Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 23:53:33 +0000
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 14:53:39 -0600
Reply-To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Wyrmy <elfman@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> What did this mean, realy? :)
> You don`t the char, so how can you judge? :)

You would turn me into a flaming pile of ashes,And I figured the char
was like the listmenber.Completely thwap-happy :=<>
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 14:57:48 -0600
Reply-To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: Wyrmy <elfman@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Halley's Comet (OT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

AirWisp wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-01-04 07:53:25 EST, you write:
>
> > >I agree especially with Barbie as its controller......
Message no. 2
From: Andy Gardner <A.Gardner@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 23:06:47 +0000
Any other views, or references I've missed ?

Fox on the Net
ICQ UIN - 5239612
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 22:42:04 +0000
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <trrkt@*****.onet.pl>
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Sniper rifles
In-Reply-To: <34AFF07C.83FAB705@****.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

On 4 Jan 98, s c rose disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> Paul J. Adam wrote:

<snip>

> > Depends how you define "sniping"...
>
> Sniping is about stealth and bust fire is not something that can be
> done with great stealth. Between muzzle flash and sound even with a
> 2 to 6 secound delay from the bullet to the sound reaching the taget
> you are dealing with something which would give away your position.

Uhhh... Sorry, but could you please explain to us, poor souls, how
did you come up with the Sole and Ultimate Definition of Sniping?

You know, according to my Unabridged Miriam-Webster's, sniping is
defined as:
Snipe (v): (...) 2a: to shoot or at exposed individuals of an enemy's
forces, especially when not in action from a usually concealed and
removed point of vantage (..._
Sniper (n): 1
Message no. 3
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 16:21:10 -0700
<Tues. 12:01GMT>
Drek! Something's going down. A black sphere just popped out of
nowhere, covering the bag. I key my
comm-link, "Trixxy scrag that spirit it's mojo'n the bag!"
Static on the receiver. "Deezer, this is Joe. Trixx is busy, she
says it's not the spirit, reports three hostiles approaching from the
south-west, range 100m."
Quickly, I bring my night scope to bear in the direction Joe-Phantom
has reported. Nothing there, I kick it over
to thermographic. Still nothing. "Joe, their invisible. No traces on
the scope. Watch your hoop and don't let'em get Trix!"
Twisting back around, the sphere is fading. OH Frag! Oh frag! Oh
frag. The boss is going to kill me but good. The bag's gone, and no
sign of the thief. "We're fragged folks, anybody see which way the bag
went?"
Joe "Nope, nada over here, and we need a medic for Trixxy. She's
out cold and got a bad case of the shakes."
Celeste cuts in from the
Message no. 4
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 16:34:38 -0800
A mage enchanting an item is using the equivalent of a magical B/R
skill. The enchanting mage does NOT spend any karma creating a focus,
only the eventual recipient does in the process of bonding it. The KP
used represents the mages EXPERIENCE, and his ability to enchant things
more quickly or more powerfully than less experienced mages. So how
does the karma get sucked into the focus? And why doesn't it get
sucked into a Panzer engine or cyberdeck as well?

My mage knows Invisibility at a low force level. But he knows that if
he really concentrates on it (using all his Magic Pool for successes,
and rerolling failures once using KP), he can cast it very well (6 or
more successes). And he ALWAYS casts it that way. Why is it that he
can't do that when he wants to lock it, without (almost) permanently
losing part of his KP?

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-
Message no. 5
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:32:19 EST
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: Cyberware
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.3.96.980103174656.-69719C-100000@*******>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> Pretty damn interesting book if you ask me. I'm glad I didn't get
>it when I first started playing because the urge to create a munchkinish
>player would have been too great. Anyways I wondering if anyone had used
>any of the unique pieces of cyberware listed in there in any creative
>ways. Does anyone out there have an eye laser? cybertorso? cyberskull?
>has undergone cybermancy?

One of my players suffered cybermancy. He was used to test the impact of
cyberware into a human. To create the link, they used the life of his
girlfriend (without him knowing it...). Recently, he just develloped cancer
and so will only live for some months. The prejudice is biggest by the fact
he is an elf which trusts in reincarnation. What was done on him prevents
him from reincarnation, bringing him to total destruction.

During his runs (well... At that time, that was no more standard runs), he
often nearly died from astral
Message no. 6
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:40:30 -0600
At 10:37 AM 1/5/98 -0500, Lehlan Decker wrote these timeless words:
>On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 02:34:31AM -0500, Steven A. Tinner wrote:
>> <SNIP Matrix as Mind storage facility.
>>
>> >So, you could just turn Bull loose on the Matrix itself. I guess the only
>> >problem would be getting him back.
>>
>> That would be a problem.
>> Just out of curiosity, have you read Orson Scott Card
Message no. 7
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 18:56:37 +0000
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all of its students.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:22:16 -0600
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Crash of '29
In-Reply-To: <199801031214.MAA13858@******.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Andy Gardner wrote:

> All of the other notes on this subject assume on big thing.
> Once you've had your data wiped and your hardware burned you just buy
> some replacement hardware parts and recover the back-ups.
> Even assuming that your backups
Message no. 8
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:07:31 EST
losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NRfmSLusOH1Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:40:30 -0600
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980104162110.007c9b70@****.lis.ab.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Adam J wrote:

> >Is it possible to drive a VCR-only vehicle (no manual control) using
> >only a datajack? I have always assumed it's not possible, but since
> >Adam J thought this could be done... well... I'm not sure anymore.
> <grin> Bring my name into it, why don't ya!

laff

> It may have been in a piece of fiction, but I swear I remember someone
> jacking in to drive, without a VCR.

IIRC it was Sam Verner in the first of the secret of power trilogy. He
had to take over
Message no. 9
From: "Leszek Karlik, aka Mike" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:15:49 +0000
Oh, and you're also forgetting the motto of the US military procurement
system: Not Invented Here. :)

-- Jon
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:07:31 EST
Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 98-01-04 17:53:31 EST, Leszek Karlik, aka Mike writes:

> Is it possible to drive a VCR-only vehicle (no manual control) using
> only a datajack? I have always assumed it's not possible, but since
> Adam J thought this could be done... well... I'm not sure anymore.
>
> (The other way it has to be possible, though, since datajack-driven
> vehicle can be driven using just the datajack, with VCR cyberware
> "off"...)
>

A character with a datajack but no VCR can ALWAYS drive a rigged vehicle via
datajack. However, the only bonus (s)he receives is the -1 bonus for vehicle
tests (see Driving Test Mod
Message no. 10
From: Steve Blazicevich <kyslin@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 21:15:32 -0600
Well, one major thing ya gotta take into account is how the Otaku player
thinks of the matrix. In the case of taking over cyberware, you have to
remember the bond between the character and the matrix, and all that
stuff the with the Deep Resonance. I would just say it doesn't work, as
the cyberware isn't really reated to the matrix, it's tech, but the
Otaku usually don't think of the matrix as tech. Most think of it as a
living being....

--
Disclaimer: My mind is so fragmented by random excursions into a
wilderness of abstractions and incipient ideas that the
practical purposes of the moment are often submerged in my consciousness
and I don't know what I'm doing.
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 16:45:38 -0600
Message no. 11
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:01:21 -0600
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, The Bookworm wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Adam J wrote:
>
> > >Is it possible to drive a VCR-only vehicle (no manual control) using
> > >only a datajack? I have always assumed it's not possible, but since
> > >Adam J thought this could be done... well... I'm not sure anymore.
> > <grin> Bring my name into it, why don't ya!
>
> laff
>
> > It may have been in a piece of fiction, but I swear I remember someone
> > jacking in to drive, without a VCR.
>
> IIRC it was Sam Verner in the first of the secret of power trilogy. He
> had to take over a rigged helocopter or tiltrover for a short flight. I
> think he only had partial controll of the vehicle, probaly just talking to
> the autopilot. Dang it you all are going to make me go find the box i
> pack that away in arnt you:)

Yes it was Sir Twist that verily pioleted the Tilt wing craft
after it's hijack from the Renraku complex. And Yes he was only able to
achieve a limited controle over the craft my accessing the Auto Pilot. I
think there was even a problem where he couldn't, or was haveing problems,
over-rideing the safty protocals for speed and such... That was in the
First book of the trilogy- Never Deal With a Dragon.

-Czar


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:03:33 -0600
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Leszek Karlik, aka Mike wrote:
> <snip>
> > > It may have been in a piece of fiction, but I swear I remember someone
> > > jacking in to drive, without a VCR.
> >
> > IIRC it was Sam Verner in the first of the secret of power trilogy.
> > He had to take over a rigged helocopter or tiltrover for a short
> > flight. I think he only had partial controll of the vehicle,
> > probaly just talking to the autopilot. Dang it you all are going to
> > make me go find the box i pack that away in arnt you:)
>
> Yep, he sure did. But that's the point - he only told autopilot what
> to do... And they may be some more actively hostile autopilots out
> there... <BZZZZZZT!> ("Hmmm... Crispy car thief...")... ;P
>
> So I have thought about making a special interface for driving
> VCR-only vehicle with a datajack...

Just make a striped down deck running a rigger emulater program like the
one from the Corp Security book.

Czar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:02:37 PST
>> > >Is it possible to drive a VCR-only vehicle (no manual control)
using only a datajack? I have always assumed it's not possible, but
since Adam J thought this could be done... well... I'm not sure anymore.
>> > >

There is not really such a thing as a "VCR only" vehicle- all
vehicles with rigger adaptation MUST have a datajack port or remote
control. Since a character with only a data jack can control either of
the later systems (the remote will still requre a deck), he can of
course control a vehicle with rigger adaptation by simply not using
rigger / VCR protocols. If they were active, it might take some fidling
to turn them off, kinda like switching from PPP to a terminal.
Such a capability is not likely to be eliminated: it is useful for
diagnostics and as a safety backup in case the Rigger Adaptation craps
out.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 14
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:16:59 EST
In a message dated 98-01-14 14:05:17 EST, landsquid@*******.COM writes:

> >> > >Is it possible to drive a VCR-only vehicle (no manual control)
> using only a datajack? I have always assumed it's not possible, but
> since Adam J thought this could be done... well... I'm not sure anymore.
> >> > >

It's okay to sure, and yes it is possible to drive a vehicle modified for VCR
with only a Datajack, you just just don't get all the nifty benefits of the
VCR.

> There is not really such a thing as a "VCR only" vehicle- all
> vehicles with rigger adaptation MUST have a datajack port or remote
> control.

Ya know, Squid, I figured it out, the "MUST" is what is wrong. A Vehicle
-could- be designed with a rigger adaptation only, no passenger could utilize
the rig however. The Datajack Port modification is for interfacing for the
passenger. Drones and RCI-only vehicles could be designed without datajack
ports. It would even help explain how drones are able to do so on so little
CF space.

> Since a character with only a data jack can control either of
> the later systems (the remote will still requre a deck), he can of
> course control a vehicle with rigger adaptation by simply not using
> rigger / VCR protocols. If they were active, it might take some fidling
> to turn them off, kinda like switching from PPP to a terminal.

Good comparison here...and the usage of Rigger Protocols opened up a question
on my end. If a Datajack is able to control such a vehicle, but a Rigger-Jack
(Datajack for rigs) is located differently in the lobal structure of the user,
can a "standard" Datajack truly be used in such a way as to gain the "+1 to
Reaction" that such a user gains?

> Such a capability is not likely to be eliminated: it is useful for
> diagnostics and as a safety backup in case the Rigger Adaptation craps
> out.

It's useful for Diagnostics, but by no means necessary...
-K
Message no. 15
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:26:58 EST
In a message dated 98-01-14 14:18:31 EST, you write:

> A Vehicle
> -could- be designed with a rigger adaptation only, no passenger could
> utilize
> the rig however. The Datajack Port modification is for interfacing for the
> passenger. Drones and RCI-only vehicles could be designed without datajack
> ports. It would even help explain how drones are able to do so on so
little
> CF space.

Umm, could you explain that again? I don't think I quite followed what you
were saying.

The rigger adaptation modification is simply the "black box" that translates
electronic/mechanic signals into neural stimuli, and vice versa. To work
effectively, it needs an interface to communicate with the rigger, either a
physical port (the datajack port) or a remote linkup (remote control
interface). It's possible for a (rigged) vehicle to have BOTH, but not one
that has *neither*. Without either interface, the black box is just dead
weight and doesn't contribute to the overall performance of the vehicle.

It's also theoretically possible to design a drone WITHOUT rigger adaptation
--- what that would mean that the drone could only be commanded by the remote
control deck, but a rigger could not directly control, or "jump into," the
drone. It would still need the remote control interface to talk to the RC
deck, however.

> If a Datajack is able to control such a vehicle, but a Rigger-Jack
> (Datajack for rigs) is located differently in the lobal structure of the
> user,
> can a "standard" Datajack truly be used in such a way as to gain the
"+1 to
> Reaction" that such a user gains?

As I understand it, a datajack is simply a direct neural interface connecting
the brain to an electronic device. From the user's end, it really doesn't
matter where on the body it is placed, so long as it connects to the brain
(see the fingertip-datajack from Cybertechnology).

When I mentioned in Rigger 2 that riggers have their jacks installed below
their ears, what I meant to say is that it's simply more convenient for the
cyberdocs when they go to put in the VCR implant (less neurofilament used, not
as much cutting up, and so on). The follow-on comment about needing a second
datajack for decking is (supposed to be) in reference to a previous section
talking about the negative effects of the VCR implant on decking. A rigger
could have his datajack installed in his [CENSORED] and it still wouldn't
affect his performance as a rigger.

The bonus for using a datajack to drive a vehicle is that the user's intent
goes straight from brain to vehicle, instead of brain to spinal cord, spinal
cord to arm, arm to steering wheel, steering wheel to vehicle, and so on.

-- Jon
Message no. 16
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:01:42 EST
In a message dated 98-01-14 18:30:20 EST, JonSzeto@***.COM writes:

> Umm, could you explain that again? I don't think I quite followed what you
> were saying.

I think you actually got it, or at least you detailed understanding further
along here...

> The rigger adaptation modification is simply the "black box" that
translates
> electronic/mechanic signals into neural stimuli, and vice versa. To work
> effectively, it needs an interface to communicate with the rigger, either a
> physical port (the datajack port) or a remote linkup (remote control
> interface). It's possible for a (rigged) vehicle to have BOTH, but not one
> that has *neither*. Without either interface, the black box is just dead
> weight and doesn't contribute to the overall performance of the vehicle.

I wasn't talking about one that has neither, I apologize if I got everybody
confused. What I was saying is it is possible to have a Rigger Adaptation
-without- the Datajack Interface. I also mentioned that such a difference
would be like for drones and those vehicles that are RCI only. (Remote Control
Interface)

> It's also theoretically possible to design a drone WITHOUT rigger
adaptation
> --- what that would mean that the drone could only be commanded by the
> remote
> control deck, but a rigger could not directly control, or "jump into," the
> drone. It would still need the remote control interface to talk to the RC
> deck, however.

Yep, you understood it.

> > If a Datajack is able to control such a vehicle, but a Rigger-Jack
> > (Datajack for rigs) is located differently in the lobal structure of the
> > user,
> > can a "standard" Datajack truly be used in such a way as to gain the
"+1
> to
> > Reaction" that such a user gains?
>
> As I understand it, a datajack is simply a direct neural interface
> connecting
> the brain to an electronic device. From the user's end, it really doesn't
> matter where on the body it is placed, so long as it connects to the brain
> (see the fingertip-datajack from Cybertechnology).

More or less true, however, what I was referring to was the point of
connectivity. What I meant was more in the relationships and/or comparisons
between Wired Reflexes and VCR's I guess. A datajack for a rigger is
connected to the motor cortex, in your own edited books words. A datajack for
a decker (or a generic datajack) is connected to the visual and/or Parietal
Cortex (IIRC). I am meaning to say it's connected to the frontal lobe region,
where understands and comprehensions are actually made. There is no doubt a
connection to the visual cortex in some fashion, though exactly what, we are
left to the science-fiction writers or truly frightening medical researchers
to detail.

I guess, now that I think about it, the VCR is connected to one end of the
neural column/cluster and other stuff is connected elsewhere...

> When I mentioned in Rigger 2 that riggers have their jacks installed below
> their ears, what I meant to say is that it's simply more convenient for the
> cyberdocs when they go to put in the VCR implant (less neurofilament used,
> not
> as much cutting up, and so on). The follow-on comment about needing a
second
> datajack for decking is (supposed to be) in reference to a previous section
> talking about the negative effects of the VCR implant on decking. A rigger
> could have his datajack installed in his [CENSORED] and it still wouldn't
> affect his performance as a rigger.

Ya know, I knew this biker guy once....

> The bonus for using a datajack to drive a vehicle is that the user's intent
> goes straight from brain to vehicle, instead of brain to spinal cord,
spinal
> cord to arm, arm to steering wheel, steering wheel to vehicle, and so on.
> -- Jon

All of the sudden, I begin to understand something I had previously hoped was
incorrect...but oh well...
-K
Message no. 17
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Datajacks and VCR
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:47:20 PST
>> There is not really such a thing as a "VCR only" vehicle- all
>> vehicles with rigger adaptation MUST have a datajack port or >>
remote control.
>
>Ya know, Squid, I figured it out, the "MUST" is what is wrong.

Well, its a direct paraphrase from R2 (p.126), and Jhon already handled
that part, so 'nuff said.

<SNIP>
>Drones and RCI-only vehicles could be designed without datajack
>ports.

How does that make my statement wrong? Both are examples of vehicles
WITH remote control, which is one of the ways to acces the RA. Indeed,
drones by definition usually DON'T have datajack ports, and drone
chassis are assumed to come with RCI and RA, but not 'jack ports.

As MR. Szeto so adeptly pointed out, yes, you could put RA in a vehicle
with neither a datajack port nor RCI, but it wouldn't be be hooked up to
anything- you might as well carry the RA parts in a box in the glove
compartment for all the good it does. RA is the interface between those
2 control systems and the VCR. No VCR, no need for RA. The Datajack
port or RCI will still function, though.

IMHO, the ability to control vehicles without using RA would remain
functional in drones and such. Otherwise, the drone would not be able
to recieve and execute directions from a rigger who did not "jump into"
the drone.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Datajacks and VCR, 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.