ausf

My understanding it the kit hatches are allowed in club battle. That would mean a low profile would be blocked, especially on a split hatch. I could swing one that only protruded an inch or so, including baffles and LEDs, but didn't think it would be allowed.

Panther F

Don't twist my words. The Tamiiya apple will not plug into the IMPACT base and vice versa. YES... they are the same electrical set up but you would have to modify the base (plug) for them to work.

So my information was CORRECT reyemmanuel. You are the one who is confused by making that misnomer of a statement.





Jeff

tomhugill

I don't know the policy of most US tank clubs but quite afew in the uk use hidden sensors, which take hits perfectly. Only down side is no slope or 45 deg defence.

Martellus

Hidden in a cupola? Turret sides? Hull? This sounds interesting.

tomhugill

Varies depending on the builder. Some go for cupola, some have them hidden in the turret sides depends on the tank

no12skyline

Reyeemmanuel is obviously interpreting what Panther F said quite differently. Panther F was referring to compatibility of apples and bases. The Impact battle unit apple will not plug into a Tamiya battle unit base, or vice versa.

However, both Impact and Tamiya battle unit bases have the same type of plug (at the end of the wire that runs out from the battle unit base) that plugs into the MFU board.

ausf

I've hidden them in everything from cupolas to the T34's exhaust pipe. But for battling against a group, the apple is more accepting. Once the systems get customized, then it gets hard to keep things even. NEAD is kind enough to let me get away with stuff, but I would think in a bigger setting, there would be an issue.

I'm starting to regret putting the emitters in the coax MGs or gunner's sight openings. It's a definite disadvantage, but at least with the emitter, no one cares if you go too narrow. The worst is in the MG of the Tammy Pz IV. I didn't realize how much the mantlet projection on a IV blocks the signal. I can't hit anything even slightly to the left of dead straight from the main gun barrel.

tomhugill

I feel your pain! Mantlet mounted the emitter in my panther and the barrel shadow effect is terrible. On my Pershing I just used the clip and it's infinitely better. I might try mounting it in the muzzle break next time!

thecommander

It happens very often Jeff when guys build tanks but don't battle them or are just starting out. I just was with Gene in LI delivering his new WSN/Tamiya T-34. He had a HL Pzr IV with the Clark system he got from a builder up north somewhere. The IR emitter was just to the left of the barrel. I showed him the difference of where I mounted his Emitter versus where the other guy put it. He can't hit anything to the right of the barrel at all. At Danville the guys would pickup on that quickly and stay in the umbra on his "blind-side". Top of the barrel or upper corner of the manlet is the best and fairest position. Atop the hull is not very fair and I would strongly discourage it.

thecommander

Hatches are allowed as long and the tank takes hits and the fins are visible. M2 50 cals, tank figures, excessive stowage must be relocated for fairness in battle if they block the apple. M4 hatches are occasionally an issue. Tiger I commander hatchs are best removed. Just don't glue the hinged mount in place guys. it can be removed for battle and safely popped back in for display. The most important thing for apples is the ability to take hits and having visible LEDs so the hit can be seem by the combatants....plus...you want to know too so you can track your damage and impending death.

YHR

I moved away from permanent emitter mounts in the Mantlet.. I mount an emitter socket in the mantlet instead. Here you can plug in an IR LED directly into the socket or run the IR LED out to the end of the barrel and just plug it in here. This makes swapping out IR LEDs very simple and easy. You will find in close quarters and when you have battle field props to hide behind , there is an advantage to being able to poke the bbl through and opening while keeping your Apple shielded.

The picture shows the mantlet on a Sherman with the socket, and the C2 just shows how you run the IR emitter out to the end of the barrel.( The C2 Has a socket In the hatch opening)

reyemmanuel

Jeff,

A plug and a base must not be confused, especially if someone without prior knowledge needed information. Correct, unambiguous information must be conveyed. Note i have not twisted your words and you are incorrect.

Both Impact and Tamiya refer to the base as GFS base, whilst plug is the end of the GFS base cable connector that goes into CN1 of Tamiya's MFU.

Simply:
BASE = GFS BASE = IR RECEIVER RECEPTACLE
PLUG = End of the GFS base connector cable going to CN1

Both manufacturers refer to Base as base...not a plug.
Impact:
http://mitosal.com/73003.htm
"A complete plug in Battle System compatible with the Tamiya system -- Plug and play !!.... Plugs direct into Tamiya MFU receptacle. This system..."

I've labelled this illustration for clarity.


Tamiya:
Read items No. 3 (Attaching upper turret plate) and 4 (Connecting cable) of the instruction manual (item no. 53447) to verify what a GFS base is and what distinguishes this from a GFS base connector cable. Below are pictures of items 3 and 4 in the manual if you don't have reference to this.


Other points:
*The contention that Impact's IR receiver will not fit a Tamiya base, although true, is not an issue.
This is because the Impact IR battle system is sold with its own IR receiver base.

*The Impact IR receiver base can accommodate the Tamiya IR receiver. Tamiya's IR receiver base cannot accomodate the Impact IR receiver.

* Buying 2 Impact IR battle systems + 2 Clark IR bases (this will have to be thinned out) is roughly the same price (ATM) of 1 Tamiya IR battle system GFS.
This means that an RC tanker can battle 2 of his tanks (himself + 1 other family/friend), plus 2 tanks in reserved with IR receiver base-ready. If you go the Tamiya route, you'll only be able to use 1 tank for battling.

All in all, the impact IR battle system affords better value for money and flexibility than the Tamiya IR battle system GFS.

YHR

A glossary of terms never hurts. I am guilty of interchanging the term plug with base as well.

For the record the TBS receptacle I sell has a base that fits the Tamiya TBU and a plug that fits the DBC3 and Clark, To use my base with a Tamiya tank you would need to swap out the plug to the smaller 5 pin JST that Tamiya uses on the MFU

reyemmanuel

Thank you YHR, getting terms right is indeed right and acknowledging one's error is better than carrying on with wrong assertions and sowing personal attacks.



As for you Panther F or Jeff,

Your words are twisted as they are and does not need to be highlighted to make it obvious.

You accuse me of (1) twisting your words and (2) I am confused. Okay let me get down to the level of thinking as you have shown thus far and give you the benefit of intelligible discussions which you seem to be struggling (as evidenced by your propensity for losing the objectivity of the discussion).

Your accusations are both wrong. Both apply to your statement.
I did correct the information you said. No information is better than misleading ones. Instead of sticking to intelligent discussion, you veered away from it and attack a person. Let me then reciprocate this to you. In the sciences where I come from, your information as well as your attitude towards peer review will lead you to outright rejection! I don't know where you stand, but even as a non-native English speaker, I have come to appreciate the beauty and precision of the English language.

A Bases is a base. A plug is a plug. Do not confuse that and don't lead others to wrong information. Next time, do not sow personal attacks. Stick to the discussion. If you can't keep the objectivity, keep silent.

Below is a testament to your error.

"Get the Tamiya system. Not a knock on the IMPACT set but when I used it at Danville last year in my Sherman it lacked the range. Plus, you cannot interchange the apples (Tamiya and IMPACT) without modifying the plug.

Check around (I don't know what they go for now) and get some prices before you settle on this. Check with Karen at http://shop.aaftankmuseum.com/ also... they are good people.

Tamiya is the standard... I would stay with that brand.

JMHO

Jeff"


Here is my reply:
Originally Posted by reyemmanuel
Yes to both.



This is wrong information. They are interchangable, as Impact's IR receiver plug is the same as Tamiya.

You might have confused yourself the plug as the base. As for the base difference, Impact's IR receiver and base is narrower than than Tamiya's.

I found it cost effective to order heaps of Clark's base and trim to fit Impact's receiver. Once, trimmed (physically) it now fits the Impact IR Receiver as well as Tamiya's.
In turn, you can use both "apples" in a battler tank with Clark's modded base.



To which, you lacked the level of understanding for appreciation.

"Don't twist my words. The Tamiiya apple will not plug into the IMPACT base and vice versa. YES... they are the same electrical set up but you would have to modify the base (plug) for them to work.
So my information was CORRECT reyemmanuel. You are the one who is confused by making that misnomer of a statement."

Jeff

Let me know if you need more enlightenment.

no12skyline

I'm not trying to say there's any difference in how American English and Queen's English interprets what's a plug and what's a base, but simply that there WILL be differences in interpretation of things wherever you go. I haven't seen anyone make reference to the Apple the way Tamiya calls it the Gun Fire Simulator yet, if anyone wants to get pedantic about being correct to Tamiya's nomenclature.

YHR

Bottom line is neither term is wrong. More important is clearing up what we are talking about for the people new to this.

Panther F

Decide for yourself. I'm not going to argue what I said.







Jeff

ausf

My TBUs have the same screened logo as yours does but I don't recall ever seeing that on any other Tamiya product. I wonder if these are made by a third party for Tamiya and that's why there's the issue with supply.

Last night I was working out some prototype designs and was getting tired of firing a tank to test, so I grabbed my Samsung TV remote. It turns out that three buttons on it will kill the JS-2 in two shots, not 9. Consistently, it would kill after two, while using a tank it would revert to the 9 to kill.

I wish I knew how these things were programmed, it'd be pretty damn cool if shots from different tanks would effect others differently.

thecommander

A few years back when my girls were smaller I let them bring their two RC helicopters to Danville. The helis could fight each other, were my wife's idea, not mine. We the flew them between battle (indoors...the place is HUGE) and one the second day they flew them next to the battlefield. They were IR controlled and when they "shot" at each other to stall the heli... it killed James Stewarts Tiger with one shot...WOW. There are one shot one kill IR codes in the Tamiya IR spectrum. Maybe we should put that code in the JT & SU 152s. LOL

Martellus

That would actually be really cool to have guns actually effect your damage

ausf

I've heard about the one shot kill, but this was 2, which means there's a possibility of different terminal numbers out there which would be awesome if it was exploitable.

I have about 8 Horizon Hobby battle helis in the house. If they're one shot kill, I'll tearing a few apart to make some mines.

Martellus

How does the system differentiate the damage though?

ausf

I assume it would work like a TV IR receiver, one code for volume, another for each number, etc. I guess it's conceivable that the MFUs are programmed with something similar but then never used because it would be pretty complicated or maybe the sending of codes is too difficult. Or maybe they didn't want the hassle of explaining a complicated system when sales are okay for a simple one.

bowlman

This was talked about back in 2011 .

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-t...-battling.html

Thanks
Jimmy

YHR

That was some good discussion back then.

My conical mirrors had terrible range limitations. I could not find a reflective enough paint. They worked at removing the 45 degree defense though. However I never did give up on the idea, and just this past weekend I bought a bag full of mirrored cones at a craft store for about $1.00. I will mod a Tamiya sensor with one of these and see what happens. The mirrored surface on these looks well done, so the range shouldn't suffer much.

However that discussion took place 3 years ago, and how much have we modified game play? There in lies the problem. "Don't fix what ain't broken". Guys are having fun with the system as it is. Simple to host, and police. Make it too complicated and it just gets hard to gain any traction. I know the Danville guys are using Dana's Idea of rotating the prism 45 degrees to stop all the tanks running around with their turret at 45 Degree to the enemy, which probably helps with the fan shot as well, Part of the defensive maneuver is to get your turret back to 45 degrees after you take your shot, so this tactic for defense also results in the dreaded fan shot.

There are a lot of Clark units on the market now, but I bet in most cases they are set to work just like Tamiya.