Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Indirect Sniping
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 04:27:35 -0500
Okay, I was playing around with making a sniper character to pull a bunch
of PC's asses out of the fire I'm putting them in ... and since he'd be
outside, and they'd be inside, he may not always have LOS to the target
so I came up with this to help:

Sniper Scope "Drone"
Chassis: Micro Crawler (220 DPs)
Body: 0
Armor: 0
CF: 0
Pilot: 4 (1,250 DP)
Sensor: 4 (500 DP) [Not normally allowed but is essentially outside of
the "drone", in the scope as well as being very specialized {Only point
forward for one ...}]
Engine: Electric (10 DP)
Economy: "Idle" only (no movement), 5 min/PF (400 DP)
PF: 6 PF (2 DP)
Features: Remote Control Interface, Rigger Addaptation, BattleTac FDDM
(1,400 DP), Smartlink Integration I (250 DP) or II (350 DP).
Total DP: 4,032/4,132
Mark-ups: 1 (car) * 3.0 (security/Military) * 0.1 (drone) = 0.3
Final Cost: 120,960/123,960 (for a fancy scope!)

Spotter "Drone"
Chassis: Micro Crawler (220 DPs)
Body: 0
Armor: 0
CF: 0
Pilot: 4 (1,250 DP)
Sensor: 4 (500 DP) [Not normally allowed but is essentially outside of
the "drone" and very specialized {Only point forward for one ...} ]
Engine: Electric (10 DP)
Economy: "Idle" only (no movement), 5 min/PF (400 DP)
PF: 6 PF (2 DP)
Features: Remote Control Interface, Rigger Addaptation, BattleTac FDDM
(1,400 DP), IPA Clearsight Autosoft R3 (7,500 DP).
Total DP: 11,692
Mark-ups: 1 (car) * 3.0 (security/Military) * 0.1 (drone) = 0.3
Final Cost: 350,760

The Basically the whole thing is an automated rigger system (ick) where
the spotter(s) feeds visual data to the scope and the scope's little
processor integrates it with its own data and creates a better picture of
the situation, maybe allowing sniping as if the sniper had LOS (though
the target would still receive the protection of intervening barriers so
true LOS would be preferred). The effect this has is that it can reduce
the target number mods for blind fire and partial cover. Also, Visibilty
Modifiers may be circumvented in certain situations (ie, smoke between
the sniper and the target but not between the target and the spotter).
I'm not sure how to handle the game mechanics for this ... I was thinking
of a having the scope drone roll against a target # (don't know what T#
would be appropriate) using Pilot rating +1 per spotter drone dice with
each success reduce the cover mods by 1 up to half the original mod, or
perhaps even to zero (IMO, the cover mods are based on visibility
Impairment, not on protective value) ... What do you think? I think the
biggest problem is who in their right mind would pay this much nuyen for
gun accessories? (remember I said "in their right mind" ;) ... I think
the gear actually deserves a lower price ... but then again, I'd rather
overprice it than under price it ...

Well, it's late ... I'm going to send this off, get some sleep and read
the thwappings when I wake up ;)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"This is God. I've got you covered" --Navy Seals (I think ...)

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 2
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:21:33 -0400
> Okay, I was playing around with making a sniper character to pull a
> bunch
> of PC's asses out of the fire I'm putting them in ... and since he'd
> be
> outside, and they'd be inside, he may not always have LOS to the
> target
> so I came up with this to help:
>
> Sniper Scope "Drone"
<snip stats>
> Final Cost: 120,960/123,960 (for a fancy scope!)
>
> Spotter "Drone"
<snip stats>
> Final Cost: 350,760
>
I'm assuming our system would work just as well with one
drone correct?
I think it'd be pretty cool to have an imaging system plugged
into either cybereyes or a smartgoggle type thing where you could pull
data from the actual view and data from the drone(s) to give you LOS
with faded out buildings in the way. This should be possible using
something like an ultrasound scan to determine volumes only. This would
build a wireframe of the area within view. A wireframe is built by the
sniper's system (backpack type unit perhaps) and each drone. The various
wireframe models are compared to determine the construction of the area.
Maybe I'm just restating your idea. I'm not sure.

In either case it seems to me a floater type drone (ala
Runaway(Tom Selleck flick)) would be far preferable to a crawler drone
simply because you could float up over or around obstacles. And hover
closer to the 40th floor window you are about to shoot through.

As far as cost, this is high end sniper gear. I don't
see much of a problem with it really. I can see a SERIOUS pro having
this stuff. Serious pros have serious gear. They also make serious cash.
Don't sweat the price. Also, don't tell the players how he's doing it.
Hide the drones and let them just think he is a god. If they get smart
enough to think of it let em try to build it, and charge them up the
wazoo.
Message no. 3
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:04:32 -0500
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 09:21:33 -0400 bryan.covington@****.COM writes:
>> Okay, I was playing around with making a sniper character to pull a
bunch
>> of PC's asses out of the fire I'm putting them in ... and since he'd
be
>> outside, and they'd be inside, he may not always have LOS to the
target
>> so I came up with this to help:
>>
>> Sniper Scope "Drone"
> <snip stats>
>> Final Cost: 120,960/123,960 (for a fancy scope!)
>>
>> Spotter "Drone"
> <snip stats>
>> Final Cost: 350,760

> I'm assuming our system would work just as well with one
>drone correct?

Well, sorta ... they're not true drones ... The scope is controlled by
smartlink/manual controls and the Spotter is controlled by manual
controls.

> I think it'd be pretty cool to have an imaging system plugged
>into either cybereyes or a smartgoggle type thing where you could pull
>data from the actual view and data from the drone(s) to give you LOS
>with faded out buildings in the way. This should be possible using
>something like an ultrasound scan to determine volumes only. This would
>build a wireframe of the area within view. A wireframe is built by the
>sniper's system (backpack type unit perhaps) and each drone. The various
>wireframe models are compared to determine the construction of the area.

The calculation is done in the scope. The spotters act like drones
constantly on autopilot ... they are not really drones but rather small
cameras that can be worn (by other team members) or placed to give the
sniper a better picture of the situation.

> Maybe I'm just restating your idea. I'm not sure.

Nope, when I sent this off, I had a feeling I was forgetting something
and this told me what had left out/was clear on :)

> In either case it seems to me a floater type drone (ala
>Runaway(Tom Selleck flick)) would be far preferable to a crawler drone
>simply because you could float up over or around obstacles. And hover
>closer to the 40th floor window you are about to shoot through.

The problem is that using real drones (these were just designed as drones
but aren't actually true drones), is that someone has to deck to control
the drones ... if the sniper can get a rigger to do that, there's no
problem, other wise he has to try to rig (in captain's chair mode) and
snipe ate the same time ... that's bad ... better to take the cover
penalties and go from there ... :)

Now, the reason I don't want to use drones for that actual shooting is
because this guy I "made up" (He's a Munch and I know it, but he's only
made up to save the PCs bacon ...) is better than any rigger or drone (I
won't say why ... but it's fairly evil that a starting char could have so
many dice ...)

> As far as cost, this is high end sniper gear. I don't
>see much of a problem with it really. I can see a SERIOUS pro having
>this stuff. Serious pros have serious gear. They also make serious cash.
>Don't sweat the price. Also, don't tell the players how he's doing it.
>Hide the drones and let them just think he is a god. If they get smart
>enough to think of it let em try to build it, and charge them up the
>wazoo.

Heh heh ... I'll do worse than that ... but actually I don't think this
stuff is that bad ... there cases where it is useless (the
spotter's/spotters' LOS is/are blocked too or the sniper has normal LOS)
and the target still gets the protection of intervening barriers (which
is bad ... for the sniper that is :) Also, the system as it now stands
has no jamming defense (intentionally, the Mr. J & the decker he provider
are double crossing the PCs, if the PCs tell them about the sniper & his
gear, they will jam the gear and the PCs will be on their own) and the
(very expensive) equipment is delicate (body 0 means any hit destroys the
"drone") I think that the idea might scare off people because this was
made use drone stats and I didn't include a RCD in the picture ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 4
From: legion <legion@******.NET.AU>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:35:41 +1000
D Ghost wrote--

>The Basically the whole thing is an automated rigger system (ick) where
>the spotter(s) feeds visual data to the scope and the scope's little
>processor integrates it with its own data and creates a better picture =
of
>the situation, maybe allowing sniping as if the sniper had LOS (though
>the target would still receive the protection of intervening barriers =
so
>true LOS would be preferred). The effect this has is that it can =
reduce
>the target number mods for blind fire and partial cover.

I had a similar idea when i was playing a Rigger/Sam. He used condors =
with r3 dog-brains (underRBB) as spotters. All data feed into a 500MP =
computer which created a VR image of the target area. Negated smoke etc =
penalties

Cost bout 3 mill in total, but i definitely prefer you system. The only =
major plus for mine, was the VR image made the bullet impacts really =
vivid!!

BTW add the scope-drone to couple of Dalmatians, and Steel Lynx's and =
you'd have a kick-ass ground-attack unit............

Hangfire
Greetings from Down Under

Contact us for further info --
Mik - ICQ UIN 9112954
Croc - ICQ UIN 9113143
Homepage : http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/7500/index.html
Message no. 5
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:40:48 -0400
> > I'm assuming our system would work just as well with
> one
> >drone correct?
>
> Well, sorta ... they're not true drones ... The scope is controlled by
> smartlink/manual controls and the Spotter is controlled by manual
> controls.
>
I'm not sure I grasp the difference between the spotter and the
scope.

> The calculation is done in the scope. The spotters act like drones
> constantly on autopilot ... they are not really drones but rather
> small
> cameras that can be worn (by other team members) or placed to give the
> sniper a better picture of the situation.
>
> The problem is that using real drones (these were just designed as
> drones
> but aren't actually true drones), is that someone has to deck to
> control
> the drones ... if the sniper can get a rigger to do that, there's no
> problem, other wise he has to try to rig (in captain's chair mode) and
> snipe ate the same time ... that's bad ... better to take the cover
> penalties and go from there ... :)
>
Nonsense. Just make them, same as they are now, just
floaters. The little hover fan in the middle and all. Same manual
controls and all. Might up the price a bit but hell, its a plot device
so who cares.

> Now, the reason I don't want to use drones for that actual shooting is
> because this guy I "made up" (He's a Munch and I know it, but he's
> only
> made up to save the PCs bacon ...) is better than any rigger or drone
> (I
> won't say why ... but it's fairly evil that a starting char could have
> so
> many dice ...)
>
I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting
that the drone fire. Just that if the drone were a floater is could
hover closer and the sniper could get a better look at his targets.
I am thinking of the sniper perched on the roof of a 20
story building shooting across the street to a 10 story or some such.
The distance and angle (which might normally make the view rather poor)
can be compensated for by sending the floater off the roof and down 5-6
stories.

> Heh heh ... I'll do worse than that ... but actually I don't think
> this
> stuff is that bad ... there cases where it is useless (the
> spotter's/spotters' LOS is/are blocked too or the sniper has normal
> LOS)
> and the target still gets the protection of intervening barriers
> (which
> is bad ... for the sniper that is :) Also, the system as it now stands
> has no jamming defense (intentionally, the Mr. J & the decker he
> provider
> are double crossing the PCs, if the PCs tell them about the sniper &
> his
> gear, they will jam the gear and the PCs will be on their own) and the
> (very expensive) equipment is delicate (body 0 means any hit destroys
> the
> "drone") I think that the idea might scare off people because this was
> made use drone stats and I didn't include a RCD in the picture ...
>
I really don't think these things are that bad. Granted
you are taking some expensive and fragile gear on a run but it would
only be used in specific situations where the sniper was at a very safe
distance.
I love the idea.
Message no. 6
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:16:43 -0500
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 11:40:48 -0400 bryan.covington@****.COM writes:
>> > I'm assuming our system would work just as well with
one
>> >drone correct?

>> Well, sorta ... they're not true drones ... The scope is controlled by
>> smartlink/manual controls and the Spotter is controlled by manual
>> controls.

> I'm not sure I grasp the difference between the spotter and the
>scope.

The spotter just feeds visual data to the scope. The scope takes in its
own visual data (but it's LOS so it doesn't help on its own) and combines
it with the spotters' data to create the composite image (wire frame +
overlaid thermographic & visual images extrapolated to true 3D ...) and
feeds it into the snipers smartlink so you know where your shooting.
(this may need a datajack + display/Image link in addition to the
Smartlink)

>> The calculation is done in the scope. The spotters act like drones
>> constantly on autopilot ... they are not really drones but rather
small
>> cameras that can be worn (by other team members) or placed to give the
>> sniper a better picture of the situation.
>>
>> The problem is that using real drones (these were just designed as
drones
>> but aren't actually true drones), is that someone has to deck to
control
>> the drones ... if the sniper can get a rigger to do that, there's no
>> problem, other wise he has to try to rig (in captain's chair mode) and
>> snipe ate the same time ... that's bad ... better to take the cover
>> penalties and go from there ... :)

> Nonsense. Just make them, same as they are now, just
>floaters. The little hover fan in the middle and all. Same manual
>controls and all. Might up the price a bit but hell, its a plot device
>so who cares.

nope, if the sniper controls the drones while sniping he has a +8 Target
number mod to his sniping. If a seperate rigger doesn't control the
drones, then he needs to jack in, give orders, leave them on autopilot,
jack out, snipe, jack in, give new orders to the drones to get away/hide,
jack out, get away/hide himself, ... nope. First two options are bettter
... (I never said drones couldn't be incorporated into this, just that
it's a BAD idea for the sniper to control them himself ...)

>> Now, the reason I don't want to use drones for that actual shooting is
>> because this guy I "made up" (He's a Munch and I know it, but he's
only
>> made up to save the PCs bacon ...) is better than any rigger or drone
(I
>> won't say why ... but it's fairly evil that a starting char could have
so
>> many dice ...)

> I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting
>that the drone fire. Just that if the drone were a floater is could
>hover closer and the sniper could get a better look at his targets.
> I am thinking of the sniper perched on the roof of a 20
>story building shooting across the street to a 10 story or some such.
>The distance and angle (which might normally make the view rather poor)
>can be compensated for by sending the floater off the roof and down 5-6
>stories.

Okay ... In that case see above :) for something like that, the best way
to do it is to incorporate a rigger controlled drone to float down ...

>> Heh heh ... I'll do worse than that ... but actually I don't think
this
>> stuff is that bad ... there cases where it is useless (the
>> spotter's/spotters' LOS is/are blocked too or the sniper has normal
LOS)
>> and the target still gets the protection of intervening barriers
(which
>> is bad ... for the sniper that is :) Also, the system as it now stands
>> has no jamming defense (intentionally, the Mr. J & the decker he
provider
>> are double crossing the PCs, if the PCs tell them about the sniper &
his
>> gear, they will jam the gear and the PCs will be on their own) and the
>> (very expensive) equipment is delicate (body 0 means any hit destroys
the
>> "drone") I think that the idea might scare off people because this was
>> made use drone stats and I didn't include a RCD in the picture ...

> I really don't think these things are that bad. Granted
>you are taking some expensive and fragile gear on a run but it would
>only be used in specific situations where the sniper was at a very safe
>distance.
> I love the idea.

Cool. Thanks. :) Yup. Plus this stuff is very illegal (military/security
gear) and availibility / street Index would be through the roof ...
Anybody know how to calc that from R2? I thought there was a way but I
can't remember ... :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 7
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:21:38 -0400
> The spotter just feeds visual data to the scope. The scope takes in
> its
> own visual data (but it's LOS so it doesn't help on its own) and
> combines
> it with the spotters' data to create the composite image (wire frame +
> overlaid thermographic & visual images extrapolated to true 3D ...)
> and
> feeds it into the snipers smartlink so you know where your shooting.
> (this may need a datajack + display/Image link in addition to the
> Smartlink)
>
I think a display link would be a good idea. Or at least
a smartgoggle type thing.

> nope, if the sniper controls the drones while sniping he has a +8
> Target
> number mod to his sniping. If a seperate rigger doesn't control the
> drones, then he needs to jack in, give orders, leave them on
> autopilot,
> jack out, snipe, jack in, give new orders to the drones to get
> away/hide,
> jack out, get away/hide himself, ... nope. First two options are
> bettter
> ... (I never said drones couldn't be incorporated into this, just that
> it's a BAD idea for the sniper to control them himself ...)
>
We're missing each other here. I don't see how making
them ground based is any easier than making them float. He has to
manually position the crawlers correct? The he just manually positions
the floaters. I see no reason why a floater device wouldn't contain
enough electronics in it to maintain a position. I am not suggesting
doing stunts with it or anything just that a floater would be more
versatile than a crawler.
Am I thinking correctly when I think of the bomb
disposal robots that all the police units are using now? The ones that
have a little joystick and controls? You are saying just put them in
place and leave them alone while you shoot. I am thinking of the same
thing with floaters. Just put them where you want them and tell them to
hover there. I don't think it should take a rigger to do that. Even the
dumbest dogbrain should be able to not move.


> > I really don't think these things are that bad.
> Granted
> >you are taking some expensive and fragile gear on a run but it would
> >only be used in specific situations where the sniper was at a very
> safe
> >distance.
> > I love the idea.
>
> Cool. Thanks. :) Yup. Plus this stuff is very illegal
> (military/security
> gear) and availibility / street Index would be through the roof ...
>
Duh.

> Anybody know how to calc that from R2? I thought there was a way but
> I
> can't remember ... :)
>
Never even seen r2.
Message no. 8
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 20:23:08 -0500
On Fri, 3 Jul 1998 09:21:38 -0400 bryan.covington@****.COM writes:
>> The spotter just feeds visual data to the scope. The scope takes in
its
>> own visual data (but it's LOS so it doesn't help on its own) and
combines
>> it with the spotters' data to create the composite image (wire frame +
>> overlaid thermographic & visual images extrapolated to true 3D ...)
and
>> feeds it into the snipers smartlink so you know where your shooting.
>> (this may need a datajack + display/Image link in addition to the
Smartlink)

> I think a display link would be a good idea. Or at least
>a smartgoggle type thing.

I think the display/Image link (Image link displays video and would
probably be needed instead of a display link) would be neccissary for the
overlaid image, but would the datajack be required?

>> nope, if the sniper controls the drones while sniping he has a +8
Target
>> number mod to his sniping. If a seperate rigger doesn't control the
>> drones, then he needs to jack in, give orders, leave them on
autopilot,
>> jack out, snipe, jack in, give new orders to the drones to get
away/hide,
>> jack out, get away/hide himself, ... nope. First two options are
bettter
>> ... (I never said drones couldn't be incorporated into this, just that
>> it's a BAD idea for the sniper to control them himself ...)

> We're missing each other here. I don't see how making
>them ground based is any easier than making them float. He has to
>manually position the crawlers correct? The he just manually positions
>the floaters. I see no reason why a floater device wouldn't contain
>enough electronics in it to maintain a position. I am not suggesting
>doing stunts with it or anything just that a floater would be more
>versatile than a crawler.

No, I just used the crawler chassis for a sit there a play dead ... I
doesn't move it would be a unit you carry... ie, incorporate it into
teammates' headgear and shoot where one of them is looking. In addition
drones could be incorporated into the system, but the drones would have
to be controlled by a rigger not the sniper or the sniper gets +8 target
numbers ... in other words to have a floater, the sniper would have to
have a rigger control it (so it's a sitting duck while he's taking his
shot and so the drone can move if the target moves) and it would have to
be equiped with BattleTac FDDS ...

> Am I thinking correctly when I think of the bomb
>disposal robots that all the police units are using now? The ones that
>have a little joystick and controls? You are saying just put them in
>place and leave them alone while you shoot. I am thinking of the same
>thing with floaters. Just put them where you want them and tell them to
>hover there. I don't think it should take a rigger to do that. Even the
>dumbest dogbrain should be able to not move.

It's not a problem of sitting still while the sniper shoots, it's a
problem of sitting still while others might be looking and/or gunning for
the drone ... :)

>> > I really don't think these things are that bad.
Granted
>> >you are taking some expensive and fragile gear on a run but it would
>> >only be used in specific situations where the sniper was at a very
safe
>> >distance.
>> > I love the idea.

>> Cool. Thanks. :) Yup. Plus this stuff is very illegal
(military/security
>> gear) and availibility / street Index would be through the roof ...

> Duh.

;P~

>> Anybody know how to calc that from R2? I thought there was a way but>
I
>> can't remember ... :)

> Never even seen r2.


D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 9
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:50:39 -0400
> > I think a display link would be a good idea. Or at
> least
> >a smartgoggle type thing.
>
> I think the display/Image link (Image link displays video and would
> probably be needed instead of a display link) would be neccissary for
> the
> overlaid image, but would the datajack be required?
>
You would have to have some way to get the data into the
snipers internal systems. A datajack is the easiest way.

> > We're missing each other here. I don't see how making
> >them ground based is any easier than making them float. He has to
> >manually position the crawlers correct? The he just manually
> positions
> >the floaters. I see no reason why a floater device wouldn't contain
> >enough electronics in it to maintain a position. I am not suggesting
> >doing stunts with it or anything just that a floater would be more
> >versatile than a crawler.
>
> No, I just used the crawler chassis for a sit there a play dead ... I
> doesn't move it would be a unit you carry... ie, incorporate it into
> teammates' headgear and shoot where one of them is looking. In
> addition
> drones could be incorporated into the system, but the drones would
> have
> to be controlled by a rigger not the sniper or the sniper gets +8
> target
> numbers ... in other words to have a floater, the sniper would have to
> have a rigger control it (so it's a sitting duck while he's taking his
> shot and so the drone can move if the target moves) and it would have
> to
> be equiped with BattleTac FDDS ...
>
Ahh, so the crawler can't actually crawl. Its more like
a video bug? If I am thinking correctly (highly unlikely judging from my
past performance) you could make these things a lot cheaper than even
the crappiest crawler body. I would think the crawler body would include
the servos and such to move the legs and such. I am sure you could even
get the camera on a moveable pivot with significantly less cost than a
crawler body.

> > Am I thinking correctly when I think of the bomb
> >disposal robots that all the police units are using now? The ones
> that
> >have a little joystick and controls? You are saying just put them in
> >place and leave them alone while you shoot. I am thinking of the same
> >thing with floaters. Just put them where you want them and tell them
> to
> >hover there. I don't think it should take a rigger to do that. Even
> the
> >dumbest dogbrain should be able to not move.
>
> It's not a problem of sitting still while the sniper shoots, it's a
> problem of sitting still while others might be looking and/or gunning
> for
> the drone ... :)
>
No one ever looks up, its a documented fact :). None the
less I swear you could do it without rigger control. Hell if you cut out
all the rigger crap and made it hooked to a joystick (think RC cars) you
could probably even pump the spare cash into RP(?) coating for it (you
know the "Predator" style variable camo).
Message no. 10
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:58:21 -0500
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:50:39 -0400 bryan.covington@****.COM writes:
>> > I think a display link would be a good idea. Or at
least
>> >a smartgoggle type thing.

>> I think the display/Image link (Image link displays video and would
>> probably be needed instead of a display link) would be neccissary for
the
>> overlaid image, but would the datajack be required?

> You would have to have some way to get the data into the
>snipers internal systems. A datajack is the easiest way.

That what I was thinking ... except I don't know if a Smartlink could
handle that or not and I was wondering if you'd need an image link
(Cybertechnology) instead of a display link (BBB) for constant updates
...

>> > We're missing each other here. I don't see how making
>> >them ground based is any easier than making them float. He has to
>> >manually position the crawlers correct? The he just manually
positions
>> >the floaters. I see no reason why a floater device wouldn't contain
>> >enough electronics in it to maintain a position. I am not suggesting
>> >doing stunts with it or anything just that a floater would be more
>> >versatile than a crawler.

>> No, I just used the crawler chassis for a sit there a play dead ... I
>> doesn't move it would be a unit you carry... ie, incorporate it into
>> teammates' headgear and shoot where one of them is looking. In
addition
>> drones could be incorporated into the system, but the drones would
have
>> to be controlled by a rigger not the sniper or the sniper gets +8
target
>> numbers ... in other words to have a floater, the sniper would have to
>> have a rigger control it (so it's a sitting duck while he's taking his
>> shot and so the drone can move if the target moves) and it would have
to
>> be equiped with BattleTac FDDS ...

> Ahh, so the crawler can't actually crawl. Its more like
>a video bug? If I am thinking correctly (highly unlikely judging from my
>past performance) you could make these things a lot cheaper than even
>the crappiest crawler body. I would think the crawler body would include
>the servos and such to move the legs and such. I am sure you could even
>get the camera on a moveable pivot with significantly less cost than a
>crawler body.

I think so too but left the cost alone "just in case"/because I'd rather
overprice it than under price it ... :)

<SNIP Cutting Rigger Interface and using RP on drone>

You can do all sorts of nifty stunts when you include drones in the
picture but IMO it'd still be better to have a rigger controlling any
drones ... :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 11
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:49:13 -0400
> You can do all sorts of nifty stunts when you include drones in the
> picture but IMO it'd still be better to have a rigger controlling any
> drones ... :)
>
>
If you call what I am talking about a drone one more
time I am going to have to come out there and trash your deck! Listen
carefully.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A DRONE.

I AM NOT PROPOSING RIGGER CONTROLS OF ANY SORT.

I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE SNIPER CONTROL ANYTHING
ACTIVELY.

What I AM suggesting, is simply using a remote control,
like those found on remote control (RC) cars in 1998 to position a
quiet, hovering model aircraft in a nondescript position above the
target area and LEAVE IT THERE. You push the hover button. Now the
sniper puts down the remote control and assumes his sniping position. He
does not need to think about where his drone is. He does not need to
consider how it is moving. He uses it's eyes, fed through the system you
describe to target his shot.

This is no more complicated than the crawler body. It
requires no more control. You can put your spotters in more effective
places. You can retrieve them more easily. And they can be built more
cheaply than any drone. They are not high tech in any way. They could be
build right now, up to the smartgun interface at least.

I am just talking about a slightly advanced RC
helicopter. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Message no. 12
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 18:28:51 EDT
In a message dated 7/7/98 5:01:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
bryan.covington@****.COM writes:

> What I AM suggesting, is simply using a remote control,
> like those found on remote control (RC) cars in 1998 to position a
> quiet, hovering model aircraft in a nondescript position above the
> target area and LEAVE IT THERE. You push the hover button. Now the
> sniper puts down the remote control and assumes his sniping position. He
> does not need to think about where his drone is. He does not need to
> consider how it is moving. He uses it's eyes, fed through the system you
> describe to target his shot.
>
> This is no more complicated than the crawler body. It
> requires no more control. You can put your spotters in more effective
> places. You can retrieve them more easily. And they can be built more
> cheaply than any drone. They are not high tech in any way. They could be
> build right now, up to the smartgun interface at least.
>
> I am just talking about a slightly advanced RC
> helicopter. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Because, In all honesty, you are the one not grasping the language usage that
you are using. A remote controlled device of the size and scale you are
referring to, especially while using the comparisons that you are is a direct
definition of a "Drone".

I liked your ideas for an Indirect Sniper and his "support devices". Those
were good ideas, and in fact there is one such device in usage here in the
game. The Elf As..er, uh, Hitman has a slightly cybered ferret that he uses
as his additional designator. Just a control mechanism (1 point of general
essence) and one point for a FDDM-like mechanism. He treats the ferret with
the utmost of privacy in most circumstances, and really well. He oughta, it
is annoyingly difficult to figure out exactly how you make a ferret go
anywhere -you- want it to go.

Some of the device ideas you had, IMO, had only one real problem.
Consideration of the Technology. SR sciences are really cool with the concept
of "Indirect Fire". Here is a really neat thought for ya. Get a system that
would allow the sniper to sit somewhere with the aiming mechanism, and the
gun/weapon is sitting elsewhere doing the actual shooting. IF the sniper is
discovered, the response forces are directed towards the sniper in question,
and not for the actual location of the weapon of choice(tm).

-K
Message no. 13
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:43:51 -0500
On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 17:49:13 -0400 bryan.covington@****.COM writes:
>> You can do all sorts of nifty stunts when you include drones in the
>> picture but IMO it'd still be better to have a rigger controlling any
>> drones ... :)

> If you call what I am talking about a drone one more
>time I am going to have to come out there and trash your deck! Listen
>carefully.

Are you still talking about that drone? <j/k>

> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A DRONE.
>
> I AM NOT PROPOSING RIGGER CONTROLS OF ANY SORT.
>
> I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE SNIPER CONTROL ANYTHING
>ACTIVELY.

I SAID I was kidding ... ;)

> What I AM suggesting, is simply using a remote control,
>like those found on remote control (RC) cars in 1998 to position a
>quiet, hovering model aircraft in a nondescript position above the
>target area and LEAVE IT THERE. You push the hover button. Now the
>sniper puts down the remote control and assumes his sniping position. He
>does not need to think about where his drone is. He does not need to
>consider how it is moving. He uses it's eyes, fed through the system you
>describe to target his shot.
>
> This is no more complicated than the crawler body. It
>requires no more control. You can put your spotters in more effective
>places. You can retrieve them more easily. And they can be built more
>cheaply than any drone. They are not high tech in any way. They could be
>build right now, up to the smartgun interface at least.
>
> I am just talking about a slightly advanced RC
>helicopter. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Look. What I said was that using drones can enhance this system IF the
sniper doesn't control them ... this is regardless of whether or not the
controls are cybernetic or not (He/she can't effectively divide his/her
attention between shooting and fiddling with his joystick ... would be
most distracting) ... Now, what you are suggesting is nifty but for most
purposes would have to be basicly a non-cybernetic Remote control deck
(with vid screens and manual controls) otherwise you'll have to keep LOS
to the drone (a drone is just basicly anything remote controlled so even
that RC copter is a drone :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 14
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:31:47 -0400
> Because, In all honesty, you are the one not grasping the language
> usage that
> you are using. A remote controlled device of the size and scale you
> are
> referring to, especially while using the comparisons that you are is a
> direct
> definition of a "Drone".
>
The thing is in SR a "Drone" is generally thought of as
a device controlled by a rigger. I am most certainly not after that. I
am avoiding the term because it connotates more control than I am
suggesting.

<snip nifty ferret bit>

> Some of the device ideas you had, IMO, had only one real problem.
> Consideration of the Technology. SR sciences are really cool with the
> concept
> of "Indirect Fire". Here is a really neat thought for ya. Get a
> system that
> would allow the sniper to sit somewhere with the aiming mechanism, and
> the
> gun/weapon is sitting elsewhere doing the actual shooting. IF the
> sniper is
> discovered, the response forces are directed towards the sniper in
> question,
> and not for the actual location of the weapon of choice(tm).
>
Very cool.
Message no. 15
From: bryan.covington@****.COM
Subject: Re: Indirect Sniping
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 09:43:32 -0400
> > I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A DRONE.
> >
> > I AM NOT PROPOSING RIGGER CONTROLS OF ANY SORT.
> >
> > I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE SNIPER CONTROL ANYTHING
> >ACTIVELY.
>
Sorry. Got kinda frustrated here.

> > What I AM suggesting, is simply using a remote
> control,
> >like those found on remote control (RC) cars in 1998 to position a
> >quiet, hovering model aircraft in a nondescript position above the
> >target area and LEAVE IT THERE. You push the hover button. Now the
> >sniper puts down the remote control and assumes his sniping position.
> He
> >does not need to think about where his drone is. He does not need to
> >consider how it is moving. He uses it's eyes, fed through the system
> you
> >describe to target his shot.
> >
> > This is no more complicated than the crawler body. It
> >requires no more control. You can put your spotters in more effective
> >places. You can retrieve them more easily. And they can be built more
> >cheaply than any drone. They are not high tech in any way. They could
> be
> >build right now, up to the smartgun interface at least.
> >
> > I am just talking about a slightly advanced RC
> >helicopter. Why is this so hard to grasp?
>
> Look. What I said was that using drones can enhance this system IF
> the
> sniper doesn't control them ... this is regardless of whether or not
> the
> controls are cybernetic or not (He/she can't effectively divide
> his/her
> attention between shooting and fiddling with his joystick ... would be

Eww.....;)

> most distracting) ... Now, what you are suggesting is nifty but for
> most
> purposes would have to be basicly a non-cybernetic Remote control deck
> (with vid screens and manual controls) otherwise you'll have to keep
> LOS
> to the drone (a drone is just basicly anything remote controlled so
> even
> that RC copter is a drone :)
>
I understand that I am technically talking about a drone
BUT(!!!) the reason to avoid it is that "drones" generally have rigger
controls, and lots of electronics in them. I am not talking about that.
In fact even the vidscreens are too high tech.
I didn't really see a problem with keeping LOS with the
(gnashing of teeth) drone. You could very easily position the drone
where you could see it and where it could see the target better. Then
just drop the joystick and leave the drone where it is. Now set up for
your shot.
I suppose the system would be a bit more high tech than
one out there today but only because more advanced parts are available
easily at Radio Shack.

Really I think you could make the drones themselves for
around 1000 nuyen maximum. The scopes and interface gear would be very
pricey. But I am inclined to think that you could find a way to keep the
more expensive bits with the sniper rather than on the (grumble) drone.
This was you have a remote :) with a cost of maybe 10k depending on the
actual system. That's not bad at all and if you lose one its not the end
of the world. Now the processor equipment in the sniper's backpack
(signal processors, custom programming), I could see that running up to
a million or more. But from a tactical POV it would be better to
minimize the cost of the remote and put all the pricey stuff with the
person.

Actually centralizing it would just be a matter of the
scopes sending raw image data to the processor which will put it into a
useful form.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Indirect Sniping, 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!