Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:42:24 -0500
At 11:43 PM 12/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
><SNIP>

>If you're a
>rigger pushing the gas petal flat against the floor in the same vehicle
>does not make you go faster than if you are not a rigger.

>D. Ghost

Not necessarily, and I'll tell you why. (Yeah, like I wouldn't've... ;) )
AFAIK, every car manufactured today uses a microcomputer to regulate the
engine. In most stock engines, the programming encoded in the
microprocessor is fairly conservative; it doesn't use the engine to it's
limits. In fact, there actually exist today organizations (mostly
hot-rodders and speed-freaks) from whom you can buy "souped up" chips with
programming designed to optimize engine performance.

In 2060 then, it's not hard to imagine that part of the rigger interface's
function would be to override the engine's onboard computer and allow the
rigger to take direct control of the engine functions, tweaking them to
levels that the manual controls just don't allow.

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 2
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:31:23 -0600
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:42:24 -0500 Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
writes:
>At 11:43 PM 12/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
>><SNIP>
>>If you're a
>>rigger pushing the gas petal flat against the floor in the same vehicle
>>does not make you go faster than if you are not a rigger.
>
>>D. Ghost

>Not necessarily, and I'll tell you why. (Yeah, like I wouldn't've... ;)
)
>AFAIK, every car manufactured today uses a microcomputer to regulate the
>engine. In most stock engines, the programming encoded in the
>microprocessor is fairly conservative; it doesn't use the engine to it's
>limits. In fact, there actually exist today organizations (mostly
>hot-rodders and speed-freaks) from whom you can buy "souped up" chips
with
>programming designed to optimize engine performance.
>
>In 2060 then, it's not hard to imagine that part of the rigger
interface's
>function would be to override the engine's onboard computer and allow
the
>rigger to take direct control of the engine functions, tweaking them to
>levels that the manual controls just don't allow.

So, In other words, it's not the rigger, it's the car's chip. In which
case, a non-rigger could get a car modified to do the same thing without
the rigger interface. However, I would think that the modifications you
mentioned actually fall under Engine Customization and/or Turbocharging.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 3
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:00:51 -0500
At 09:31 PM 12/3/98 -0600, you wrote:

<snip computer chips in engines>

>>In 2060 then, it's not hard to imagine that part of the rigger
>interface's
>>function would be to override the engine's onboard computer and allow
>the
>>rigger to take direct control of the engine functions, tweaking them to
>>levels that the manual controls just don't allow.
>
>So, In other words, it's not the rigger, it's the car's chip. In which
>case, a non-rigger could get a car modified to do the same thing without
>the rigger interface. However, I would think that the modifications you
>mentioned actually fall under Engine Customization and/or Turbocharging.
>
>D. Ghost

Yes, Engine Customization probably would include a computer upgrade, which
would make the system work better for rigger and non-rigger alike. That
still doesn't preclude rigger-control from being an even better
alternative. Sometimes, no matter how complicated or comprehensive the
automatic system is, a manual touch just works better. It's a principle
that applies from manual transmissions in high-performance cars to every
computer-user who tweaks his software settings to get the extra performance
in fractions of a second. It's the difference between adequate
mass-production and hand-crafted perfection.

And sometimes, you just need the system to do something that the computer
wouldn't think is a good idea...


Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 4
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 00:58:24 -0600
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 01:00:51 -0500 Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
writes:
>At 09:31 PM 12/3/98 -0600, you wrote:
><snip computer chips in engines>
>> >In 2060 then, it's not hard to imagine that part of the rigger
interface's
>> >function would be to override the engine's onboard computer and allow
the
>> >rigger to take direct control of the engine functions, tweaking them
to
>> >levels that the manual controls just don't allow.

>>So, In other words, it's not the rigger, it's the car's chip. In which
>>case, a non-rigger could get a car modified to do the same thing
without
>>the rigger interface. However, I would think that the modifications
you
>>mentioned actually fall under Engine Customization and/or
Turbocharging.
>>
>>D. Ghost

>Yes, Engine Customization probably would include a computer upgrade,
which
>would make the system work better for rigger and non-rigger alike. That
>still doesn't preclude rigger-control from being an even better
>alternative. Sometimes, no matter how complicated or comprehensive the
>automatic system is, a manual touch just works better. It's a principle
>that applies from manual transmissions in high-performance cars to every
>computer-user who tweaks his software settings to get the extra
performance
>in fractions of a second. It's the difference between adequate
>mass-production and hand-crafted perfection.
>
>And sometimes, you just need the system to do something that the
computer
>wouldn't think is a good idea...

But who tweaks the software setting on the fly? A rigger can not
practically do that. I mean, do you think a rigger can inherently run
through all the calculations in 1 or 2 seconds (or less) while
controlling the other functions of the vehicle, let alone control any
other vehicles under his/her control? IMO, not just no, but HELL no! :)

Let's look at it another way ... in another thread, it was suggested that
VCRs are mainly reaction oriented so when a rigger rigs, he/she is
reacting more than thinking. So how does a device that makes you react
faster make solve problems faster (it does not make you think faster.)?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 5
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:22:52 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 09:31 PM 12/3/98 -0600, D.Ghost wrote:
>So, In other words, it's not the rigger, it's the car's chip. In
which
>case, a non-rigger could get a car modified to do the same thing
without
>the rigger interface. However, I would think that the modifications
you
>mentioned actually fall under Engine Customization and/or
Turbocharging.

It depends. Anyone can go get a "performance" chip that'll run the
engine hotter, giving you better acceleration and speed. However,
you're just swapping one set of static engine settings for another.
Also, usually there are some trade offs: chipped cars usually get suck
for mileage, and some can't even pass emissions testing.

What I think Starjammer was proposing was that when a vehicle is
rigger-modified, instead of the engines computers running on one of
two sets of fixed settings: stock or performance, the rigger's own
brain can corordinate and control all the various engine settings
dynamically, adjusting them for peak performance in all situations.

This fits in with some of Jon Szeto's theories on rigging [The Man
Macine Interface, TSS#6, p. 4-5]:

"They soon realized that the coordination of sensory and motor
impulses was an intricately complex process; even an action so simple
as walking called into play hundres of different sitmuli and even more
responses, which would voerwhelm all but the most sophisticated
supercomputers. Nevertheless, the brain, or more specifically, the
midbrain and cerebellum, handled all of this without sending a single
conscious thought to the higher intelligence centers. Here lay an
answer to the problem of increasing vehicle complexity: connect the
human brain driectly to the vehicle itself. Merely translate the
various instrumentation readings into sitmuli the brain could
understand and the middle brain would take care of the rest."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNmgMTqPbvUVI86rNAQFbngP+IgidSt/fe17CyGiykWwMZhrCbt48JKt8
ALseEz7ehVMCSw29eXTBNVGgI8QZ+EPhipiJzuBgn4zJaIvlBK0CZfBC7aHX3DXq
yHAy52awAx4lW+cMXe8BaBOyqTJ6W8jns83PSSEJPIcIvBuKiTdugHnh5N06Vg7g
z88oLicwppI=
=bwwI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 6
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:48:56 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:58 AM 12/4/98 -0600, D.Ghost wrote:
>>Yes, Engine Customization probably would include a computer upgrade,
>which
>>would make the system work better for rigger and non-rigger alike.
That
>>still doesn't preclude rigger-control from being an even better
>>alternative. Sometimes, no matter how complicated or comprehensive
the
>>automatic system is, a manual touch just works better. It's a
principle
>>that applies from manual transmissions in high-performance cars to
every
>>computer-user who tweaks his software settings to get the extra
>performance
>>in fractions of a second. It's the difference between adequate
>>mass-production and hand-crafted perfection.
>>
>>And sometimes, you just need the system to do something that the
>computer
>>wouldn't think is a good idea...
>
>But who tweaks the software setting on the fly? A rigger can not
>practically do that. I mean, do you think a rigger can inherently
run
>through all the calculations in 1 or 2 seconds (or less) while
>controlling the other functions of the vehicle, let alone control any
>other vehicles under his/her control? IMO, not just no, but HELL no!
:)

Here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose, for the sake of
arguement, you were to step outside for us, without a jacket on, and
take a 10 minute run. Not just a jog, a full out run. Back? Good. :)

Now did at any time did you conciously think about the fact that with
that cool December air, that you'd better constrict capilaries in your
extremities to keep more of that warm blood in your core to prevent
heat loss? Or about the fact that because running is a more energetic
activity than sitting at a computer reading a mailing list, that you
would have to increase your breathing rate? Or about the fact that
there would have to be a similar increase in heart rate to make sure
that oxygen and blood sugars would be circulated to the muscles in
increased amounts, and simlarly that carbon dioxide and lactic acid
would have to be circulated away from those same muscles?

Did you pause to calcuate that with the increased energy expenditure
from running, that your body should put some of it's metabolic
processes on pause, and save the digestion of your last meal for when
your body again returns to a resting state? Did you decide exactly how
much adrenaline was needed in your bloodstream?

No? :)

That's right. All the above decisions and calculations were handled
automatically by your midbrain; no conscious thought was involved.

The Vehicle Control Rig headware (as it has been described by R2
author Jon Szeto) is much more than a simple neural control interface;
it usurps the tremendous processing power of the Rigger's own midbrain
to calculate in real time the staggering ammount of regulatory
decisions involved in running a vehicle at its peak performance. The
Rigger isn't actively deciding to step up the fuel injector timing 15
percent while engaging the traction control system on the front
wheels, the the rigger's midbrain senses his need to go faster, and
works in conjuction with the VCR to make the vehicle adjustments
needed to make that happen.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNmgSb6PbvUVI86rNAQGxfQQAqREQi7krMi4izlN05Y9z52SuzdRW6JhA
if8VVEJT40CW7cbfJ9G6XS2foXNHB+X1vshvxEYiuOQviz+KzxcsbiujfPX02ESP
pbSgvnlHgrDsvGL1vz5asuLoj6yFofLKR3C+cp5qjzaZ+aRGXiavSq6nA5/+y7Uh
4JMh/DfAwFE=
=FZeJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 7
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:29:09 -0500
At 11:48 AM 12/4/98 -0500, Paul Gettle wrote:

>D. Ghost wrote:
>>But who tweaks the software setting on the fly? A rigger can not
>>practically do that. I mean, do you think a rigger can inherently run
>>through all the calculations in 1 or 2 seconds (or less) while
>>controlling the other functions of the vehicle, let alone control any
>>other vehicles under his/her control? IMO, not just no, but HELL no!
>:)

<Snip Paul's description of rigger-machine interface, which made many of my
own points before I could get around to making them myself>

You'd be amazed what folks can do on the fly. I worked at an ISP NOC last
year. For a brief, shining time, we had one of those hideously competent
people in charge of our NOC about whom cybernetic legends arise. At one
point in time, when one of our servers became unstable, he mentioned in an
offhand voice, "I just hit the kernel [the core element of the operating
system, and something you should **NEVER** mess with offhandedly] with some
updates on the fly, and it should be settling down in a moment." Which it
did. I also heard from a coworker about how he'd changed the root password
on another server without having administrative access at the time.

But that aside, Paul's right; you don't need to do the math to make
something work if you can "feel" it out better. You think a major league
pitching star does calculus before every pitch, factoring in wind,
temperature, humidity, etc.? No. Does this lack of mathematical
performance prevent him from delivering a precision pitch most of the time?
Obviously not. By the same token, I have no problem believing that the
rigger interface is good enough to allow a rigger to feel how an engine
"is" and make it run how it "should."

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 8
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 20:49:51 -0600
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:29:09 -0500 Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
writes:
>At 11:48 AM 12/4/98 -0500, Paul Gettle wrote:
>>D. Ghost wrote:
>> >But who tweaks the software setting on the fly? A rigger can not
>> >practically do that. I mean, do you think a rigger can inherently
run
>> >through all the calculations in 1 or 2 seconds (or less) while
>> >controlling the other functions of the vehicle, let alone control any
>> >other vehicles under his/her control? IMO, not just no, but HELL no!
:)

><Snip Paul's description of rigger-machine interface, which made many of
my
>own points before I could get around to making them myself>

>You'd be amazed what folks can do on the fly.
<SNIP>
>But that aside, Paul's right; you don't need to do the math to make
>something work if you can "feel" it out better. You think a major
league
>pitching star does calculus before every pitch, factoring in wind,
>temperature, humidity, etc.? No. Does this lack of mathematical
>performance prevent him from delivering a precision pitch most of the
time?
> Obviously not. By the same token, I have no problem believing that the
>rigger interface is good enough to allow a rigger to feel how an engine
>"is" and make it run how it "should."

Those are good points but I think that playing around with the engine
settings either involves math/theory or trial and error. The first
example you gave (which I SNIPped) was more relevant (IMO) to this
discussion than the baseball pitcher and in that one, the guy in charge
of your NOC still had and used an understanding of the systems (you don't
think he was winging it, do ya? :). However, that still doen't explain
why someone WITHOUT a VCR or even a datajack gets a variable
acceleration.

How about this:
Convert everything to constant acceleration. This is the base rating.
Riggers roll <insert skill> plus VCR level against a target number of 4.
Each success increases the acceleration rating from the base rating by
10%.

(For the <insert skill>, I'm not sure what to use ... Chemistry?
<vehicle> B/R? Engine Configurations knowledge skill?)

Sound better?
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 9
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:24:01 -0500
At 08:49 PM 12/4/98 -0600, D. Ghost wrote:
>
>How about this:
>Convert everything to constant acceleration. This is the base rating.
>Riggers roll <insert skill> plus VCR level against a target number of 4.
>Each success increases the acceleration rating from the base rating by
>10%.
>
>(For the <insert skill>, I'm not sure what to use ... Chemistry?
><vehicle> B/R? Engine Configurations knowledge skill?)

I'd say just use the Vehicle Skill, maybe the RC specialization. After
all, riggers and non-riggers both use the same skills to control vehicles,
but obviously in vastly different ways. So, riggers must learn
rigger-control (and all the tricks pertaining thereunto) on top of the
regular way of driving, as part of the same skill.

Besides which, one skill is easier to keep track of, and I don't really
believe in complicating things that can be avoided.

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 10
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:11:46 -0600
On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 22:24:01 -0500 Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
writes:
>At 08:49 PM 12/4/98 -0600, D. Ghost wrote:
>>
>>How about this:
>>Convert everything to constant acceleration. This is the base rating.
>>Riggers roll <insert skill> plus VCR level against a target number of
4.
>>Each success increases the acceleration rating from the base rating by
>>10%.
>>
>>(For the <insert skill>, I'm not sure what to use ... Chemistry?
>><vehicle> B/R? Engine Configurations knowledge skill?)

>I'd say just use the Vehicle Skill, maybe the RC specialization. After
>all, riggers and non-riggers both use the same skills to control
vehicles,
>but obviously in vastly different ways. So, riggers must learn
>rigger-control (and all the tricks pertaining thereunto) on top of the
>regular way of driving, as part of the same skill.
>
>Besides which, one skill is easier to keep track of, and I don't really
>believe in complicating things that can be avoided.

I want to pick a skill that's appropriate. Being easy to keep track of
would be a nice bonus but the primary qualification is appropriateness.
I think, of the existing skills <vehicle> B/R is the most appropriate.
If any specialization should apply, it's Engines, not Remote-Control (You
are mucking around with the Engine, after all ...).

Btw, does that mean you agree with the above or that you suggesting how
to make the idea work better if that's the way I want to go?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 11
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 12:58:30 -0500
At 10:11 PM 12/4/98 -0600, D. Ghost wrote:
>
>I want to pick a skill that's appropriate. Being easy to keep track of
>would be a nice bonus but the primary qualification is appropriateness.
>I think, of the existing skills <vehicle> B/R is the most appropriate.
>If any specialization should apply, it's Engines, not Remote-Control (You
>are mucking around with the Engine, after all ...).

Well, yes and no. Look at it in terms of contemporary race-car drivers.
They know how to best use gear-shifting techniques to maximize their speed
and control. In SR terms they wouldn't have gear-shifting skill, or
anything like that, they just know that in a certain circumstance, you want
the engine running a certain way, and that's part of their high Driving
skill. It's not that their skills are substantially different from a
normal driver's, just more developed and trained to cover different
circumstances (i.e., a higher skill rating, and perhaps a specialization).

Now, of course, you will argue that fine-tuning an engine in the moment is
a lot more complex than shifting gears. It is. But, unlike our modern-day
NASCAR driver, the rigger has the VCR and the interface to even things out.
It still comes down to a matter of knowing that under X conditions, the
vehicle should be doing Y, and that's just an application of Driving skill.
The only difference is that rigger tech allows X and Y to be far more
comprehensive than under manual control. Since it involves working through
the rigger interface, it would be covered by the RC specialization.

>Btw, does that mean you agree with the above or that you suggesting how
>to make the idea work better if that's the way I want to go?

More the latter. The simple fact of the matter is that there's more to
handling a car than pushing the pedals, shifting the gears and turning the
wheel, and I've known skillful drivers who very well can do things to get a
car to its maximum speed faster than less skilled drivers who'd simply push
down the gas. But I'm not prepared to argue the point, and you're welcome
to your own misconceptions. :)

Starjammer | Una salus victus nullam sperare salutem.
starjammer@**********.com | "The one hope of the doomed is not to hope
Marietta, GA | for safety." --Virgil, The Aeneid
Message no. 12
From: Bai Shen <baishen@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 18:21:30 -0500
> >Yes, Engine Customization probably would include a computer upgrade, which
> >would make the system work better for rigger and non-rigger alike. That
> >still doesn't preclude rigger-control from being an even better
> >alternative. Sometimes, no matter how complicated or comprehensive the
> >automatic system is, a manual touch just works better. It's a principle
> >that applies from manual transmissions in high-performance cars to every
> >computer-user who tweaks his software settings to get the extra performance
> >in fractions of a second. It's the difference between adequate
> >mass-production and hand-crafted perfection.
> >And sometimes, you just need the system to do something that the computer
> >wouldn't think is a good idea...
> But who tweaks the software setting on the fly? A rigger can not
> practically do that. I mean, do you think a rigger can inherently run
> through all the calculations in 1 or 2 seconds (or less) while
> controlling the other functions of the vehicle, let alone control any
> other vehicles under his/her control? IMO, not just no, but HELL no! :)
> Let's look at it another way ... in another thread, it was suggested that
> VCRs are mainly reaction oriented so when a rigger rigs, he/she is
> reacting more than thinking. So how does a device that makes you react
> faster make solve problems faster (it does not make you think faster.)?

Same way it runs your body. The brain can process massive amounts of
data, but most people can't actively comprehend it all. The rigger
allows that porcessing power to be harness in tweaking the car, the same
way your brain tweaks your body(ie fight or flight response).
--
Bai Shen
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
http://www.series2000.com/users/baishen
UIN 3543257 (Don't ask to join if you aren't going to send me anything.)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Engine control (was Re: Drones in Close Quarters), 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.