Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: wafflemiesters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 05:01:08 -0500
>
> Re: Ruthenium Polymers (Spike , Sun 16:41)
>
> And verily, did Shadowrunner hastily scribble thusly...
> |
> |Hey... How do Ruthenium polymers work?
> |
>
> quite simply in principal...
>
> The light is collected at one end of the fibre, and emitted at the other.
> Now, if this fibre is woven into clothing in a special way, light hitting
> one side of a vehicle will be boosted electronically, and then emitted out
> of the other end, making the vehicle almost invisible.

An interesting priciple, but not the one claimed in Shadowtech for
RuPol, which are effectively display devices hookedto cameras. In fact,
they should be able to play recorded images, like the "polycarbon suits"
the decker gang kids in "Nueromancer" had.

Something makes me think NIETHER systmem would work very well. It is
impossible to perfectly re-create the image of the objects background on
that object without taking the viewrs postion into account, and it won't
work from multiple angles at all. If you have an Image mapping 3-d
rendering program (write me if you do, and know how to use it), try
putting an object in front of a background and mapping that background
on the image. Good camoflague, sure. Now look at it from the side.
Who's THAT gonna fool? For example, an airplane thats camo blue on the
bottom and camo brown on top is concealed from below and above, but
pretty clearly visable from the sides...

Mongoose
Message no. 2
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:17:29 EDT
In a message dated 7/27/1998 4:49:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> Something makes me think NIETHER systmem would work very well. It
is
> impossible to perfectly re-create the image of the objects background on
> that object without taking the viewrs postion into account, and it won't
> work from multiple angles at all. If you have an Image mapping 3-d
> rendering program (write me if you do, and know how to use it), try
> putting an object in front of a background and mapping that background
> on the image. Good camoflague, sure. Now look at it from the side.
> Who's THAT gonna fool? For example, an airplane thats camo blue on the
> bottom and camo brown on top is concealed from below and above, but
> pretty clearly visable from the sides...
>
> Mongoose

That was kind of our argument for the topic as well. As for the 3-D rendering
images, I think it's time we consistently recall that the computer science
industry in SR is capable of performing these stunts.

My only problem I keep having with the RP concept as it is for the purposes of
stealth tech is the conveyance of illumination (how bright it is). If it's
just color schema matching, then it isn't going to work without some kind of
internalized light emission.

For instance, on one side of the guy with the suit on, is a person with a
flashlight shinging *past* the guy. Someone on the other side will see the
person on the other side, as well as a massive halo shadow produced by the guy
in the suit. Where the suits image is concerned, the colors are correct, but
NOT the lumination scale.

It's something we continue to work on here...

-K
Message no. 3
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:06:55 -0400
> For instance, on one side of the guy with the suit on, is a person
> with a
> flashlight shinging *past* the guy. Someone on the other side will
> see the
> person on the other side, as well as a massive halo shadow produced by
> the guy
> in the suit. Where the suits image is concerned, the colors are
> correct, but
> NOT the lumination scale.
>
It isn't perfect and I don't recall FASA claiming it
was. It doesn't make you invisible. Still I'd rather hide in a dumpster
with it on than with it off. No camo works worth a damn by itself. It
has to be used with some skill in order to effective.
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 10:52:23 +0100
K is the Symbol said on 15:17/27 Jul 98,...

> That was kind of our argument for the topic as well. As for the 3-D rendering
> images, I think it's time we consistently recall that the computer science
> industry in SR is capable of performing these stunts.

It's not so much the processing power that Mongoose was
concerned about, I think, but more the fact that you can't
camouflage an RP suit/car from all directions. Picture this: you
take a photograph of a tree. Then you enlarge it and place it a few
meters before the tree in such a way that when viewed straight
from the front, you don't see any difference between the photo
and the tree. Now go stand somewhere else so you look at the
photograph under a different angle -- you'll see the image shift
position while the tree doesn't.

> My only problem I keep having with the RP concept as it is for the purposes of
> stealth tech is the conveyance of illumination (how bright it is). If it's
> just color schema matching, then it isn't going to work without some kind of
> internalized light emission.

Since RP don't emit light, only reflect it, this would be a problem,
yes. Plus there's the shadow cast by the person wearing the RP
suit which can't be hidden. So what you need to do when wearing
such a suit is avoid standing in bright light (so as not to cast
shadows), and if at all possible, don't stand in front of a light.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hanging on to letting go.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:53:30 EDT
In a message dated 7/28/1998 3:53:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> It's not so much the processing power that Mongoose was
> concerned about, I think, but more the fact that you can't
> camouflage an RP suit/car from all directions. Picture this: you
> take a photograph of a tree. Then you enlarge it and place it a few
> meters before the tree in such a way that when viewed straight
> from the front, you don't see any difference between the photo
> and the tree. Now go stand somewhere else so you look at the
> photograph under a different angle -- you'll see the image shift
> position while the tree doesn't.
>
I understood that part, but remember, this involves more than one POV camera
as well. As the person viewing the image moves around the "cloaked form", the
positional relationship of the "back image" is also different. That's where
the "3D rendering" comes into full perspective. It is measured in 3D and it's
is compared in 3D as well.

-K
Message no. 6
From: MCP <MCP@********.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:49:11 -0700
> From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM> Tuesday, July 28, 1998 10:53
AM
>
> > In a message dated 7/28/1998 3:53:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> > gurth@******.NL writes:
>
> > Now go stand somewhere else so you look at the
> > photograph under a different angle -- you'll see the image shift
> > position while the tree doesn't.
> >
> I understood that part, but remember, this involves more than one POV
camera
> as well. As the person viewing the image moves around the "cloaked
form", the
> positional relationship of the "back image" is also different. That's
where
> the "3D rendering" comes into full perspective. It is measured in 3D and
it's
> is compared in 3D as well.
>
That's all well and good when there is only one observer, and you know
where that
oberver is at all times. How do you handle the case of two observers
looking at
the same "side" of the RP-covered object, but from significantly different
angles?

MCP
Message no. 7
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:56:44 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 11:49 AM 7/28/98 -0700, you wrote:
>That's all well and good when there is only one observer, and you
know
>where that
>oberver is at all times. How do you handle the case of two observers
>looking at
>the same "side" of the RP-covered object, but from significantly
different
>angles?

The way around this, is to assume that RP can be made to apear as
different shades, depending on viewing angle. This way, the RP can be
colored to look like what's behind it, even when the image "behind" is
actually several images, each viewed from a different angle.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this right, but there is a relatively
low-tech example of this concept available today: lenticular images.
The concept has been around for a while, but recently it's come into
common use on certain videotape and game software packaging. The
general concept is that several images are divided into thin strips
and superimposed on the same surface. A plastic frensel lens is
overlaied on top the surface, and lined up so that the grooved lens
surface only makes one of the several images visible from any one
viewing angle.

Depending on the set of images chosen, the lenticular image will
either 'morph' as the viewing angle changes, or the illusion of depth
can be achieved.

If RP could be programed to display multiple colors, dependent upon
viewing angle, then the "Stealth Suit" application is feasable. In
theory, this is at least possible; there are RL materials today that
exhibit color variation dependent upon viewing angle.

This really makes me wonder though, if the sort of processing power
needed to drive a "stealth suit" would be available from anything man
portable. Once you start throwing in the need to generate colors for
multiple viewing angles for each millimeter of suit surface, the
ammount of calculation skyrockets. Add to that the fact that the image
processor needs to calcuate the exact three dimensional location and
angle of each bit of the suit, I am starting to think a house rule is
in order for these things.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNb6PYaPbvUVI86rNAQEqhAQApSFLClKcYabLvUptz6BhGCMkqZk6QUP0
ETBuE2bvh/XshnjcItZOYW2XSjbC8k5feW7vLLIcspOHJGHECwm55toT+9XQ6XDa
yRqtpjAF2vJK+sO46ph/b5GQmJEW24EewhQ7YKBJI3FxRhdsYbKBrS/7Cba5wJfw
FVC4tMiTz1s=
=RlKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

You dare defy my whims?!?
I am the game master; you are my pawns!
I created the world you see before you!
I control your fate!"
-- Dexter, Dexter's Laboratory.
Message no. 8
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:57:05 EDT
In a message dated 7/28/1998 5:01:41 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
MCP@********.COM writes:

> That's all well and good when there is only one observer, and you know
> where that
> oberver is at all times. How do you handle the case of two observers
> looking at
> the same "side" of the RP-covered object, but from significantly different
> angles?
>
A question on this end then, is the current RP tech reliant upon which
direction the observer(s) are? Probably not, as that is not something that is
readily planned upon by the user of the tech. It is -Full- 360 +/- XYZ axis
coverage IMO.

-K
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:23:57 +0100
K is the Symbol said on 13:53/28 Jul 98,...

> I understood that part, but remember, this involves more than one POV camera
> as well. As the person viewing the image moves around the "cloaked form",
the
> positional relationship of the "back image" is also different. That's
where
> the "3D rendering" comes into full perspective. It is measured in 3D and
it's
> is compared in 3D as well.

No, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make...
What I'm trying to say is that you can't display two different
things at once on an object, so that it can be viewed from two (or
more) directions and be camouflaged from all of them. You can do
this with a computer model, but not with a real object, because
what will happen is that one or the other party will see the
projected image shifted to one side instead of at the proper
location.

If it's a complex shape you're trying to camouflage (like a
vehicle), it gets easier in this respect because there will be
surfaces that are visible from one side but not from the other, but
you still run into the same basic problem of "image shift"
depending on the viewer's position.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hanging on to letting go.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:23:58 +0100
Paul Gettle said on 22:56/28 Jul 98,...

> Depending on the set of images chosen, the lenticular image will
> either 'morph' as the viewing angle changes

I used to have an eraser that pretended to be a computer game,
and had one of those things on it.

> or the illusion of depth can be achieved.

As in the latest Iron Maiden album cover, for those who've seen
that one.

> If RP could be programed to display multiple colors, dependent upon
> viewing angle, then the "Stealth Suit" application is feasable. In
> theory, this is at least possible; there are RL materials today that
> exhibit color variation dependent upon viewing angle.

If that's possible with RP, then IMHO it could be done. From
Shadowtech, though, I get the impression it only displays one
color in any given spot (although you can display different colors
in different spots, of course).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hanging on to letting go.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:59:32 -0400
> No, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make...
> What I'm trying to say is that you can't display two different
> things at once on an object, so that it can be viewed from two (or
> more) directions and be camouflaged from all of them. You can do
> this with a computer model, but not with a real object, because
> what will happen is that one or the other party will see the
> projected image shifted to one side instead of at the proper
> location.
>
> If it's a complex shape you're trying to camouflage (like a
> vehicle), it gets easier in this respect because there will be
> surfaces that are visible from one side but not from the other, but
> you still run into the same basic problem of "image shift"
> depending on the viewer's position.
>
I think everyone here is missing the point. It sounds to
me like you are confusing "camouflage" with " make invisible".
No, RP will not look good from all angles. No, it won't
hide someone in the middle of the street or standing in a field for that
matter. Look, if someone is looking at your hiding spot from multiple
angles, you are probably already screwed. They suspect something and
will be on alert. Any normal security guard would just go poke it with
his rifle barrel.
The idea of camouflage is to be inconspicuous enough
that they do not notice your position in the first place. RP is great
for this. Lay down in the gutter of a dark alley, hide in the bushes, in
the grass. Your suit will roughly match the color and visual texture of
the stuff you are hiding in. Once you decide to stop hiding and make a
run for the building or whatever. It will shift constantly as you run,
breaking up your outline and making it harder to identify where you stop
and where the background starts (the original point of camo). This gets
even more effective at range.
Neither RP nor camo is supposed to make you invisible,
it just makes you harder to shoot.
Message no. 12
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:05:37 +0800
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:23:57 +0100, Gurth wrote:

>
>No, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make...
>What I'm trying to say is that you can't display two different
>things at once on an object, so that it can be viewed from two (or
>more) directions and be camouflaged from all of them. You can do
>this with a computer model, but not with a real object, because
>what will happen is that one or the other party will see the
>projected image shifted to one side instead of at the proper
>location.
>
>If it's a complex shape you're trying to camouflage (like a
>vehicle), it gets easier in this respect because there will be
>surfaces that are visible from one side but not from the other, but
>you still run into the same basic problem of "image shift"
>depending on the viewer's position.

Many GM's require that the person attempting camouflage with RP's be close to a wall or
some such, so that image shift does not become a problem. RP suits enhance your
ability to hide, they do not come even close to duplicating a simple invisibility spell.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.
Message no. 13
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:49:15 EDT
In a message dated 7/29/1998 5:23:48 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> What I'm trying to say is that you can't display two different
> things at once on an object, so that it can be viewed from two (or
> more) directions and be camouflaged from all of them. You can do
> this with a computer model, but not with a real object, because
> what will happen is that one or the other party will see the
> projected image shifted to one side instead of at the proper
> location.
>
> If it's a complex shape you're trying to camouflage (like a
> vehicle), it gets easier in this respect because there will be
> surfaces that are visible from one side but not from the other, but
> you still run into the same basic problem of "image shift"
> depending on the viewer's position.
>
Okay, I am following what you are saying now. A person, due to physical size,
could have a 3D rendering of his environs 360 +/- XYZ surroundings placed upon
him/her, but because of their size (or rather, relative lack thereof) the
image that will be visible to any onlooker is going to have massive blurring
or false representation being presented.

At this point, I have to just simply say "Yep, it ain't perfect" I guess that
a lot of the strange visibility modifiers within the SR rules might effect RP
in adverse manners here. Bright light would be a problem, as would multiple
viewers within the range (if they were communicating together).

-K
Message no. 14
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:15:37 -0400
At 08:59 AM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote:

> I think everyone here is missing the point. It sounds to
>me like you are confusing "camouflage" with " make invisible".

Which is the common thought about camo, reinforced by Hollywood. Always
have those snipers melting out of the jungle.

> The idea of camouflage is to be inconspicuous enough
>that they do not notice your position in the first place. RP is great
>for this. Lay down in the gutter of a dark alley, hide in the bushes, in
>the grass. Your suit will roughly match the color and visual texture of
>the stuff you are hiding in. Once you decide to stop hiding and make a
>run for the building or whatever. It will shift constantly as you run,
>breaking up your outline and making it harder to identify where you stop
>and where the background starts (the original point of camo). This gets
>even more effective at range.

EXACTLY!! Thank you Bryan. Ruthenium, as has been pointed out, really
can't make a person/thing really invisible, even though the game mechanics
may essentially mimic that. RP is nothing more than really high-tech
camoflage which is designed to make you blend into the background and to
blur your outlines while moving; depending on what camo pattern, it will
tend to do one or the other better.

I can't recall the exact URL, but if you go to Warpig (www.warpig.com) and
go to...let's see if I can remember it...either Newbie information or
simply do a search for "Durty Dan" you'll find a great article regarding
camoflage. The whole site, and the article, is based around paintball, but
Durty Dan is a solid author, ex-soldier, and it should be of help to anyone
with an interest in what camo can do.

> Neither RP nor camo is supposed to make you invisible,
>it just makes you harder to shoot.

Yup. Camo actually plays on the way the eye works, or rather how the brain
picks out patterns and shapes via the eye. Almost anything that breaks up
the human shape or that makes it look like the background will not be
caught as human. Good camo (such as a ghillie suit) can often be looked
straight on and not be recognized for what it is. But as has been pointed
out with RP, change perspective and it may not work anymore.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 15
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:53:58 -0400
>No, I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make...
>What I'm trying to say is that you can't display two different
>things at once on an object, so that it can be viewed from two (or
>more) directions and be camouflaged from all of them. You can do
>this with a computer model, but not with a real object, because
>what will happen is that one or the other party will see the
>projected image shifted to one side instead of at the proper
>location.
>


I think the confusion here stems from the " "corrected" image of the
envrionment " part of the description. The original writer may have meant
that it displayed an image but that can't work, if for no other reason
than the background will not be displayed on a flat surface. Imagine
standing in front of the Mona Lisa wearing this, even if it could
reproduce the image the picture would be distorted by the texture in your
suit.

The way this would work is you would get the general color pattern of the
background, not a picture of it. The problem with the Chamelion cloak is
in the rules. There is no limit to how high the perception modifiers can
go. It would seem reasonable that beyond a certain point more image
processers would not add any better color matching. I also think that the
+4 initial bonus is a tad high. It should be more like a +2 base with an
incerase of +1 for each extra processer to a maximum of +6.

On a related note does anybody know of any rules for using standard camo
clothing. I think adding +2 to the target numbers for perception tests
works if the camo pattern is terrain appropriate, +1 if it is not (forest
camo in an urban envrionment) and -1 to -2 if it is particuraly in
appropriate (wearing black in an artic envriomnent).

Steve
Message no. 16
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:01:36 -0400
At 12:53 PM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote:

>On a related note does anybody know of any rules for using standard camo
>clothing. I think adding +2 to the target numbers for perception tests
>works if the camo pattern is terrain appropriate, +1 if it is not (forest
>camo in an urban envrionment) and -1 to -2 if it is particuraly in
>appropriate (wearing black in an artic envriomnent).

I think FoF has cammie rules.

On a related note, since I'm such a nice guy, I went and found two URLs at
Warpig that talk about camouflage and it's proper use, which should be of
some use in this particular discussion. They are:

www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/camouflage/camo.html

and

www.warpig.com/durtydan/ddan.camo.faq.shtml

Both are relatively brief, but full of usefull info.

BTW, if you are curious about paintball at all, Warpig is generally
considered to be THE source on the Internet for info, for Newbies all the
way up to Tourney players. If you want to, go check it out.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 17
From: Mike Chartier <mefron@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:13:11 -0400
>On a related note does anybody know of any rules for using standard camo
>clothing. I think adding +2 to the target numbers for perception tests
>works if the camo pattern is terrain appropriate, +1 if it is not (forest
>camo in an urban envrionment) and -1 to -2 if it is particuraly in
>appropriate (wearing black in an artic envriomnent).
>
>Steve

According to "Fields of Fire" (pg 77) appropriate camo gives a +4 modifier
and inappropriate camo gives a -2 modifier. I personally think this is way
too high because, according to the rules, 6 is human maximum. The average
person (Int: 3) should be able to notice someone wearing camo wearing (in
the appropriate environment, just standing threre, TN: 8) more often than
the 36% they're getting now.

I figure a +2 modifier in appropriate environment is adequate. This gives
the average person a 42% chance to notice the same person in the above
example.

Now if you're wearing camo and hiding ("Action not obvious"; SRII, pg 185;
TN: 10) the average person notices you 22% of the time.

This is all contingent upon the viewer looking for the person hiding. If
they aren't looking raise all TNs by 2 ("Perciever is distracted") if a
roll is even allowed.

-Mike
Message no. 18
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:26:41 -0400
> According to "Fields of Fire" (pg 77) appropriate camo gives a +4
> modifier
> and inappropriate camo gives a -2 modifier. I personally think this is
> way
> too high because, according to the rules, 6 is human maximum. The
> average
> person (Int: 3) should be able to notice someone wearing camo wearing
> (in
> the appropriate environment, just standing threre, TN: 8) more often
> than
> the 36% they're getting now.
>
> I figure a +2 modifier in appropriate environment is adequate. This
> gives
> the average person a 42% chance to notice the same person in the above
> example.
>
Read the pages Erik just posted. Movement is one of the
key reasons people are seen. "Just standing there" SHOULD give you a big
modifier.
Everything is open to GM modification. Changing the rules
because you can think of a few reasons why it won't work in a specific
scenario is ridiculous.
Message no. 19
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:32:55 +0100
bryan.covington@****.COM said on 8:59/29 Jul 98,...

> I think everyone here is missing the point. It sounds to
> me like you are confusing "camouflage" with " make invisible".

The problem is the common misconception that RP will make you
invisible, which I'm trying to disprove.

> No, RP will not look good from all angles. No, it won't
> hide someone in the middle of the street or standing in a field for that
> matter. Look, if someone is looking at your hiding spot from multiple
> angles, you are probably already screwed. They suspect something and
> will be on alert. Any normal security guard would just go poke it with
> his rifle barrel.

If close enough, yes, but then he's also close enough for you to
take him out quietly. From a distance, I can very well imagine
multiple guards looking into the same area from different angles
even if they don't suspect something is wrong.

> The idea of camouflage is to be inconspicuous enough
> that they do not notice your position in the first place. RP is great
> for this. Lay down in the gutter of a dark alley, hide in the bushes, in
> the grass. Your suit will roughly match the color and visual texture of
> the stuff you are hiding in. Once you decide to stop hiding and make a
> run for the building or whatever. It will shift constantly as you run,
> breaking up your outline and making it harder to identify where you stop
> and where the background starts (the original point of camo). This gets
> even more effective at range.

The trouble with that, though, is that the pattern is shifted from
where it should be, and IMHO that could give you away just as
easily as it can break up your outline and hide you.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hanging on to letting go.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 20
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 20:32:54 +0100
K is the Symbol said on 11:49/29 Jul 98,...

> Okay, I am following what you are saying now. A person, due to physical size,
> could have a 3D rendering of his environs 360 +/- XYZ surroundings placed upon
> him/her, but because of their size (or rather, relative lack thereof) the
> image that will be visible to any onlooker is going to have massive blurring
> or false representation being presented.

That's about what I was trying to say, yes. The problem is that
this is very easy to show if you are holding an object in your
hands, but very hard to explain in only text.

> At this point, I have to just simply say "Yep, it ain't perfect" I guess
that
> a lot of the strange visibility modifiers within the SR rules might effect RP
> in adverse manners here. Bright light would be a problem, as would multiple
> viewers within the range (if they were communicating together).

Not necessarily communication -- it's very likely one or more of
the multiplie viewers are seeing images that don't appear to be
"right" -- like seeing a brick wall with an outcrop, or a sky blue
patch on a tree. If they're communicating, though, it should be
easier to notice the camouflaged object or person.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hanging on to letting go.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:44:42 -0400
> > I think everyone here is missing the point. It
> sounds to
> > me like you are confusing "camouflage" with " make
invisible".
>
> The problem is the common misconception that RP will make you
> invisible, which I'm trying to disprove.
>
Agreed.

> > No, RP will not look good from all angles. No, it
> won't
> > hide someone in the middle of the street or standing in a field for
> that
> > matter. Look, if someone is looking at your hiding spot from
> multiple
> > angles, you are probably already screwed. They suspect something and
> > will be on alert. Any normal security guard would just go poke it
> with
> > his rifle barrel.
>
> If close enough, yes, but then he's also close enough for you to
> take him out quietly. From a distance, I can very well imagine
> multiple guards looking into the same area from different angles
> even if they don't suspect something is wrong.
>
At any range over 5m or so it won't matter as almost any
appropriate camo won't look out of place. Even if they all see it
differently it won't matter unless the are staring at the same point as
they walk. If they are doing that, run or start shooting cause you're
busted.

> > The idea of camouflage is to be inconspicuous enough
> > that they do not notice your position in the first place. RP is
> great
> > for this. Lay down in the gutter of a dark alley, hide in the
> bushes, in
> > the grass. Your suit will roughly match the color and visual texture
> of
> > the stuff you are hiding in. Once you decide to stop hiding and make
> a
> > run for the building or whatever. It will shift constantly as you
> run,
> > breaking up your outline and making it harder to identify where you
> stop
> > and where the background starts (the original point of camo). This
> gets
> > even more effective at range.
>
> The trouble with that, though, is that the pattern is shifted from
> where it should be, and IMHO that could give you away just as
> easily as it can break up your outline and hide you.
>
When I said run, I meant RUN. You aren't sneaking any
more. Any odd shifts in the light or the pattern of your suit would make
it harder to follow. Even if you were wearing motley (ala harlequins 40k
anyone?) and it moved you would be better off as the eye has a tendency
to follow movement and the viewer would try to follow the pattern and
your movement at the same time. Not worth massive bonuses but maybe a
+1/+2. You are harder to get a visual "lock" on.
Message no. 22
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:44:54 +0800
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:53:58 -0400, Steve Collins wrote:

>I think the confusion here stems from the " "corrected" image of the
>envrionment " part of the description. The original writer may have meant
> that it displayed an image but that can't work, if for no other reason
>than the background will not be displayed on a flat surface. Imagine
>standing in front of the Mona Lisa wearing this, even if it could
>reproduce the image the picture would be distorted by the texture in your
>suit.

Excepting that it is assumed that the image processors know the position and 'wrinkles'
in each piece of material in the suit, and adjust the image as appropriate. It will not be
perfect, but fairly close, and the higher the level (more power to the image processor(s))
the better it will be. Again only designed to camouflage from a limited number of angles.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about not Ruthenium Polymers, and they DON'T work, 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.

Thwap!