affected.

The second batch boards added a few more changes, so maybe a glitch was discovered, but nothing was officially (or unofficially) stated about that as a possible shipping delay for the 2nd batch.

I'm sure you've emailed Clark for details, so be sure to let us know what's up with your specific orders being recanted. Though Clark is once again supposed to be out on business for a couple days &amp; an answer may not be extremely quick.

The 3rd batch is supposed to also be in stock by Oct 31st, &amp; I'm hoping to get 3 boards from that batch. I actually hope there was nothing else found as far as glitches or issues that will cause a further delay, but rather just a case of too many orders, not enough stock.

~ Craig ~

On the bright side the communication was sent to keep us informed.

On the not-so-bright-side, I'm hoping that a new possible issue just reported by a member of the RCTankRegiment forum (concerning very short IR range testing, here) was just a case of a few boards &amp; not affecting all boards, or was one of those "Looks like they discovered something else." reasons why they have delayed sending the boards to some people recently, &amp; will be fixed when the 3rd batch arrives.

If this truly is a TK20 board wide issue people are experiencing with them, &amp; not just a couple isolated instances, then it concerns me just as much as how not having damage simulation concerned me before.

I would like to hear any member comments, from those that received &amp; have been testing / using Clark TK20 boards, on their experience with IR ranges.

~ Craig ~

As a follow-up to my last post:

Maybe some good news &amp; a silver lining to a dark cloud already ... though I haven't been to Clark's website for only a couple days now, I just revisited a bit ago, &amp; it seems this underpowered IR issue may already be addressed with the release of the TK20E line of boards!?!?

Clark has a TK20E board with updated specs listed on the newly updated TK20 series page:

<div style="margin-left: 40px;">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TK20,TK20T - - - - - - - - - - - - TK20E
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TK20-H
Extended IR battle range - - - - - NO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - YES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (High Power Driver Installed)</div>
Guess the TK20 board's driver was underpowered.

What exactly is meant by "Extended IR battle range", is the real question now. I'm going to be wary until Clark will confirm some actual (or closely approximate) distances this newer TK20E board is expected to perform. Maybe Clark could update the site with actual numbers in expected indoor &amp; outdoor distances for better clarity.


So what is typical for a correctly working IR, that is, what are the expected distance ranges a Tamiya IR will travel indoor &amp; outdoor, under given circumstances (shady, sunny, incandescent / florescent lighting, etc.), &amp; which we should expect out of a compatible battle system?

~ Craig ~

I'm liking my DB3-Benedini. This weekend I'll modify the TBS file so the recoil will only function with the cannon blast (thank's Dan) and I was able to slave an Accessory servo to my "throttle function" by programming my TX under the servo "Mix" function. I set the slaved servo so that it mimics the throttle servo, except it will not elevate all the way up to where the cannon blast is triggered.

This provides elevation with a servo rather than the terrible cam drive (couldn't stand it) while still retaining the cannon blast function and the machine gun function on the throttle stick. I have it jury rigged with another RX right now and will complete the installation this weekend. I don't see any issues in the install as you simply disconnect the electrical circuit to the elevation cam motor and hook in the elevation servo in the Accessory 2 slot of the RX.

And so go the best laid plans of mice and men....

tjs

Well, Clark has been busy updating the TK20 series website pages with the latest info, &amp; has now listed that the <span style="font-style: italic">Extended IR battle range</span> hardware modification to the TK20E boards should allow for a <span style="font-weight: bold">&gt;30M</span> range. That is great news if accurate. We will have to wait until someone receives a newer board to test the IR after shipping of the altered 2nd batch resumes. So you must have been right Dan (YHR), the reason for your delayed 2nd batch board arrival was due to Clark making some IR modifications. Which as you said, is a good thing in this instance.

In the ECN area he now has this update listed under the <span style="font-weight: bold">2nd batch</span> information &amp; shipping schedule:
<ul> -All 2nd batch are upgraded to TK20E version
- Under H/W Enhancement for extended IR battle range, Start to ship by 10/20/2012[/list] So from what I would gather with the new information listed, is that the entire 1st batch &amp; the early shipped 2nd batch boards, will all most likely have the short IR ranges, which is a bummer. However, anyone that was supposed to get a 2nd batch board, but didn't receive it, was probably delayed their shipment to allow for the H/W upgrade of the extended IR power driver. So when those boards finally begin shipping on the expected Oct 20th date, the 2nd batch boards people get should all have the extended IR range ... lucky dogs!

~ Craig ~

When you send back the 1st batch board to Clark for the damage simulation issue, they will also be updated for the long range IR.
As stated in clark site:
"<span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: small; ">Business impact: in order to avoid misunderstanding, we now offering,</span><p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: medium; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="smalltxt1" style="font-family: Arial; "><span lang="en-us"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">-Existing TK20 are all welcome to return to get refund or toget free upgrade,</font></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: medium; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="smalltxt1" style="font-family: Arial; "><span lang="en-us"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">-Order placed for 2nd batch TK20 is now upgraded to TK20E automatically,</font></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: medium; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="smalltxt1" style="font-family: Arial; "><span lang="en-us"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">-Order placed for 3rd batch TK20 can be cancelled or pay for difference and change to TK20E</font></span></span>."</p>

When you consider what you are getting for the price, I think it will pay to be patient,

Every issue he has dealt with., and the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter
.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><span style="font-family: ">The FIx for the IR is pretty easy. You might even be able to insert a low ohm variable resistor pot, to give you adjustable IR. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>Remove the resistor as per Clarks instructions and use those exposed pads as connections to an off board potentiometer mounted under a hatch. You could then dial in the range to suit the tank. I did up a thread on thiswhen I hooked up this idea on a DBC3.

www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_11142140/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm<br style="mso-special-character: line-break" /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><span style="font-family: ">I know that is what I am going to do. This will then be a board that has adjustable battle damage and adjustable IR range.</span></p>


Cheers
</p>

Murdock73, Clark is updating the boards &amp; website faster than I can read &amp; keep up with all the changes. That's definitely a good thing. Though with some of the changes mixed into different areas of that huge TK20 series page, it's not always easy finding all of them right away either.

My assumption about the 2nd batch was incorrect anyway, seems none were actually sent out, &amp; the entire batch will get the IR upgrade before the Oct 20 shipping date. That's great news to all 2nd batch people.


Dan, after reading that Clark suggests removing the resistor &amp; shorting the pins on the current TK20 boards, which he states will extend IR distance, it seems it will still not be near the range of what a true TK20E board can offer with its so called high power driver installed. So maybe not a true FIX, but more of a bandaid for them.

According to Clark's own test results, the distance for the modified TK20 board was &gt;9M, while the TK20Ewas &gt;30. Still, &gt;9M with a modified TK20 is much better than 4M to 5M with an unmodified TK20!

Your pot idea is a great idea, but your dialed in distances might be limited to about 9M &amp; less with a modified TK20 board, not a full 30M &amp; less as it would be using a TK20E board. Of course, that's just another assumption on limited info right now. So it will be interesting to see what distances you actually can get, either with or without a pot, when using a TK20 without that resistor, as maybe I'm just reading Clark's info incorrectly, &amp; as always, proof is in the pudding. I know I'm doing that mod to both my current TK20 boards when I get the chance.

Clark is doing a great job with improvements &amp; updates so far, &amp; I agree having patience in the end with these boards will be rewarded, it's just been mind spinning at times to keep up with it all.

~ Craig ~

Clark is using his customers as beta testers of his boards.

IR range test, as well as other so called 'improvements', are definitley features that should have been there since the 1st release, not introduced afterwards, even offering 'free upgrade'.

We are not talking about improving IR range from let's say 20m to >30, we are talking about improving it from 5-6 m!

I know the expectations are high, due to the low price of this board, but paying to become an hardware tester (what will be next flaw to be fixed in release 'F'?) does not reflect my idea of a serious product.

<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">So far there has only been one 'problem' area found subsequently and that's range. The battle damage issue was something that was purposely implemented as a result of misunderstanding our part of the market. Clarks working to sort the range issue very quickly I'd say this is a good thing. Believe me as fat as using paying customers as beta testers this is nothing compared to the software world!</span>

So true! You never ever get a flawless product when you pay for software, and it's not going to happen, ever. Still, it's easier to update and distribute software than hardware
<br type="_moz" />

Your kidding me right?
You can NOTseriouslymake the comment that software is developed using Beta trials as a justification for using people tounknowingly trial hardware.
First off Software in the beta version is knowingly offered as trial product and people know the potential need for fixes because of bugs. If you knowingly say there may be issues then there should be no problem.
Name a company that SELLS hardware in a beta version without telling the potential clients that it has issues.
The one issue that Clark has is range? really? what about the fact they say there board is plug and play when it clearly is not, I have yet to see anyone post anything about buying one of these boards and not having to do some kind of soldering or mod to their tank before being able to use it.
Clark sells the board with damage reduction then ships it without it! Here in my country that is illegal and it should be. The purchaser should at least be offered the option of changing his order. Oh yes- they will fix it for free but it takes how long to return it and who pays for the postage? Yes that is a real good board,buy itandwait 2 weeks so you can send it back on a 4 week round trip because they shipped product that is not up to snuff, Question is did they know it and we can all guess they must have because they purposely removed damage.
Hey while we are fixing the board we will add the extra range that should have been available from the day you purchased it.

What kills me the most is people that post a defence for these actions when clearly there are none,
There is no excuse in my opinion for treating customers like guinea pigs without asking if they want to run on a wheel for a drop of water and a few pellets.

No you miss my point. In recent years there is a trend that software is rushed out and needs about 6 months of patches before being useable, we're talking retail version here not beta.

Ok people who are having to rewire and solder are generally using different types of recoil that arent the same pattern as henglong or using the real coil function (which looks awesome) which requires modifications. Theres been a long debate about the term plug and play and how that relates to this hobby, ill refer you back to that. The damage reduction problem was unforunate but clark has listened to feed back and is rectifying it so it wont be an on going issue. Clark has stated the reason for the removal of the feature and has used feedback here to improve the product (I think the damage sim is now programable). The end of the day some times things crop up in product design and its the way they are dealt with that is the messure of the business, and in this regard clark seems to be up there.

Price wise you can get 2 clark boards and a tbu for the same price as an SLU (which has some serious design issues which have never been addressed) so even if you have to be patient and spend a few dollars then your still streets ahead......

Ps I have no vested intrest in clark (my tanks all run tamiya electronics with one on an slu). I just feel that with these bugs overcome this board is going to revolutionise rc tanking at the lower price end.


<br type="_moz" />

..

Assuming these boards had been tested for months by Clark &amp; his team (if he has one), as well as a some UK tank club members, &amp; supposedly had not been found to have any real issues of impact being reported before their eventual release date. Either people believe in that theory, or they believe the issues were already well documented before sale &amp; release of the first boards, yet the boards were released regardless of the issues &amp; consideration to the customers. There might have been other testers from around the world as well, so exactly how many different people had been testing the boards, &amp; under which scenarios, I don't know. For a board that was made to be IR battle capable, I'm not sure how a 12ft-15ft IR range was never brought up by anyone as a possible big issue in the first place, &amp; brought up early on during the testing phase. Either they believed that short distance IR was actually appropriate, or none of the testing group had tested it thoroughly &amp; complained about it. Why it wasn't found out during extensive testing that the damage simulation feature might have needed some more tweaking before release, or at the very least include it but offer a simple warning that it might not work under certain conditions, is also confusing. I'm not so sure that more testing by the same test group individuals would have helped to discover the issues anyway if they hadn't already discovered them, as it might have taken someone testing the board outside that group to actually come across the issues. I think Clark either needed a more diversified &amp; better testing group that could have found the issues well ahead of time during those testing months, or if he got complaints &amp; just ignored them, then he has to learn to use that input to fix things before releasing his products.

In a situation like the damage simulation issue, a company shouldn't just choose a course which will satisfy a group of their customer base, while completely ignoring the rest by not providing a choice or proper warning. The removing of a listed feature, on boards which have already been sold to customers who are expecting that feature to be present, is more of a poor business decision rooted in the flawed mentality that the business can do what ever they want to their products, whenever they want, without taking the needs &amp; rights of all their customers into consideration. It seems there is still an uncomfortable gap between the Western &amp; Eastern business worlds in what is considered "the right thing" (or legal thing) to do in every situation, &amp; maybe there always will be one.

I was just as frustrated &amp; disappointed as anyone with the way the damage simulation was handled by simply removing it, then finding out the IR range was so short on first batch TK20 boards, but I still wouldn't go to the extreme lengths of calling the boards BETA or saying the couple issues with the board reflect Clark's inability to provide a serious product. I guess I would change my mind if feature after feature of the board is found to under perform, need fixing, or completely fail, but I really don't expect that scenario happening. We've been tripped up a couple times, but hopefully Clark will have us all running smoothly with the latest update.

As unhappy as I was initially in receiving 2 TK20-T boards which will not meet their listed abilities as purchased at the time, I won't lose sight of the fact that the TK20 boards can be a game changing improvement, as a complete replacement low cost IR battling solution, for these 1/16 tanks. Clark certainly has made a few mistakes, but is also trying quickly to remedy them. Sure, some people will continue to have a bitter taste left in their mouth no matter how things proceed, which is very understandable. I don't believe people should accept what has happened with open arms or treat what was done with a blind eye, as Clark absolutely needed the bad feedback as well to be given the chance to improve if he was willing at all. He has been given the bad feedback now, with time to ingest it, &amp; his actions going forward will now determine whether or not he listened &amp; learned anything. So I'm remaining patient &amp; tolerant with Clark, regardless of those past mistakes I felt he committed, &amp; once again moving forward with a positive framed outlook &amp; a willingness to try his new TK20E board. Why? Because this hobby desperately needs the various choices &amp; diversity coming from people like Clark, especially since there are so few who are capable, or even willing, to attempt to provide them for us!

The latest TK20E should address the short IR range &amp; allow for &gt;30M battling. The damage simulation was added back to all boards after the 1st batch. Even with the slight increase to $66 for the improved TK20E, hopefully this new board can now actually deliver all of what was once expected of the TK20, which I would consider it a phenomenal work of hardware more than well worth the cost! All this to be determined upon arrival of my new TK20E boards .... so stay tuned!

~ Craig ~

The important thing here is what did we as consumers assume, and what was the original Clark promise?.

I think a lot of assumptions were made on what features it would have. Every one assumed it would be at least completely compatible with Tamiya, when in fact the first version wasn't. Did Clark ever claim it to be 100% compatible?. Clark is not the first person to put out a "Tamiya compatible system" that is only partially compatible. So be careful of stringing Clark up over this.

RE Battle damage. Clarks facts sheet said the TK 30 would have battle damage, but the TK 20 did not have a check in that box when I looked. When I first found out about this I went and checked his site, and I realized that he never had this feature checked off as available. Not sure when he made that change or if he made the change on his website, but all I know was when I checked the battle damage was not an option of the TK 20.

I am hoping the lesson to be learned by any developer is that if you start talking Tamiya, it has to be 100% compatible in function, and not just give and receive hits.

The reason I have harped on about minimum standards for IR systems, and that the Tamiya standard should be adopted as the bare minimum, is because that is what consumers ultimately want. Anything less will cause all kinds of issues like this. I knew this was going to happen. I have got on my soap box many times talking about the importance of this fact, but it falls on deaf ears.

There is a standard that all developers can build to. It is the Tamiya standard, and if this thread is any example you would be doing yourself a favor by paying heed to what the paying consumer is demanding or suffer the eventual negative feedback.

That is all I am going to comment on as it underlines the importance that this hobby has minimum standards for IR systems to save all this ill will.

I am prepared to be patient with this, because it has the potential to be a game changing piece of hardware.

Interesting comments on "beta testing". I have been an official beta tester (read this as early consumer) for Canon Cameras for the last 4 years. Each new camera has had both software and hardware issues. 7Ds and 5D mkIIs are not cheap and sending them back for fixes is a real hassle. Clark seems to be doing his best to solve the problems. Remember that this is a nche market with potentual sales of a few 10's of thousands of boards. I am not sure how Clark's boards will stack up against the dozens of American built boards - Oh wait, there are NO American board manufactures. I am hoping that Clark will consider a deal with a trusted American retailer like AAF since I would buy at least three or four to try out. God, I miss Phil. I was just about to order a new board from RCTANKCWARS when he passed away. I hope Karen is reading this since her new tank line will need to be capable to be modified for IR combat to Tamiya standards. jot

See the original all metal taigen would have been the perfect candidate for a tk20, sadly the new ones have less metal parts and the extra cost is taken by the slight micky mouse 2.4 ghz rx18

Clark fact sheets said ... what? You have a verifiable date &amp; time stamp to compare those facts from July thru Aug too?

By the time this missing feature became publicly known on Sept 16th over on RCTR, it was well after the 1st batch was already shipped, received, &amp; then tested, so it's easy to see how the website could have been updated well in advance to anyone being able to go back &amp; read over the information for checking the newly disclosed issue against a revised list of facts, rather than the information that might have been there from Jul thru Aug when those 1st batch boards were being ordered. Unless someone has a clear photographic image retained in their mind, of exactly what the TK20 pages listed prior to the Sept shipping, or some backup physical proof, all they had was a recollection from their past memory of browsing the pages, which may or may not be as entirely accurate to what was actually listed on them.

If anyone has the memory &amp; wants to contend that the damage simulation feature, from July all the way thru Aug, was never listed as a TK20 option or was clearly listed as only a TK30 option on Clark's site, then I'll just say my memory differs completely. For that reason I'm replying with full detail, because I don't feel it's fair to infer any possible blame on 1st batch customers feeling they didn't get the damage simulation option they were supposed to get, by even remotely implying the website only showed the TK30 as having the option at some point, or that the TK20 was never shown to offer it, while they sent in their orders.

My recollection of what I believe the site stated is also aided by a physical email I received to confirm it. I was very curious when I first read about the TK20 on Clark's website that first week in July this year, reading through all the features he had listed for it, &amp; yes, those features included the Tamiya style damage simulation function. But because the wording &amp; charts on the website at that time didn't always make things obvious, I proceeded to immediately email Clark for confirmation &amp; better details about the TK20 functions I was interested in, making it very clear damage simulation was an absolute must option for any board I was considering.

I have the email directly from Clark, back in the first week of July, answering that specific question I asked as to whether or not damage simulation was indeed a feature that would be on the currently offered TK20 boards. The answer was an absolute yes in a response from him just a couple days later, confirming what I had read on his site. This was well before any TK30 version board was ever on the website, officially announced, or discussed. I would never have ordered a TK20 board without knowing first &amp; foremost that it was confirmed to come with damage simulation. So any theory that the damage simulation has always been reserved for the TK30 boards, &amp; was never an offered feature or ever supposed to be an offered feature on the TK20 in the first place, is incorrect from my viewpoint because of the direct admission to me by Clark in our email exchange, as well as from what I remember reading myself on the website up until the time I paid for my boards in Aug before their Sept shipping date.

Though at this point the actual issue itself is so far behind me &amp; doesn't really matter anymore, because going forward it looks like all TK20 boards will have damage simulation as a feature (which they should have had anyway), but now the feature has been enhanced &amp; offers the option to choose the amount of damage simulation through incremental percentages. This way, no matter the various resistance different gearboxes would present to the ESC, you should be able to adjust the percentage for the function to at least work without the tank becoming a pillbox. I actually asked Clark about the possibility of doing something just like this back on Sept 19th on the RCTR forum when this issue was first disclosed. Maybe I just guessed what Clark was already intending to do, but it was still a great move by Clark to eventually implement that kind of change. Even if the explanations given as to why things went wrong, don't seem to add up to me, at least it shows he's making an effort to correct these situations by listening to customer complaints.

Clark made the mistake with the damage simulation, not the customers IMO, &amp; now that mistake has been corrected &amp; seemingly improved, I think it's a customer win in the end, case closed on that one for me. So my initial disappointment &amp; frustration directed towards Clark, because of the removed damage simulation &amp; short IR range, have both passed already, &amp; now I am just anxiously waiting for my new TK20E boards to arrive so I can commence testing &amp; evaluation ... which I hope will conclude with much better results than what the 1st batch offered!

~ Craig ~

Maybe this story will have a happy ending within the year.
Till now, the raised price is still low enough to feed the cutomers' indulgence towards such "discovers".
But Clark should avoid any further "surprise" in the next releases.

Agreed

<font size="7">::
</font>

An email to Clark might be more constructive than a quasi rant on here!