Topic: T.A.R.G.E.T - Rotating Seven gun turrets? (Read 288820 times)

Plastic - RIP · « **Reply #100 on:** December 28, 2016, 06:20:47 pm »

Ok - without wanting to insult anyone, I understand that this is all very clever (I'm thinking about getting one to play with myself) - but who are you going to impress at the lake?

99% of punters will be impressed that the turrets move at all. Will anyone actually notice any of the fine details being talked about in this thread?

Or is this turning into a 'navel'-gazing exercise?

Bob K · « **Reply #101 on:** December 28, 2016, 06:40:05 pm »

Sorry Plastic, but surely a high degree of realism is a prime objective of building a model boat. It is like saying no one will notice all your fine detail and workmanship, so why bother as long as it floats and goes round in circles. Beyond this, that detail and workmanship is more for your own satisfaction rather than uneducated bystanders who cannot appreciate the amount of research you have done to get all those details right.

How it works is just as important. When the turrets turn they should do so in a manner reflecting as far as practical how they would do so on the real ship, not just click into another position. The purpose of this thread is to try and effect that realism, just as if we were in a spotter plane flying over the Battle of Jutland.
A worthy and useful objective IMHO.

derekwarner · « **Reply #102 on:** December 28, 2016, 06:42:28 pm »

....reading this it appears that every one is thinking about doing something, however there is still no defined plan

There is little point in providing a scope with a train requirement if is to be changed 3 times in 13 posts, so clear starting ground rules are required

a. Would a train of +15 degrees across a 180 degree broadside be acceptable?......this would the dictate a 210 degree total arc of train
b. A decision on the preferred drive to train the mounts together with physical capabilities and limits
c. Need to define an acceptable speed of turret train on axis.....would 90 degrees in 4 seconds be acceptable?
d. Need to clearly understanding the difference, interrelationship and permissives between a pointing and a non pointing zone, together with firing and non firing zones [P-NP-F-NF-Z]

From confirmation on the parameters [starting ground rules] as above, a number of control systems could be considered

1. Audino + conventional servo....~~180 degree limitation?...how is the turret going to be physically driven to train and increase to 210 degrees total train of arc?
2. Audino + sail winch servo.... ~~300 degree capability?... how is the turret going to be physically driven to train?
3. Audino + stepper motor..... ~~ no rotational limitation?.... how is the turret going to be physically driven to train?
4. Using P96 Servomorphs would have rotational limitations and need extra drive geometry to achieve 210 degree total train of arc, P96 units would additional software integrated for the programming of [P-NP-F-NF-Z]

The nomination for the geometry for each [P-NP-F-NF-Z] must be made .....

Bob, you will need to provide a scaled plan view of the vessel showing capital gun mounts together with principal superstructure elements, from here confirm each mounts [P-NP-F-NF-Z] in a simple spread sheet format that those penning the script or programming will understand [I could help here if you get stuck or have issues with the nominations]

This [P-NP-F-NF-Z] nomination would be a critical start HOLD point for those penning or programming the script

NB....as acknowledged on a number of occasions, my electrical knowledge is rather limited, so I see this exercise and my sole input is to assist in the planning task being completed by others for others

Derek

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #103 on:** December 28, 2016, 06:43:22 pm »

I do think that is a bit insulting Plastic TBH.

Would you suggest that we all build models which are just planks with Smartie tubes to simulate the guns because the average punter will never notice the difference? Where would you draw the line?

We build scale models because we like to construct models which are as accurate as possible and the Arduino exercise is no more than an extension of that. The satisfaction comes from making the model as realistic as possible including any working features. Plus it is an interesting technical challenge and any decent modeller likes to push themselves to improve their overall modelling standards. If you think it is about impressing people then you have truly got hold of the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.

Clearly you appear to have lower aspirations but don't mock those who are prepared to put the effort in.

Colin

Plastic - RIP · « **Reply #104 on:** December 28, 2016, 06:59:39 pm »

Quote from: Colin Bishop on December 28, 2016, 06:43:22 pm

I do think that is a bit insulting Plastic TBH.

Would you suggest that we all build models which are just planks with Smartie tubes to simulate the guns because the average punter will never notice the difference? Where would you draw the line?

We build scale models because we like to construct models which are as accurate as possible and the Arduino exercise is no more than an extension of that. The satisfaction comes from making the model as realistic as possible including any working features. Plus it is an interesting technical challenge and any decent modeller likes to push themselves to improve their overall modelling standards. If you think it is about impressing people then you have truly got hold of the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.

Clearly you appear to have lower aspirations but don't mock those who are prepared to put the effort in.

Colin

I certainly don't want to insult anyone, but when you add tons of complication to a model, it just increases the chances of it sitting half-built in the shed when a problem comes up that the builder can't immediately solve.
Getting non-software people bogged down in software bugs when they are digging in the dark anyway often ends in frustration and failure.

I've seen lots of half-builts and scrapped models when the objective was above the builders technical skills.

If the objective is for something to work reliably, year after year, then, imo, simple works best.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #105 on:** December 28, 2016, 07:00:53 pm »

Derek, I think you are a bit behind the curve and overcomplicating things!

It isn't about finding the specific solution for the Agincourt now, it's about a generic solution which can be applied to the Agincourt and any other warship with movable armament. Bob has no need to supply 'capital gun mount(!)' drawings as the relevant angles can be taken from published drawings and input into each turret module as I have already tried to explain on several occasions but which some people seem to elect not to read!

Turret training speeds have already been discussed and are simply another input parameter. Extending the standard servo throw can be done with a Servomorph certainly but a single gear drive will be much simpler and easier to make (and has been made).

These are all issues which can be readily overcome, all that is needed is to combine them into a single system, it's not exactly rocket science if you understand the techniques.

I do understand that not everyone fully appreciates the possibilities that computerisation has to offer and how easy it can be for those who are conversant with the programming but believe me that our Arduino experts should be able to resolve all these issues from their familiarity with the system.

Colin

derekwarner · « **Reply #106 on:** December 28, 2016, 07:05:31 pm »

Well plastic.....I do agree that there has been a number of tangential comments

, however I am reminded of the image of Geoff's Iron Duke below

That Q turret is stored abeam [on the vessels axis]......this turret points at the FWD superstructure.......it needs to be trained out of her non pointing zone [to either Port or Stdb] into a pointing zone which interlocks her ability to fire.....yes in a firing zone

If this were not achieved in Geoff's model & someone pressed the fire command.....the mount could blow the vessels superstructure off

So to control one mount requires a little grey matter, then controlling seven turrets is a little more complex, but not x 7 fold

A few of my colleagues here in OZ are working with Audino's & pressure transducers in steam applications......so here is where my true interest with these electronic gismo's lies....

However we must be reminded that the success of any Project is only achieved and reflected by the sound plan established prior to the start of the game

Colin......from your comments it is clear you have never been involved in a complex project such as the refit of a warship and you are suggesting that a concept ..."that every one is thinking about doing something" is OK ......no it's

Derek

unbuiltnautilus · « **Reply #107 on:** December 28, 2016, 07:09:36 pm »

Don't degrade the joy of watching that 1% looking in wonder at your model in action. It is a gift that makes all the effort worthwhile

I do believe that your 1%, maybe up to 2%, will appreciate your work and effort at a typical pond edge. Take the model to a show and I would hope a vast increase in impressed onlookers.
Yes, we build to satisfy ourselves, to challenge ourselves, but also to encourage ( and let's be honest, impress ) others. It is all part and parcel of model making. If we leave a few part finished projects in our wake, so be it. You gain nothing through not trying after all.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #108 on:** December 28, 2016, 07:11:39 pm »

Plastic, again you are missing the point! This is about simplifying the system, not involving non computer experts in debugging programs. People don't design their own speed controllers, they don't build their own ESCs. They buy them off the shelf, fit them in the model and then make limited adjustments for certain options as specified in the instruction sheet that is supplied with the device.

This would be exactly the same. At the risk of repeating myself yet again, you can have a simple user friendly program you can put on tour PC or Laptop which will take you through all the basic options to set up your turret the way you want it. And if it doesn't do what you want then you plug it in again and make some changes.

The clever stuff is done by the designers, the builder just has to follow some simple instructions to set things up for their particular model. Bear in mind that nobody HAS to do all this. You can just glue your turrets firmly in place in a fore and aft orientation and swan around the lake in the traditional way. But I reckon that a lot of warship builders will want to put a bit of extra effort in to get some extra realism - it's called progress!

Colin

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #109 on:** December 28, 2016, 07:13:00 pm »

Derek - you are pontificating - naughty!

And I don't think you are actually reading a lot of the posts either.

Colin

Bob K · « **Reply #110 on:** December 28, 2016, 08:08:15 pm »

Can I simplify this a bit please. What we are asking for is a generic program that can operate both forward and reverse facing turrets in a realistic manner using a single Tx control, preferably with slowed turning, variable training times, possibly even start and stop loops. For the generic program it does not need detail plans for this specific ship, merely the ability to train visibly beyond 90 degrees on either beam.

For those wishing to fine tune the system for a specific ship each of us would have to be able to see and understand the program coding, then decide how we would edit turning / firing angles for a specific vessel.
Good program writing includes 'Comments' for each part, including tips on how to customise.

Please lets not put off the kind offer of the nice developer who has offered to write a generic program.
I am willing to learn the Arduino language providing I have something written I can follow and understand. No way I could write it from scratch.

PS: I don't have detail plans, yet. Maybe by mid 2017. I aim to purchase the hull in the Spring. The Dean's semi-kit is intended to be developed over 2017, depending on interest. First challenge will be getting it home, then fitting the bulkheads and deck supports, running gear, method of interlocking the two halves.

It will be built, with revolving turrets. How to revolve them is ongoing.

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #111 on:** December 28, 2016, 08:18:11 pm »

Quite right Bob, you have summed it up very well. This, and Andy's soon to be started topic should be conducted on a positive basis. Those of us with a bit of computer knowledge know that it CAN be done so it is just a matter of tackling the various issues and getting them to work together. We should be supporting Andy in constructively resolving problems he may encounter along the way rather than diving off into side issues which may not actually be relevant and simple cause confusion.

Colin

derekwarner · « **Reply #112 on:** December 28, 2016, 08:29:38 pm »

Well Bob [and Colin] I too look forward to the development thread on 'any or either' software + hardware configurations that contribute and solve to a point where such systems could be used by near novice builders

I do read every word in every posting .....[unlike others but lets not go there]....and pontificating....

no I have always been a team member working with and toward the planned outcome

Derek

g6swj · « **Reply #113 on:** December 28, 2016, 09:49:16 pm »

One year ago almost to the day I carried out an experiment with a Mayhemer. I did this to learn from their learning experience.

They wanted to rotate a single gun turret on a boat.

I did a deal with them that I would supply the kit (an £8 Arduino Uno and some connectors!) if they made a donation to the RNLI upon successful completion of the project.

I also asked them to give me feedback on the process.

The experiment was a success - I emailed program updates or just description as to what to change and eventually the Mayhemer got to a level where he could see what to change to make the servo speed up, slow down, pause longer at a stopping stage etc etc.

Extract from their feedback "Well ... it now does exactly what I need it to do, and I'm happy adding sequences and varying the variables as required! "

Arduino has been designed to be a "simple and accessible user experience"

Arduino like many other programming environments allows the nitty, gritty to be hidden from the user in a library( often hundreds of lines long of code), all the user has to do is add a reference to the libray and then use the commands exposed to the user.

An example:

Quote

#include <Servo.h>

Servo myservo; // create servo object to control a servo

void setup() {
myservo.attach(9); // attaches the servo on pin 9 to the servo object
}

void loop() {
myservo.write(95); // sets the servo position according to the scaled value
}

With a few lines of extra code myservo.write(95); will make the servo go to 95 degrees - the code in the servo.h library makes it simple for the user - it's a reuseable resource freely published

Regards
Jonathan

dreadnought72 · « **Reply #114 on:** December 28, 2016, 09:54:24 pm »

Colin and Bob have it right.

As I see it, the system breaks down into three stages:

The Arduino is able to read info from a MEMS compass and the PWM signals from a tx. It can drive steppers and power LEDs. It needs to be wired together.
Knowing the hardware is ok, the primary task is to develop the software that runs these items together, to work within the physical constraints of the turret/superstructure layout.
The final bells and whistles, once the above is achieved, is to vary turret start times and turret training speeds to break down rigid robotic movement and create a more realistic sense of human-controlled motion.

Of these three stages, I've done #1 (for HMS Dreadnought, but can easily be adapted for other capital vessels.) Stage #3 is easy.

Stage #2 is the toughy, though I generated code to handle elements of the whole. I'm writing pseudo code now, and don't see anything insurmountable. But it IS a pile of code.

As with all software development, planning and more planning is the key to success (and not spending weeks heading off down deadends).

Andy

Bob K · « **Reply #115 on:** December 28, 2016, 10:26:16 pm »

I for one am extremely grateful to you Andy. There is no way I could even start writing something like this from scratch. However, If I could see a completed and well annotated script I may be able to follow it enough to add my own custom edits - in time. I have some previous experience in BASIC, Fortran, and Assembler.

What could get complicated is adding all the small variables, different for each gun, to avoid the robot synchronisation effect. If I may suggest you write two routines, one each for a forward facing gun, and another for rear facing, otherwise you will be constantly rewriting multitudes of turret routines rather than copy/pasting them
.
When two turrets fully working, only then start editing individual turret variables.
Sorry if this sounds egg sucking grandmas

C-3PO · « **Reply #116 on:** December 28, 2016, 10:29:02 pm »

Basic concept demo being triggered by 3 way switch on TX - whistles and bells to follow

https://youtu.be/3BkUvv7MI8s

Regards
C-3PO

Colin Bishop · « **Reply #117 on:** December 28, 2016, 10:43:50 pm »

The book I have bought and admittedly only scanned so far suggests that the Arduino programs can work in degrees. If so then I think this will greatly simplify programming as much of the work will then be based upon simple addition. subtraction etc. and it may be possible to get away with just the one basic turret module program. Like Bob, I would be interested to see the annotated programs as while I cannot presently write the Arduino syntax, I think I can probably follow the logic of a written program.

Inevitably there will be pinch points which may need some extra thought such as the interface between the programming and the physical construction of the turret rotation mechanism in which case the practical experience of other Mayhemers may prove useful. If the 'standard' rotation mechanism can cope with the maximum likely traverse of a turret, say 270 degrees or so, then the programming can deal with the actual amount of control within that physical constraint depending on where the turret is located on the deck.

Also, publishing the initial program code may offer an opportunity for suggestions for improving or streamlining the code. There is frequently more than one way to skin a cat but often you need to see something written down first in order to identify opportunities for refining the code - certainly that was my experience.

Colin

Mr.R.Duino · « **Reply #118 on:** December 28, 2016, 10:52:17 pm »

Colin,

Quote

Arduino programs can work in degrees

TRUE - Arduino programs can work in degrees or microseconds eg 90 degrees traditionally = 1500ms

Quote

There is frequently more than one way to skin a cat but often you need to see something written down first in order to identify opportunities for refining the code

SO SO TRUE!

Admin edit!

unbuiltnautilus · « **Reply #119 on:** December 28, 2016, 11:28:01 pm »

Quote from: C-3PO on December 28, 2016, 10:29:02 pm

Basic concept demo being triggered by 3 way switch on TX - whistles and bells to follow

https://youtu.be/3BkUvv7MI8s

Regards
C-3PO

Ahh, the beauty, the grace, the randomness of it all, the music ended far, far too soon...
I look forward to bells and whistles

derekwarner · « **Reply #120 on:** December 28, 2016, 11:32:15 pm »

Hey that is beautiful music [for the movement] C-3PO

... and the representation of the turret rotation is brilliant

1. The servo speed appears to be about 90 degrees in 3 seconds......could this slowed to say 4 to 5 seconds per 90 degrees?
2. The servo swept arc appears as approximately 180 degrees total...is this already stretched?, or could the total swept arc be increased marginally?
3. We also see individual start commencement/return of certain servo's....which even by electrical skull doggery is fine

Congratulations...... Derek

RAAArtyGunner · « **Reply #121 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:06:36 am »

Quote from: bluebird on December 28, 2016, 06:15:39 pm

Colin, one of the reasons I asked for a ‘beginners guide’ to this product was that I hoped those who endorse this particular product – i.e. Arduino boards – would come forward with their suggestions in layman’s terms for those who don’t understand and are frightened of electronics so that the majority would be able to follow.

On this topic we may have lost approx. ⅔ of the reading members of this Forum due to them not understanding. I believe we have a duty to cater for those who don’t grasp electronics initially when they first read the article.

Some people may not realise that this particular item can be used for other devices on the model, such as raising/lowering anchors. Operating towing winches/using individual motors. Also switching lights on/off in different sequences.

My opinion is, if the reader can be made aware of all the options open to using this board and how easy it can be – we must remember when we put pen to paper, those who are in the know, must take into account those who don’t. People may be easily put off as I have said in an earlier post.
However, if we can convince them that one of these products can be as easy to wire up as an electric motor with careful guidance from a well written document by one of our members then we are on the way to helping a lot of people into the hobby.

John

Couldn't agree more.

RAAArtyGunner · « **Reply #122 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:30:47 am »

Quote from: Colin Bishop on December 28, 2016, 06:43:22 pm

I do think that is a bit insulting Plastic TBH.

Would you suggest that we all build models which are just planks with Smartie tubes to simulate the guns because the average punter will never notice the difference? Where would you draw the line?

We build scale models because we like to construct models which are as accurate as possible and the Arduino exercise is no more than an extension of that. The satisfaction comes from making the model as realistic as possible including any working features. Plus it is an interesting technical challenge and any decent modeller likes to push themselves to improve their overall modelling standards. If you think it is about impressing people then you have truly got hold of the wrong end of the stick I'm afraid.

Clearly you appear to have lower aspirations but don't mock those who are prepared to put the effort in.

Colin

We are off topic, are we to believe G Guest's models, featured in the magazine "Model Boats", don't rate because they are stand off scale c'mon. Some do not have the ability and skills to create "museum" quality models and some that do choose not too.

Interesting as this topic is, some are getting their knickers in a knot, and overly complicating the issues.(the only person who "owns" the thread is our leader, Martin)

Plastic and Bluebirds comments have merit, there are those on the side who have not contributed so don't be an "bottom" and assume.

It seems to me that there is a lack of continuing/commentary from those who have previously clearly displayed ability in this area.

RAAArtyGunner · « **Reply #123 on:** December 29, 2016, 05:45:49 am »

Quote from: C-3PO on December 28, 2016, 10:29:02 pm

Basic concept demo being triggered by 3 way switch on TX - whistles and bells to follow

https://youtu.be/3BkUvv7MI8s

Regards
C-3PO

That looks good.

Bob K · « **Reply #124 on:** December 29, 2016, 07:44:28 am »

Quote from: C-3PO on December 28, 2016, 10:29:02 pm

Basic concept demo being triggered by 3 way switch on TX - whistles and bells to follow

https://youtu.be/3BkUvv7MI8s

Regards
C-3PO

Now that looks awesome. Kept watching it over and over. Not too far off an Agincourt layout too.
90 degree rotation, both directions, opposite orientations, slow(ish) movement.
Exciting

Now I am getting into this, a question. Would it be possible to have a 'look up table' as an array so that minor variances such as turn speed, start and stop timing values etc? That way the generic program is the same for all turrets, with the user being able fine tune anti-ballet timing differences.

Bob K

News:

Author Topic: T.A.R.G.E.T - Rotating Seven gun turrets? (Read 288820 times)