View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll
If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
06-03-2013, 08:32 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sellersville, PA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
When the TK2X series of Clark boards first hit the RC tank market late last year, there was some backlash about them not having true Tamiya IR battle compatibility. Short IR range & initial missing damage simulation were the main points of concern. Over several months after the initial release, Clark made a few changes to the boards to eventually bring them up to a level where they are now being considered by most people, more or less, to be truly Tamiya IR battle compatible.
It's been an up & down battle, but the current boards are being noticed & used by more & more RCU members, as well as by RC tankers from other forums around the world. I currently own 6 Clark TK22 boards myself now, & though I love them because of the more advanced features they also have over the standard Tamiya electronics, it still remains, that the one main reason I purchased them, is because they are also Tamiya IR battle compatible.
I was just wondering how important a feature Tamiya compatibility was in the increase in popularity of the Clark boards to all our other members who own the boards or who may be considering purchasing a Clark board soon or in the more distant future.
So this is just a " what if " scenario I'm proposing to everyone here ...
I would like to use this poll to gauge the sentiment & desire among RCU members for the current Clark boards that have Tamiya IR battle compatibility, & what that sentiment would be if that compatibility were to be removed.
Besides voting in the poll, please feel free to openly discuss your thoughts of disappointment, happiness, or indifference about Clark board Tamiya IR battle compatibility in the thread as well.
Please keep the discussion civil, & thanks in advance to everyone for your participation.
Please read the options below & use them to select the corresponding poll vote above.
OK a final edit was to add the "F" option after there were already about 7 or 8 votes in the poll, sorry, but now the poll also offers the ability to also choose a combination where someone might not buy a future board without Tamiya compatibility as in "F", but would also still purchase a current board while they had compatibility as in options "B" & "C", so you could select both "F" & "B" or "F" & "C" as your vote ... etc.
It's been an up & down battle, but the current boards are being noticed & used by more & more RCU members, as well as by RC tankers from other forums around the world. I currently own 6 Clark TK22 boards myself now, & though I love them because of the more advanced features they also have over the standard Tamiya electronics, it still remains, that the one main reason I purchased them, is because they are also Tamiya IR battle compatible.
I was just wondering how important a feature Tamiya compatibility was in the increase in popularity of the Clark boards to all our other members who own the boards or who may be considering purchasing a Clark board soon or in the more distant future.
So this is just a " what if " scenario I'm proposing to everyone here ...
I would like to use this poll to gauge the sentiment & desire among RCU members for the current Clark boards that have Tamiya IR battle compatibility, & what that sentiment would be if that compatibility were to be removed.
Besides voting in the poll, please feel free to openly discuss your thoughts of disappointment, happiness, or indifference about Clark board Tamiya IR battle compatibility in the thread as well.
Please keep the discussion civil, & thanks in advance to everyone for your participation.
Please read the options below & use them to select the corresponding poll vote above.
If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to ...
A. Still purchase the boards because I don’t care about them having Tamiya compatibility or not.
B. Still purchase at least one current Tamiya compatible board before the supply of them ran out.
C. Still purchase as many of the Tamiya compatible boards as I could afford to buy before the supply of them ran out.
D. Not purchase any current Tamiya compatible board if Clark was removing the feature in future boards.
E. Doesn’t matter, I would probably not consider purchasing a Clark board at all anyway.
F. I would not consider purchasing a Clark board at all in the future if it wasn't Tamiya compatible.
A. Still purchase the boards because I don’t care about them having Tamiya compatibility or not.
B. Still purchase at least one current Tamiya compatible board before the supply of them ran out.
C. Still purchase as many of the Tamiya compatible boards as I could afford to buy before the supply of them ran out.
D. Not purchase any current Tamiya compatible board if Clark was removing the feature in future boards.
E. Doesn’t matter, I would probably not consider purchasing a Clark board at all anyway.
F. I would not consider purchasing a Clark board at all in the future if it wasn't Tamiya compatible.
OK a final edit was to add the "F" option after there were already about 7 or 8 votes in the poll, sorry, but now the poll also offers the ability to also choose a combination where someone might not buy a future board without Tamiya compatibility as in "F", but would also still purchase a current board while they had compatibility as in options "B" & "C", so you could select both "F" & "B" or "F" & "C" as your vote ... etc.
06-03-2013, 08:47 AM
#2
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
I'm knee deep in DBC and Tamiya, so I don't anticipate buying a Clark board soon, but I wouldn't rule it out.
That said, any company that would intentionally move away from universal acceptance or industry standard would be a step in the wrong direction, so I wouldn't support them.
Remember Betamax? I didn't think so...
That said, any company that would intentionally move away from universal acceptance or industry standard would be a step in the wrong direction, so I wouldn't support them.
Remember Betamax? I didn't think so...
06-03-2013, 08:57 AM
#3
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cambridge ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
Why would Clark Electronics remove Tamiya combatibility?
The only reason would be is too provide a lower cost board for Heng Long Airsoft tanks. ( to save money on manufacturing obviously, On airsoft all you need is good sounds and good tank control with 2.4ghz radio reception)
Clark and I have discussed this option a few times and quite honestly the difference in cost is not huge so the savings really would not be present.
Removing Tamiya would be a death sentence from a business point of view, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, Nobody that makes an electronic board would remove the Tamiya compatibility. NOBODY.
Like it or not Tamiya is the minimum requirement and honestly in my opinion it sets a very good standard for all boards to live up to.
( I will never like their apple because I think the 45 deg defence should not be there but that is an arguement in its own right )
Trust me folks Clark will leave Tamiya compatibility on both TK20 and TK22 boards, As a matter of fact I would bet if anything were to be done it would be enhancements to an already long list of preferences that can be customized by each individual.
06-03-2013, 09:03 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sellersville, PA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
ORIGINAL: ausf
I'm knee deep in DBC and Tamiya, so I don't anticipate buying a Clark board soon, but I wouldn't rule it out.
That said, any company that would intentionally move away from universal acceptance or industry standard would be a step in the wrong direction, so I wouldn't support them.
Remember Betamax? I didn't think so...
I'm knee deep in DBC and Tamiya, so I don't anticipate buying a Clark board soon, but I wouldn't rule it out.
That said, any company that would intentionally move away from universal acceptance or industry standard would be a step in the wrong direction, so I wouldn't support them.
Remember Betamax? I didn't think so...
... almost purchased one but didn't like the extremley short recording lengths compared to what VHS was offering at the time, so I was just glad my first purchase was a VHS instead ... just like the most recent battle between HD-DVD & Blu-Ray ... glad I chose Blu-Ray to purchase there first too! 
~ Craig ~
06-03-2013, 09:21 AM
#5
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
Good call Craig. I had a friend in high school who bought Betamax, Bally video games and when we were all rebuilding old Chevys and Pontiacs, he chose Buick.
06-03-2013, 09:36 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
You are missing one important question, that being
-I would not purchase any future Clark boards if they were not Tamiya compatible?
That is the question Clark would want answered before making a decision like this. Remember the issue the CLark board had when it was first released. It had no IR range or speed reduction, and the reaction from the community was swift.
I have been preaching about compatibilbity between systems for years. People charging down the road of their own agenda will drive a wedge in an already very small hobby making it harder to develop products. Common ground unites us and makes the market for upgrades possible. Currently with the 5 pin arrangement of the apples being adopted by Clark, and the DBC, developers have the option of selling a revised Sensor to all three. IF pinout wasn't adopted you would be looking at a segmented market trying to cater to small groups. Development would be slow or non existant. That fact there is some compatibiblity is the catylist required to move things forward and advance the hobby.
Even though Clark is a competiter I have been very supportive, as he made changes to benefit the tanking community and wasn't interested in just lining his pockets. He made the changes a lot of us requested. Developers need to understand this is a very small market, and it needs people working together to make it grow. IF you get too many guys only interested in themselves and the systems they sell, development will stagnate and fail from lack of cohesive interest.
I was exposed to this in model railroading. Lenz developed Digital Command control, and freely made the technolgy open to all developers. A great example of a company caring more about the hobby and its growth then forcing people to make a decison on what technology to go with. A common ground is critical to growth and development. We need that kind of cooperation in RC tanking. IF we don't it will never be more then a fringe hobby, as it will be costly and confusing, turning people off participating or developing products for it.
i.e People thinking about developing a new TBU (which Curtis mentioned is flawed )is now more likey to happen because the guy investing his time and money knows he has a bigger potential market selling to Tamiya, DBC, and Clark users. Imagine if each system required its own. Way less upside for the developers.
-I would not purchase any future Clark boards if they were not Tamiya compatible?
That is the question Clark would want answered before making a decision like this. Remember the issue the CLark board had when it was first released. It had no IR range or speed reduction, and the reaction from the community was swift.
I have been preaching about compatibilbity between systems for years. People charging down the road of their own agenda will drive a wedge in an already very small hobby making it harder to develop products. Common ground unites us and makes the market for upgrades possible. Currently with the 5 pin arrangement of the apples being adopted by Clark, and the DBC, developers have the option of selling a revised Sensor to all three. IF pinout wasn't adopted you would be looking at a segmented market trying to cater to small groups. Development would be slow or non existant. That fact there is some compatibiblity is the catylist required to move things forward and advance the hobby.
Even though Clark is a competiter I have been very supportive, as he made changes to benefit the tanking community and wasn't interested in just lining his pockets. He made the changes a lot of us requested. Developers need to understand this is a very small market, and it needs people working together to make it grow. IF you get too many guys only interested in themselves and the systems they sell, development will stagnate and fail from lack of cohesive interest.
I was exposed to this in model railroading. Lenz developed Digital Command control, and freely made the technolgy open to all developers. A great example of a company caring more about the hobby and its growth then forcing people to make a decison on what technology to go with. A common ground is critical to growth and development. We need that kind of cooperation in RC tanking. IF we don't it will never be more then a fringe hobby, as it will be costly and confusing, turning people off participating or developing products for it.
i.e People thinking about developing a new TBU (which Curtis mentioned is flawed )is now more likey to happen because the guy investing his time and money knows he has a bigger potential market selling to Tamiya, DBC, and Clark users. Imagine if each system required its own. Way less upside for the developers.
06-03-2013, 09:44 AM
#7
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
I think the Clark TK20 and TK22 have changed the game when it comes to an inexpensive good running R/C Tank.
The Cherry on Top, so to speak is that they are Tamiya compatible!
I know this has bee discussed before, but I am still a little surprised that Tamiya keeps their prices so high.
The quality is way above everybody else, but with just a few well thought out metal upgrades, a Clark TK20 or TK22
and an HL Tank, one can have a good reliable runner that is Tamiya compatible for maybe $350-500, depending on
how much you upgrade it. This is may be a better option then the Taigen as well if you already have a 2.4Ghz raido?
The Cherry on Top, so to speak is that they are Tamiya compatible!
I know this has bee discussed before, but I am still a little surprised that Tamiya keeps their prices so high.
The quality is way above everybody else, but with just a few well thought out metal upgrades, a Clark TK20 or TK22
and an HL Tank, one can have a good reliable runner that is Tamiya compatible for maybe $350-500, depending on
how much you upgrade it. This is may be a better option then the Taigen as well if you already have a 2.4Ghz raido?
06-03-2013, 10:02 AM
#8
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sellersville, PA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
ORIGINAL: YHR
You are missing one important question, that being
-I would not purchase any future Clark boards if they were not Tamiya compatible?
That is the question Clark would want answered before making a decision like this. Remember the issue the CLark board had when it was first released. It had no IR range or speed reduction, and the reaction from the community was swift.
I have been preaching about compatibilbity between systems for years. People charging down the road of their own agenda will drive a wedge in and already very small hobby making it harder to develop products. Common ground unites us and makes the market for upgrades possible. Currently with the 5 pin arrangement of the apples being adopted by Clark, and the DBC, developers have the option of selling a revised Sensor to all three. IF pinout wasn't adopted you would be looking at a segmented market trying to cater to small groups. Development would be slow or non existant. That fact there is some compatibiblity is the catylist required to move things forward and advance the hobby.
Even though Clark is a competiter I have been very supportive, as he made changes to benefit the tanking community and wasn't interested in just lining his pockets. He made the changes a lot of us requested. Developers need to understand this is a very small market, and it needs people working together to make it grow. IF you get too many guys only interested in themselves and the systems they sell, development will stagnate and fail from lack of cohesive interest.
I was exposed to this in model railroading. Lenz developed Digital Command control, and freely made the technolgy open to all developers. A great example of a company caring more about the hobby and its growth then forcing people to make a decison on what technology to go with. A common ground is critical to growth and development. We need that kind of cooperation in RC tanking. IF we don't it will never be more then a fringe hobby, as it will be costly and confusing, turning people off participating or developing products for it.
i.e People thinking about developing a new TBU (which Curtis mentioned is flawed )is now more likey to happen because the guy investing his time and money knows he has a bigger potential market selling to Tamiya, DBC, and Clark users. Imagine if each system required its own. Way less upside for the developers.
You are missing one important question, that being
-I would not purchase any future Clark boards if they were not Tamiya compatible?
That is the question Clark would want answered before making a decision like this. Remember the issue the CLark board had when it was first released. It had no IR range or speed reduction, and the reaction from the community was swift.
I have been preaching about compatibilbity between systems for years. People charging down the road of their own agenda will drive a wedge in and already very small hobby making it harder to develop products. Common ground unites us and makes the market for upgrades possible. Currently with the 5 pin arrangement of the apples being adopted by Clark, and the DBC, developers have the option of selling a revised Sensor to all three. IF pinout wasn't adopted you would be looking at a segmented market trying to cater to small groups. Development would be slow or non existant. That fact there is some compatibiblity is the catylist required to move things forward and advance the hobby.
Even though Clark is a competiter I have been very supportive, as he made changes to benefit the tanking community and wasn't interested in just lining his pockets. He made the changes a lot of us requested. Developers need to understand this is a very small market, and it needs people working together to make it grow. IF you get too many guys only interested in themselves and the systems they sell, development will stagnate and fail from lack of cohesive interest.
I was exposed to this in model railroading. Lenz developed Digital Command control, and freely made the technolgy open to all developers. A great example of a company caring more about the hobby and its growth then forcing people to make a decison on what technology to go with. A common ground is critical to growth and development. We need that kind of cooperation in RC tanking. IF we don't it will never be more then a fringe hobby, as it will be costly and confusing, turning people off participating or developing products for it.
i.e People thinking about developing a new TBU (which Curtis mentioned is flawed )is now more likey to happen because the guy investing his time and money knows he has a bigger potential market selling to Tamiya, DBC, and Clark users. Imagine if each system required its own. Way less upside for the developers.
Probably right there Dan about the options, I should have just had that from the beginning, & just streamlined the poll to 2 options listed below instead.
A. Still purchase the boards because I don’t care about them having Tamiya compatibility or not.
B. I would not consider purchasing a Clark board at all in the future if it wasn't Tamiya compatible.
Now added it as option "F" anyway ...
Adding that option kind of takes away from those who might have otherwise answered with the current B, C, & D choices, so I added the ability to choose multiple options in case someone who chooses "F" might also want to choose "B", "C", or "D".
~ Craig ~
06-03-2013, 10:32 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Grande Prairie,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 8,976
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
Thanks Craig.
Lets see what the poll says after a week. I know what I am betting on as being the majority answer
Lets see what the poll says after a week. I know what I am betting on as being the majority answer
06-03-2013, 11:02 AM
#10
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fort ErieOntario, CANADA
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
I consider our group here in Fort Erie at Can-Am RC Tank Club as a bunch of normal every day tankers and we have a good bunch with many different battle systems.
Why would any person in a group want to buy a system that is not compatable with those systems in the group.
Personaly I am aware of at least 4 systems in our group and I am at aloss to see why any one of us would buy a system that would not work with those systems we now have.
Of course that's my opinion and what do I know. ( I only have 2 years of RC Tanking but 50 years of model building so electronics are not my strong suite. )
Wayne
Why would any person in a group want to buy a system that is not compatable with those systems in the group.
Personaly I am aware of at least 4 systems in our group and I am at aloss to see why any one of us would buy a system that would not work with those systems we now have.
Of course that's my opinion and what do I know. ( I only have 2 years of RC Tanking but 50 years of model building so electronics are not my strong suite. )
Wayne
06-03-2013, 11:08 AM
#11
Senior Member
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
I placed my vote.....I see I am in great company. It is beating all the others and the margin on the nearest is 2 to 1.
06-03-2013, 11:25 AM
#12
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
The minimum should be Tamiya compatible for any system proposed.
Now if that new system were to have additional features that could be 'unlocked' then now we are talking increased interest!
Now if that new system were to have additional features that could be 'unlocked' then now we are talking increased interest!
06-03-2013, 11:50 AM
#13
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bristol, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
I am wondering why you are asking the questions? Did Clark ask you to, are you involved in design and development, or is there some other reason?
The standard is not 'Tamiya', the standard is actually called something else, and run by someone else, and the Tamiya system meets those standards, as does Clark, Elmod, SLU etc etc. Using the term Tamiya is a misnomer. As Clark will happily tell you, Tamiya have never published their 'standard'.
Anything that a manufacturer adds to the functionality on their boards is down to them, but if they want to sell boards to anyone who wants to have RC tank battles then they must meet the international standard so that people know what they are buying. Eg 940nm 38hhz modulated output, and standard IR sensors that detect that frequency. The HL IR system is a case in point, it operates on a lower frequency, so does not meet the standard.
The standard is not 'Tamiya', the standard is actually called something else, and run by someone else, and the Tamiya system meets those standards, as does Clark, Elmod, SLU etc etc. Using the term Tamiya is a misnomer. As Clark will happily tell you, Tamiya have never published their 'standard'.
Anything that a manufacturer adds to the functionality on their boards is down to them, but if they want to sell boards to anyone who wants to have RC tank battles then they must meet the international standard so that people know what they are buying. Eg 940nm 38hhz modulated output, and standard IR sensors that detect that frequency. The HL IR system is a case in point, it operates on a lower frequency, so does not meet the standard.
06-03-2013, 01:55 PM
#14
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sellersville, PA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
ORIGINAL: Wibblywobbly
I am wondering why you are asking the questions? Did Clark ask you to, are you involved in design and development, or is there some other reason?
The standard is not 'Tamiya', the standard is actually called something else, and run by someone else, and the Tamiya system meets those standards, as does Clark, Elmod, SLU etc etc. Using the term Tamiya is a misnomer. As Clark will happily tell you, Tamiya have never published their 'standard'.
Anything that a manufacturer adds to the functionality on their boards is down to them, but if they want to sell boards to anyone who wants to have RC tank battles then they must meet the international standard so that people know what they are buying. Eg 940nm 38hhz modulated output, and standard IR sensors that detect that frequency. The HL IR system is a case in point, it operates on a lower frequency, so does not meet the standard.
I am wondering why you are asking the questions? Did Clark ask you to, are you involved in design and development, or is there some other reason?
The standard is not 'Tamiya', the standard is actually called something else, and run by someone else, and the Tamiya system meets those standards, as does Clark, Elmod, SLU etc etc. Using the term Tamiya is a misnomer. As Clark will happily tell you, Tamiya have never published their 'standard'.
Anything that a manufacturer adds to the functionality on their boards is down to them, but if they want to sell boards to anyone who wants to have RC tank battles then they must meet the international standard so that people know what they are buying. Eg 940nm 38hhz modulated output, and standard IR sensors that detect that frequency. The HL IR system is a case in point, it operates on a lower frequency, so does not meet the standard.
I could also care less about what anyone wants to call the compatibility aspect, I already know it's a "base standard", you don't have to try & school me on that, I have had plenty of private discussions with Clark on the "base standard". I have repeatedly agreed to calling it a "base standard" when discussing why I wanted compatibility, numerous times with numerous people on chat, through email, & on the forums. Though the fact is that most RC tank clubs will call it a "Tamiya standard" or "Tamiya compatibility", so that's why most discussions revolving around an IR battling base standard uses the terms almost interchangeable with "Tamiya compatibility" ... at least for now they do, just as people used to use Xerox when referring to making a copy in the early days of photocopies!
~ Craig ~
06-03-2013, 02:04 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Swindon, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
i see a pattern forming here clark wants the tk series mass produced in every H/long tank and H/long have told clark to make his compatible with theres?
kinda makes sense to me shame to junk a good board and pop in a dbc/Dmd/Mf
just my observations and not any facts
shame clark didnt listen in the first releases he would have had a winning board
all that was needed was a tk drive board with good sounds and a i/r system add on
but hey i guess some people have there own directions
glad the tk series works for some of you
kinda makes sense to me shame to junk a good board and pop in a dbc/Dmd/Mf
just my observations and not any facts
shame clark didnt listen in the first releases he would have had a winning board
all that was needed was a tk drive board with good sounds and a i/r system add on
but hey i guess some people have there own directions
glad the tk series works for some of you
06-03-2013, 02:17 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
Hi Craig,
Voted for F.
What I would like Clark or any other developer out there is to churn out a
Low cost, 4-sensored (38kHz, sensitivity: 90%:: 940 nm, 10: 880 nm) IR receiver fitted with "4 yellow hit LED indicators, 5 pin out, retrofit-ready for HL/Taigen IR battle unit housing.
This enables guys using HL/Taigen IR battle units the ability to gut the inferior HL battle circuit (the inferior HL prism-single IR sensor set-up, and swap/fit this low cost retrofit solution.
HL/ Taigen battle unit housing cost about 10 USD, then retrofit sensor system priced at 10 USD , include postage (10) will come about ~ 30 USD....
This with No hassles in building and having the sensitivity and better functionality of the DBU or El Mod CSI, much like the plug n play approach of IBU(italian) flasher or Hammerhead(RCTanksAus) but better in overall functionality and sensitivity of the latter two units.
Heres a rough estimate of what they are at the moment:assumption postage at 10 USD
Hammerheadat 20 USD, plus shipping (10) + HL battle unit (10) be about ~ 40 USD (but limited IR sensitivity due to HL unit's inferior prism and 880 nm tuning).
IBU (Italian), assumed at20 USD, plus shipping (10) + HL battle unit (10) be about ~ 40 USD (but limited IR sensitivity due to HL unit'inferior prism and 880 nm tuniing).
Hammerheadat 20 USD, plus shipping (10) + HL battle unit (10) be about ~ 40 USD (but limited IR sensitivity due to HL unit's inferior prism and 880 nm tuning).
IBU (Italian), assumed at20 USD, plus shipping (10) + HL battle unit (10) be about ~ 40 USD (but limited IR sensitivity due to HL unit'inferior prism and 880 nm tuniing).
DBU comes up at 30 USD, plus shipping (10) and building the shrouding, hence, if you factor in time and effort (10 USD) be about ~ 50 USD.
Impact battle unit comes up at 63 USD, plus shipping (10) will be about ~ 73 USD
EL-MOD CSI at ~ 80 plus shipping (10)and building the shrouding, hence, if you factor in time and effort (10 USD) be aboutwill be about 100 USD
TBU > 130 USD plus shipping ~ 140 USD
Hear hear...
PS. and with Clark's track record of innovation, a low cost Battle sensor using HL/Taigen(housing)-ClarkBattleSystemReceiver(electroniks) could even be made much better with if each sensor can be adjusted either
(1) Optically, via adjustable sensor reception angle (adjustable hole diameter)
or (2) Electroniks-wise with in terms of pre-programmed setting (i.e., medium tank gets double hits if hit in the flanks, tripled hit if shot from the ass). Option 2 has been demonstrated by Rctanksaustrlia's Mako, where 6-9th hits for HL running HVY setting gets delayed until the 9th hit. Similarly, HL tank running LGHT setting, gets thrice (3x) the hit once it gets the third hit (hence KOiing the tank by making 5 hits). It effectively plays around with delating/negating hits or multiplying hit effects.
I reckoned, an advanced battle unit coupled to add-on engine sound(SD card), it wont be long till a new standard is reached but still has the dumd down option to accomodate the Tamiya system.
PS. and with Clark's track record of innovation, a low cost Battle sensor using HL/Taigen(housing)-ClarkBattleSystemReceiver(electroniks) could even be made much better with if each sensor can be adjusted either
(1) Optically, via adjustable sensor reception angle (adjustable hole diameter)
or (2) Electroniks-wise with in terms of pre-programmed setting (i.e., medium tank gets double hits if hit in the flanks, tripled hit if shot from the ass). Option 2 has been demonstrated by Rctanksaustrlia's Mako, where 6-9th hits for HL running HVY setting gets delayed until the 9th hit. Similarly, HL tank running LGHT setting, gets thrice (3x) the hit once it gets the third hit (hence KOiing the tank by making 5 hits). It effectively plays around with delating/negating hits or multiplying hit effects.
I reckoned, an advanced battle unit coupled to add-on engine sound(SD card), it wont be long till a new standard is reached but still has the dumd down option to accomodate the Tamiya system.
cheers,Rey
06-03-2013, 02:24 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Swindon, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
a seperate sound sd card would be major step forward as well
and Rey i like your thinking id vote for that one
and Rey i like your thinking id vote for that one
06-03-2013, 02:59 PM
#19
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cambridge ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
AFV432 why wouldn't someone want to expand their business? even to the point of basicly owning every product that uses his product? Its a fair observation and quite frankly an obvious one. It makes good business sense to want to do this.
when you say its a shame to throw away a good board are you reffering to an HL RX18 or another system? The RX18 is a toy board with terrible sound, bad FM control and lots of quirky bahaviour.
Clark actually did listen after his first iterations, ( Rome wasn't made in a day ) He made changes and we now have much more than a decent board. When was the last time you gave one a try? I for one would put it up against anything that is out there and when
all is said and done it will be at least the equivalent or damn close to it. At 1/3 the competitors cost.
If a person can not get a Clark board to work it is pretty obvious his battery is dead or there is another simple explanation like radio compatibility, misplugged reciever etc.
As the North American distributor I can tell you the complaint rate is very low, much less than 1% which is totally acceptable
Really if your basing your opinion off the early versions maybe you should give it a go again. pm me if your interested in trying it out.
I am willing to bet you will change your mind.
Oh and by the way, I do have a vested interest because I am the North American distributor Of Clark Electrronics.
I am also a user of the product and I am willing to put my personal reputation up and vouch for this product. Quite simply it is that good for that low of a price.
Curtis
Owner Immortal Hobbies
when you say its a shame to throw away a good board are you reffering to an HL RX18 or another system? The RX18 is a toy board with terrible sound, bad FM control and lots of quirky bahaviour.
Clark actually did listen after his first iterations, ( Rome wasn't made in a day ) He made changes and we now have much more than a decent board. When was the last time you gave one a try? I for one would put it up against anything that is out there and when
all is said and done it will be at least the equivalent or damn close to it. At 1/3 the competitors cost.
If a person can not get a Clark board to work it is pretty obvious his battery is dead or there is another simple explanation like radio compatibility, misplugged reciever etc.
As the North American distributor I can tell you the complaint rate is very low, much less than 1% which is totally acceptable
Really if your basing your opinion off the early versions maybe you should give it a go again. pm me if your interested in trying it out.
I am willing to bet you will change your mind.
Oh and by the way, I do have a vested interest because I am the North American distributor Of Clark Electrronics.
I am also a user of the product and I am willing to put my personal reputation up and vouch for this product. Quite simply it is that good for that low of a price.
Curtis
Owner Immortal Hobbies
ORIGINAL: AFV432
i see a pattern forming here clark wants the tk series mass produced in every H/long tank and H/long have told clark to make his compatible with theres?
kinda makes sense to me shame to junk a good board and pop in a dbc/Dmd/Mf
just my observations and not any facts
shame clark didnt listen in the first releases he would have had a winning board
all that was needed was a tk drive board with good sounds and a i/r system add on
but hey i guess some people have there own directions
glad the tk series works for some of you
i see a pattern forming here clark wants the tk series mass produced in every H/long tank and H/long have told clark to make his compatible with theres?
kinda makes sense to me shame to junk a good board and pop in a dbc/Dmd/Mf
just my observations and not any facts
shame clark didnt listen in the first releases he would have had a winning board
all that was needed was a tk drive board with good sounds and a i/r system add on
but hey i guess some people have there own directions
glad the tk series works for some of you
06-03-2013, 06:38 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Portsmouth,
NH
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
I would hate for Clark to start feeling too big for his britches and think he can enjoy the success he is having now by cutting the Tamiya platform out of the picture. What he should be doing is building on the basic game rules that Tamiya uses and adding new dimensions and features to it, to make Tamiya ante up in a upward spiral of technological competition. Even if Tamiya couldn't care less to join in, I am sure someone else will enter the market to compete.
06-03-2013, 08:21 PM
#21
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
Over here in Singapore we have been having monthly games involving both Tamiya and TK22 tanks equipped with Tamiya battle units. After the initial setup period (setting damage/speed reduction) we've been having pretty seamless integration. Some things Clark could look at include a better sound package - I don't know if it is electronic or speaker-related but Tamiyas sound noticeably louder. And there's been some issues of the TK22 losing engine sounds even though the tank moves. This is currently being looked at but is believed to be heat or humidity related.
To take away compatibility is to halve our group, and that hurts participation.
To take away compatibility is to halve our group, and that hurts participation.
06-03-2013, 08:24 PM
#22
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamilton,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
Any word on that proposed Clark high-quality add on sound card, people seemed interested.
06-03-2013, 08:55 PM
#23
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sellersville, PA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
ORIGINAL: cleong
Over here in Singapore we have been having monthly games involving both Tamiya and TK22 tanks equipped with Tamiya battle units. After the initial setup period (setting damage/speed reduction) we've been having pretty seamless integration. Some things Clark could look at include a better sound package - I don't know if it is electronic or speaker-related but Tamiyas sound noticeably louder. And there's been some issues of the TK22 losing engine sounds even though the tank moves. This is currently being looked at but is believed to be heat or humidity related.
To take away compatibility is to halve our group, and that hurts participation.
Over here in Singapore we have been having monthly games involving both Tamiya and TK22 tanks equipped with Tamiya battle units. After the initial setup period (setting damage/speed reduction) we've been having pretty seamless integration. Some things Clark could look at include a better sound package - I don't know if it is electronic or speaker-related but Tamiyas sound noticeably louder. And there's been some issues of the TK22 losing engine sounds even though the tank moves. This is currently being looked at but is believed to be heat or humidity related.
To take away compatibility is to halve our group, and that hurts participation.
So there are still quite a few variables which could produce a huge difference in volume too, & with some changes maybe possible to get the sound closer in volume. Such as the positioning of the speakers in the tanks, whether the tank has more or less openings for the sound to escape the inside of the tank, how good of a speaker box is used, using a better volume pot, using a 4 OHM vs 8 OHM speaker. Not saying the sound will ever be as loud, but possibly loud enough for it to be less noticeable & very acceptable.
~ Craig ~
06-03-2013, 09:11 PM
#24
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sellersville, PA
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
ORIGINAL: Strato50
Any word on that proposed Clark high-quality add on sound card, people seemed interested.
Any word on that proposed Clark high-quality add on sound card, people seemed interested.
~ Craig ~
06-04-2013, 12:59 AM
#25
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Paolo Solbrito, ITALY
Posts: 1,536
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
15 Posts
RE: If Clark removed Tamiya compatibility from future TK20/22 boards, would you be more likely to
For those interested in a board with customizable sounds, I know that Ivano 'Scooter', the designer and builder of the first IBU (Italian Battle Unit for Tamiya IR compatibility) is about to release its second version (called IBU2) which is a full-option plug&play board which replaces the RX18 (as the Clark does) but with customizable sounds on micro-SD card (el-mod style), Tamiya IR compatibility, inertia, proportional smoker, proportional transmitter control, support for 4-sensors IR receiver, on board audio amplifier, recoil via servo.
Planned target price should be just about 100 €.
I am waiting for its release and will let you know more (if interested) as soon as I get one in my hands.
Planned target price should be just about 100 €.
I am waiting for its release and will let you know more (if interested) as soon as I get one in my hands.