Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gorbi gbmaill@***.de
Subject: 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:27:39 +0200
Trinity wrote:

>> > Of course it can be done. Wanna get really scary? Replace its eyes
>> > with a 360 degree globe with visual capabilities so that it can see
>> > all around itself.
<snip>
> Another thing. How would the brain react? Would it actually see? IIRC
> (from Biology class), vision works by sending two impulses to the brain,
> which it can decode into a three-dimensional view of what is actually seen.
> Depth perception and all that shit. Now, a complete 360 degree view would
> be pretty two-dimensional, unless two orbs were used. And even then, I
> think the brain is not wired to see much more than the 90 or so degrees we
> are used to seeing (120 with peripheral vision). How would it react to 360
> degrees of info?

Since no one goes crazy when he sees a 360 deg. panorama photo I think the
brain would adapt. But that rises another question: HOW would it adapt? I
think it would interpret all the things it sees to be in front of it.
Imagine: A crowded place, you see the assassin (sp?) to the left, he raises
his knive, you shoot him -- and hit the innocent granny that was in front of
you. But the granny is the last thing you see because the assassin kills you
anyway from behind.
HEHEHE.

Gorbi
Message no. 2
From: Carsten Gehling alvion@****.uni2.dk
Subject: 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:55:05 +0100
> Since no one goes crazy when he sees a 360 deg. panorama photo I think the
> brain would adapt. But that rises another question: HOW would it adapt? I
> think it would interpret all the things it sees to be in front of it.
> Imagine: A crowded place, you see the assassin (sp?) to the left, he
raises
> his knive, you shoot him -- and hit the innocent granny that was in front
of
> you. But the granny is the last thing you see because the assassin kills
you
> anyway from behind.

Oh but no: When your Brain instructs the Arm to point the gun in the
direction of the assassin (as the Brain sees him), your SMARTLINK translates
this information into the right position according to the translated
picture... So that your gun will point backwards.

- Carsten

E-mail work: carsten@**********.dk
E-mail private: carsten@*******.dk

()xxxxxxxx(============================================>
"At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi.
At last we will have revenge."

GC 3.1: GCS d- s+: a- C+++$>++++ UL+ P+>++ L+ E-- W+++$ N+ K- w+++$ O- M--
V- PGP- t++@ 5+@ X++ R++ tv+(+++) b+(++) DI++ D++ G e++ h--() r+++ y+++
Message no. 3
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:35:45 -0400
Gorbi <gbmaill@***.de> once wrote,

> Since no one goes crazy when he sees a 360 deg. panorama photo I think the
> brain would adapt. But that rises another question: HOW would it adapt? I
> think it would interpret all the things it sees to be in front of it.
> Imagine: A crowded place, you see the assassin (sp?) to the left, he
raises
> his knive, you shoot him -- and hit the innocent granny that was in front
of
> you. But the granny is the last thing you see because the assassin kills
you
> anyway from behind.
> HEHEHE.

That's not a really good example, man. A 360 Panorama photo, a screening
at the latest Imax/Omnimax theater, or a run at a Disney ride, they MIGHT be
built on 360 screens, but WE see them 90 degrees at a time. You don't get
360 degrees of info all in one shot.

I think you could one day see 360 degrees of info. In fact....

I think you could wire it to trick the brain into thinking you're seeing 360
degrees of info. Check this out:

A permanent display link would overide your normal vision. Instead, you
would be presented with something new. A 360 degree camera, mounted
somewhere on your body (Probably a little over your own head), would take in
the information, and a processor would transform the input into a shape that
would enable you to see every part of the input at one time.

Imagine the info being caught as something of a cone, with you sitting
inside it, in the middle, right in the center. Now imagine taking a
snapshot of that (with the 360 camera), and digitally manipulate it so that
you would end up with the equivalent of cutting up one side of that cone,
spreading it out nicely, and then superimposing that on your vision. The
image would be distorted, and depth perception would be out the window, but
hey, you can't get everything.

I know, it might be weird at first. You might never adapt. And I don't
think we have the optics right now to catch 360 degrees of something. Maybe
you would need 3-4-5 cameras to each catch a slice of your view, and make a
composite image on-the-fly with a wicked processor, to give you an
artificial 3-d view. Would it work? I think so, in SR's world. Would it
be worth it? I'm not so sure.

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus

Trinity- on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 4
From: Ryan W. Bolduan emeottrw@***.umn.edu
Subject: 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:20:50 -0500 (CDT)
I used this whole 360 degree thing a year ago for exactly the same reason
that everybody is complaining about how it works.

I had a team of munchkins, munchkins to the core that cared about nothing
but killing and having the best equipment. Well one day, after getting
tired of the physical adept complaining that is 8 (2D6) wasn't fast
enough, and the troll using his 20M bow to take down enemies, I fought
back.

I gave them EXACTLY what they wanted, more gear. Unfortunately for them,
I gave them gear that wasn't quite what they expected.

One got the 360 degree modification. It was fun actually because it
forced him to roleplay. I had him go through an entire phase of
aclimation to the system where he basically was blind. He decided after a
time that he didn't like the bomber cap that the device was attached to
and mounted into his optical nerves through. Amazingly, it forced him to
roleplay through his ailments and dislike of the entire system.

Too bad I wasn't nearly as nice to the physad. The chemical treatments
that gave her a permanent +2 to reaction but lowered all her mental
attribues by 1 (as well as their maximum) and gave her a drooling problem
didn't please her off too much.

The Troll actually quit the game because of the cyberarm with no strength
modifications he was given. Nevermind the cool wizzer survailence and
swiss army hand he was given.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Bolduan emeottrw@***.mrs.umn.edu
http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~emeottrw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: Walter Scheper Ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:13:17 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:35:45 -0400, "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)"
<fpelletier@******.usherb.ca> wrote:

[snip granny killing]
>
>That's not a really good example, man. A 360 Panorama photo, a screening
>at the latest Imax/Omnimax theater, or a run at a Disney ride, they MIGHT be
>built on 360 screens, but WE see them 90 degrees at a time. You don't get
>360 degrees of info all in one shot.
>
>I think you could one day see 360 degrees of info. In fact....
>
>I think you could wire it to trick the brain into thinking you're seeing 360
>degrees of info. Check this out:
>
>A permanent display link would overide your normal vision. Instead, you
>would be presented with something new. A 360 degree camera, mounted
>somewhere on your body (Probably a little over your own head), would take in
>the information, and a processor would transform the input into a shape that
>would enable you to see every part of the input at one time.
>
>Imagine the info being caught as something of a cone, with you sitting
>inside it, in the middle, right in the center. Now imagine taking a
>snapshot of that (with the 360 camera), and digitally manipulate it so that
>you would end up with the equivalent of cutting up one side of that cone,
>spreading it out nicely, and then superimposing that on your vision. The
>image would be distorted, and depth perception would be out the window, but
>hey, you can't get everything.
>
One way of viewing 360 degrees is mentioned in the Battletech novels:
compress it down to 160 degrees. Of course in the case of translating
it into something the brain can see, compress it down to the field of
view of the normal eye (i think someone said 90 degrees or 120
w/peripheral vision). Then you just need to go through some serious
physical rehabilitation so that you can know where things are now,
since 2/3's of your vision isn't what's directly in front of you,
anymore.
>
>Trinity
>---------------------------------------------
>Frank Pelletier
>fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
>"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus
>
>Trinity- on the Undernet and EFNet
>
>
>
>
>

Ratlaw
Message no. 6
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 08:59:42 +0200
Walter Scheper wrote:
>
> >
> One way of viewing 360 degrees is mentioned in the Battletech novels:
> compress it down to 160 degrees. Of course in the case of translating
> it into something the brain can see, compress it down to the field of
> view of the normal eye (i think someone said 90 degrees or 120
> w/peripheral vision).

Peripheral vision is much wider than that - it's closer to 180 degrees
in the horizontal plane and (don't quote me) about 120 degrees in the
vertical. Of course, you only have stereo vision in the small chunk
where both eyes overlap...
>
> Ratlaw


--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

QVANTI CANICVLA ILLA IN FENESTRA

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about 360 degree vision (WAS: Munchkin overkill), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.