Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Nathan Saunders <nsaunders@***************.co.uk>
Subject: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:20:48 GMT
Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.

Any help much preciated.
Nathan nsaunders@***************.co.uk
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:11:33 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "NS" == Nathan Saunders
<nsaunders@***************.co.uk> writes:

NS> Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
NS> a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.

I don't see a standard smartlink working for a bow weapon. This is
primarilly because for most firearms it takes a fraction of a second
from firing to reach the target -- the projectile is small and fast
enough external forces such as gravity and wind velocity aren't going to
drastically affect the shot. With arched attacks the projectile is much
larger and slower, taking three or more seconds to reach the target.
Additionally they are usually stabilized in flight with feathers (tail)
which are designed to direct airflow; that makes them much more
susceptable to chaotic airflow patterns. Furthermore, a given cartridge,
say 5.56mm NATO ball, will have consistant muzzle velocity thus
consistant energy, thus if the shooting angle is measurable (trivial)
then the affects of gravity can be easilly adjusted for. With muscle-
powered weapons the energy at release is potentially quite variable; an
inch of draw can make several pounds worth of difference, affecting
projectile energy and maximum range, and that isn't so easilly measured.

It would take a dedicated smartgun system designed for bows; a standard
add-on smartgun system isn't going to be at all useful. And it would
likely not be useful beyond the short range step because beyond that
you're relying on a ballistic path rather than a mostly flat trajectory
and the bore wouldn't be pointing at the target anymore. You could
possibly mount it on a pivot but then you'll have to constantly adjust
for altitude compared to relative horizontal; ie, if you're shooting at
something at the same altitude as you and then switch to something
that's 30 feet up at 100 yards distance you'd be wasting quite a bit of
time setting the sight for that angle. And then you have to actually aim
and shoot. And then anything that makes sighting in easier is going to
reduce accuracy because you're loosing on the fine adjustments.

Overall, it's probably not worth it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMKembJ6VRH7BJMxHAQHMDwP+NnXS3PQxAR8F4lZoQM/xvhbv1dvlnedZ
OfozN5bWti3M8pfyhc9zqOOmso2+ysXEpg/GAo5M6nzH8M3sPDSuwqx4KCne9aj9
Sxtuyn9f/uaqLwM/UdJkbz8FXz/XcPg+pbZeEzcSXQwqW3RXBcaI5T0Rz2yfPdrn
W5lAuZgVTNw=
=TjPE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ of skin.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 3
From: Claudio - CAESB <claudio@****.ucb.br>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:22:39 -0200 (EDT)
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Nathan Saunders wrote:

> Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
> a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.
>
> Any help much preciated.
> Nathan nsaunders@***************.co.uk
>
>
Of course you can. The basic principle is the same as in the firearm.
There is even a accessorie in the Street Sam. catalog. It's called Bow
Accessorie Mount and it can receive imaging scopes, laser sights and
smartgun links.



[]s
Pedro Calmon
Message no. 4
From: sedahdro@*****.com (Victor Rodriguez, Jr)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 16:04 EST
>Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
>a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.
>
Wierd? No not wierd. Yes, you can, you just need a bow accessory mount p13
Street Sam Catalog(2nd Edition).
---Sedah Drol
--
I know where my towel is, do you?
GC3.1
GO>CS d- s:--- a21 C++++>$ U--- P L-- E? W+>W+++ N o? K? w+>w++++ O--- M-- V
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5+ X++ R++>+++$ tv++ b- DI++ D+ G++ e* h r++ y++
Message no. 5
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 00:31:25 GMT
The Stainless Steel Rat writes...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>>> "NS" == Nathan Saunders
<nsaunders@***************.co.uk> writes:
>
> NS> Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
> NS> a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.
>
> I don't see a standard smartlink working for a bow weapon. This is
> primarilly because for most firearms it takes a fraction of a second
> from firing to reach the target -- the projectile is small and fast
> enough external forces such as gravity and wind velocity aren't going to
> drastically affect the shot. With arched attacks the projectile is much
> larger and slower, taking three or more seconds to reach the target.

If a Shadowrun assault cannon is similar to today's .50cal sniper rifles,
time-of-flight to maximum range is at least two seconds. At a thousand
yards, shooters today are putting five-round groups into ten-inch circles.
Gravity, wind velocity, humidity, air temperature, and Magnus effect all
become very important at these distances for rifle bullets.

> Additionally they are usually stabilized in flight with feathers (tail)
> which are designed to direct airflow; that makes them much more
> susceptable to chaotic airflow patterns. Furthermore, a given cartridge,
> say 5.56mm NATO ball, will have consistant muzzle velocity thus
> consistant energy,

I'd offer 9mm Parabellum as an example. To US civilian shooters, 115 grains
at 1150 feet per seconds (apologies for switching units a lot) is a hot
load. NATO military 9mm is 115 at 1300+. Then you have the 95-grain
lightweight bullets, the 147-grain subsonics... A given brand of ammunition
will be anything from fairly to totally consistent, but the variation in
military ammunition is quite surprising. We once had a batch of 7.62mm
ball that was so undercharged we had several "weak charge" stoppages, where
the bullet couldn't be forced past the chamber into the rifling...

As for aerodynamic airflow making the round unpredictable, the Royal
Artillery are quite confident they can put MLRS rockets over the target
area at a range of over thirty kilometres. Remember, the high-arched shots
were not aimed at individuals: the idea was to make it rain arrows
on the enemy as they approached, then switch to direct fire when the range
made it worthwhile to pick out individual targets. You can use tripod-
mounted sustained-fire machineguns in this role, though they are less
effective today than when they were water-cooled: effective range is out
to two kilometres, as long as you have ground amenable to spotting fall
of shot (wet or dusty).

> thus if the shooting angle is measurable (trivial)
> then the affects of gravity can be easilly adjusted for. With muscle-
> powered weapons the energy at release is potentially quite variable; an
> inch of draw can make several pounds worth of difference, affecting
> projectile energy and maximum range, and that isn't so easilly measured.

Neither is measuring shooting angle hands-off with precision, compensating
for parallax, allowing for awkward grips on the weapon... A loadcell worked
onto or into the bowstring, or applied to the arms of the bow, is simple by
comparison to that lot. Measure the strain = measure the energy of the
arrow.

> It would take a dedicated smartgun system designed for bows; a standard
> add-on smartgun system isn't going to be at all useful. And it would
> likely not be useful beyond the short range step because beyond that
> you're relying on a ballistic path rather than a mostly flat trajectory
> and the bore wouldn't be pointing at the target anymore.

True of - for instance - submachineguns beyond 100 metres, or sniper rifles
or heavy machine guns beyond 300 metres. "Battlesight" for a 7.62mm SLR was
300 metres.

> You could
> possibly mount it on a pivot but then you'll have to constantly adjust
> for altitude compared to relative horizontal; ie, if you're shooting at
> something at the same altitude as you and then switch to something
> that's 30 feet up at 100 yards distance you'd be wasting quite a bit of
> time setting the sight for that angle.

If you have a system that can calculate point angle without external
assistance, you can certainly put a "down" reference into it. Ferranti
do it for their helmet-mounted displays.

> And then you have to actually aim
> and shoot. And then anything that makes sighting in easier is going to
> reduce accuracy because you're loosing on the fine adjustments.

??? Elaborate this please, it's not quite as clear as it could be.

> Overall, it's probably not worth it.

By that argument, neither is a smartlink on a firearm.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:58:12 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:

PJA> If a Shadowrun assault cannon is similar to today's .50cal sniper
PJA> rifles, time-of-flight to maximum range is at least two seconds.

They're not. They're a large caliber, self-propelled warhead, much like
the old gyrocs/gyrojets.

PJA> At a thousand yards, shooters today are putting five-round groups
PJA> into ten-inch circles. Gravity, wind velocity, humidity, air
PJA> temperature, and Magnus effect all become very important at these
PJA> distances for rifle bullets.

Agreed; but the effects on an arched shot are generally going to be much
greater than on a mostly flat trajectory.

PJA> I'd offer 9mm Parabellum as an example. To US civilian shooters,
PJA> 115 grains at 1150 feet per seconds (apologies for switching units
PJA> a lot) is a hot load. NATO military 9mm is 115 at 1300+. Then you
PJA> have the 95-grain lightweight bullets, the 147-grain subsonics... A
PJA> given brand of ammunition will be anything from fairly to totally
PJA> consistent, but the variation in military ammunition is quite
PJA> surprising.

Which is why a military smartgun unit will most likely be much more
sophisticated than a civilian model, certainly calibrated for various
loads, and possibly designed for a specific weapon.

PJA> We once had a batch of 7.62mm ball that was so undercharged we had
PJA> several "weak charge" stoppages, where the bullet couldn't be
PJA> forced past the chamber into the rifling...

Blah! that's really bad.

PJA> As for aerodynamic airflow making the round unpredictable, the
PJA> Royal Artillery are quite confident they can put MLRS rockets over
PJA> the target area at a range of over thirty kilometres.

But a single launcher can't consistantly hit a tank-sized target at that
range, which is why they launch salvoes from large batteries and sweep
an area.

PJA> Remember, the high-arched shots were not aimed at individuals: the
PJA> idea was to make it rain arrows on the enemy as they approached,
PJA> then switch to direct fire when the range made it worthwhile to
PJA> pick out individual targets.

Oh, agreed, agreed. But you're not likely to be using those kinds of
tactics on most Shadowruns. And you're not likely to be seeing brigades
of longbowmen on the battlefield any time soon.


PJA> Neither is measuring shooting angle hands-off with precision,
PJA> compensating for parallax, allowing for awkward grips on the
PJA> weapon...

If all that's being measured is the attitude of the barrel, then it
really doesn't matter how poorly the weapon is gripped, because as long
as there is a link to the weapon the exact same telemetry information is
being sent up the wire.

PJA> A loadcell worked onto or into the bowstring, or applied to the
PJA> arms of the bow, is simple by comparison to that lot. Measure the
PJA> strain = measure the energy of the arrow.

There really are a lot more variables involved in that than just the
strain, such as how quickly the bow tries to resume it's proper shape.
And that's dependant upon a bazillion other factors like construction,
humidity, wear on the bow, and a whole slew of others that I don't want
to get into because it would take a full dissertation on bow
construction techniques. But because this can't be calculated until the
string is released the information is useless for targeting. This is
probably the most important reason the longbowmen of old underwent so
much training, so that they knew instinctively how their bow would
respond under various conditions.


PJA> True of - for instance - submachineguns beyond 100 metres, or
PJA> sniper rifles or heavy machine guns beyond 300 metres.
PJA> "Battlesight" for a 7.62mm SLR was 300 metres.

Not necessarilly, if the trajectory is flat enough that the "bore" of
the sight is still roughly pointed at the target, enough that the target
is within the sensor's zone. A "smartbow" system would require a much
larger sight, with at least a 30 degree "vision" zone. But then, how can
it distinguish between the friend you're covering at 100 meters, -10
degrees elevation and the drone that's closing in on him at 50 meters,
+20 degrees elevation?

>> And then you have to actually aim and shoot. And then anything that
>> makes sighting in easier is going to reduce accuracy because you're
>> loosing on the fine adjustments.

PJA> ??? Elaborate this please, it's not quite as clear as it could be.

Basically, if you consider it to work like the adjustments on a scope
sight, each "click" would have to be somewhat larger on the smartbow
sight than on the telescopic sight if you wanted to be able to make
large adjustments in a similar time span. Because each click represents
a greater number of degrees of arc than the scope it results in cruder
adjustments. Let's face it, even shooting at a target at maximum range
with a Barrett-80 you're not going to have a significant elevation over
the direct line to the target, 10 to 15 degrees, at a guess (I haven't
done the math so I don't have exact numbers, and trig was never a
favorite). Whereas with any bow you're going to have a 45-degree
elevation when shooting. You're not going to want to have to go through
15 clicks when you'd use 3 on a firearm, and you may not have time for
it. Thus, if one click on the firearm sight is 1 degree, one click on
the bow sight would be 5 degrees, for instance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMKgFvJ6VRH7BJMxHAQG3aAP/WvuJ4BarY194FSN8nxF8vjNaoSUlbKyY
ZlC5Bv6q2uJJxXgX7i+BJAewgioNJ34XaAz/9LsyBk/nHAM8JOjDSXKbrUAJiJKo
eI6rj0rTtSUWN+AD58R4bOayIB2TuCKCYc1GqP12xiLa8wS3pKo84RMR2D/+7ADM
MMHonyxUUfA=
=VcD5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 7
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:32:02 +0100
Nathan Saunders said on13 Nov 95...

> Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
> a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.

Yes, you can. You seem to have the SSC, otherwise you... wait a sec, stats
for that bow are also in SRII... Anyway, in the SSC is a thing called "Bow
accessory mount" which allows you to fit firearm accessories to bows.
Like, if you always wanted to have a gas vent on your Ranger X bow, you
can do it with that thing :) Or, of course, laser sights, smartlinks,
ultrsound, and other generally more useful stuff...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Burn it up
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/~mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:12:35 GMT
Oh no, Rat and I are at it again... :)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> PJA> If a Shadowrun assault cannon is similar to today's .50cal sniper
> PJA> rifles, time-of-flight to maximum range is at least two seconds.
>
> They're not. They're a large caliber, self-propelled warhead, much like
> the old gyrocs/gyrojets.

Sources please ;) Seriously, no way does a Gyrojet reach 1300 metres.
They weren't even accurate to twenty.

> PJA> At a thousand yards, shooters today are putting five-round groups
> PJA> into ten-inch circles. Gravity, wind velocity, humidity, air
> PJA> temperature, and Magnus effect all become very important at these
> PJA> distances for rifle bullets.
>
> Agreed; but the effects on an arched shot are generally going to be much
> greater than on a mostly flat trajectory.

Define "arched"... at 100 metres, a bowshot is as flat as a rifle shot
at 400 metres. Okay, for SR, a rifle-calibre round fired from a medium
MG. This is why bows have shorter ranges than assault cannon :)

> PJA> I'd offer 9mm Parabellum as an example. To US civilian shooters,
> PJA> 115 grains at 1150 feet per seconds (apologies for switching units
> PJA> a lot) is a hot load. NATO military 9mm is 115 at 1300+. Then you
> PJA> have the 95-grain lightweight bullets, the 147-grain subsonics... A
> PJA> given brand of ammunition will be anything from fairly to totally
> PJA> consistent, but the variation in military ammunition is quite
> PJA> surprising.
>
> Which is why a military smartgun unit will most likely be much more
> sophisticated than a civilian model, certainly calibrated for various
> loads, and possibly designed for a specific weapon.

Nothing about this in the rules... :) I'd agree it makes sense, though.
To be honest, you'd probably pick a few loads and sight the link in
with each, just as tankies use different settings for APFSDS and HESH:
APDS and gel rounds would be very differently ballistically. This is
too detailed for most people's games, though.

> PJA> As for aerodynamic airflow making the round unpredictable, the
> PJA> Royal Artillery are quite confident they can put MLRS rockets over
> PJA> the target area at a range of over thirty kilometres.
>
> But a single launcher can't consistantly hit a tank-sized target at that
> range, which is why they launch salvoes from large batteries and sweep
> an area.

I'd also offer everything from the PIAT onwards as weapons which were
aerodynamically stabilised and could hit individual tanks (at much shorter
ranges). Point is, at thirty kilometres the rockets are still reasonably
predictable: at 200-300 metres they're point-target weapons. (out to
800 metres for LAW80, on a still day and a fixed target, according to a
friend at Hunting Engineering).

> PJA> Remember, the high-arched shots were not aimed at individuals: the
> PJA> idea was to make it rain arrows on the enemy as they approached,
> PJA> then switch to direct fire when the range made it worthwhile to
> PJA> pick out individual targets.
>
> Oh, agreed, agreed. But you're not likely to be using those kinds of
> tactics on most Shadowruns. And you're not likely to be seeing brigades
> of longbowmen on the battlefield any time soon.

That's an example of firing beyond "Shadowrun Extreme" bow range, not how
you'd use them in Shadowrun (or these days anywhere else). Certainly that sort
of fire you couldn't effectively use a smartlink for. But at fifty yards,
say - or even indoors - why wouldn't a smartlink work? Flat trajectory,
little wind or gravity effect... It becomes a case of trying to decide
when it stops working.

If you want an off-the-cuff house rule, try this: the smartlink only provides
-1 at Long range, and no modifier at Extreme range, when mounted on bows.
(Now spot the smartalec player who wants a Smart-II bow).

> PJA> A loadcell worked onto or into the bowstring, or applied to the
> PJA> arms of the bow, is simple by comparison to that lot. Measure the
> PJA> strain = measure the energy of the arrow.
>
> There really are a lot more variables involved in that than just the
> strain, such as how quickly the bow tries to resume it's proper shape.
> And that's dependant upon a bazillion other factors like construction,
> humidity, wear on the bow, and a whole slew of others that I don't want
> to get into because it would take a full dissertation on bow
> construction techniques.

And you don't get all this with firearms? :) Construction yes, barrel
wear yes (I'd guess APDS loads are pretty hard on the bore: tank guns
are only good for 500-1000 rounds of APDS, similar to artillery pieces
fired at maximum charge). Humidity and air temperature are problems
for long-range snipers, but a modern all-synthetic bow would be pretty
immune to humidity effects and would tend to age in a more predictable
manner.

Lots of problems, none of them any more insoluble than their firearm
equivalents.

> But because this can't be calculated until the
> string is released the information is useless for targeting. This is
> probably the most important reason the longbowmen of old underwent so
> much training, so that they knew instinctively how their bow would
> respond under various conditions.

True, but then look at CCIP bombsights on aircraft. Draw, hold, let the
pipper settle, loose. And I'd guess (but my experience of archery is limited)
that a trained bowman could be pretty consistent in his draw: he or she would
have to be to get hits anyway.

> PJA> True of - for instance - submachineguns beyond 100 metres, or
> PJA> sniper rifles or heavy machine guns beyond 300 metres.
> PJA> "Battlesight" for a 7.62mm SLR was 300 metres.
>
> Not necessarilly, if the trajectory is flat enough that the "bore" of
> the sight is still roughly pointed at the target, enough that the target
> is within the sensor's zone. A "smartbow" system would require a much
> larger sight, with at least a 30 degree "vision" zone. But then, how can
> it distinguish between the friend you're covering at 100 meters, -10
> degrees elevation and the drone that's closing in on him at 50 meters,
> +20 degrees elevation?

Depends on how you interpret smartgun systems. AFAIK the only "sensor"
other than the angle-of-point measurement is your eye, and possibly some
feedback from your limbs to correct for parallax. You put the pipper
where you want it and shoot. If the pipper goes on a friendly, you
don't shoot. Anything else gets horribly complicated... just how much
computing power is in this Y800 unit anyway? And how, exactly, is
it differentiating "my drone" from "their drone?" But that's a whole
new can of worms to open.

> Basically, if you consider it to work like the adjustments on a scope
> sight, each "click" would have to be somewhat larger on the smartbow
> sight than on the telescopic sight if you wanted to be able to make
> large adjustments in a similar time span.

Ah, now I see what you mean.

It would be electronic. Have a "coarse" and "fine" adjustment. In
fact it would be cybernetically controlled, if not entirely automated.

> Because each click represents
> a greater number of degrees of arc than the scope it results in cruder
> adjustments. Let's face it, even shooting at a target at maximum range
> with a Barrett-80 you're not going to have a significant elevation over
> the direct line to the target, 10 to 15 degrees, at a guess (I haven't
> done the math so I don't have exact numbers, and trig was never a
> favorite). Whereas with any bow you're going to have a 45-degree
> elevation when shooting.

I'd call that "indirect fire" and disallow it, myself. And, again, what
about a shot taken at twenty metres' range? I think for sanity you're
looking at shots with a time-of-flight of under a second in SR... otherwise
a fast opponent gets an action between the arrow being loosed and it
arriving! "I take two paces forward." "The arrow hisses past you
harmlessly."

It looks like FASA inflated bow ranges to make them appealing relative to
firearms: sensible to give the game a nice feel, but liable to give one
convulsions when you try to compare weapons on the basis of real-life
knowledge. If you take that assumption, and assume the average bowshot
(strength 3) is a flat, aimable trajectory to 180 metres, then
the smartlinks work. If you play bows with realistic ranges, then you
couldn't make a smartlink work on them past Short or Medium range.

If you want bows to be realistic, I want to be able to score hits with a
sniper rifle at 1200 metres :)

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 9
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:53:18 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:

> If you want bows to be realistic, I want to be able to score hits with a
> sniper rifle at 1200 metres :)

Which is precisely why I give sniper rifles the same range
categories as an assault cannon. Reach out and touch someone. :)

Marc
Message no. 10
From: Nathan Saunders <nsaunders@***************.co.uk>
Subject: Re : Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:36:16 GMT
Thanks to all who responded. I didnt assosciate the SSC(?) with the bow mount
at all.

As for the ballistics discussion. Am way impressed with you guys.

Your Discussion
|
|
|
|
My Head

A bit beyond my understanding but you have given me some interesting points
to think on.

Nathan nsaunders@***************.co.uk
Message no. 11
From: Scott Taylor Spencer <sts100z@********.cc.odu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:12:02 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Nathan Saunders wrote:

> Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
> a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.
>
> Any help much preciated.
> Nathan nsaunders@***************.co.uk
>
I do not see why not.>
>

_______________________________________________________________________________


"Come Friends Run With me Towards Danger"
-Unknown MST3K quote

Scott Spencer
sts100z@********.cc.odu.edu

"Nothing can stop us......we're on a mission from Glod"
-Cliff the Troll from Terry Prachett's Soul Music
_______________________________________________________________________________
Message no. 12
From: Quicksilver <jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:41:47 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Marc A Renouf wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:
>
> > If you want bows to be realistic, I want to be able to score hits with a
> > sniper rifle at 1200 metres :)
>
> Which is precisely why I give sniper rifles the same range
> categories as an assault cannon. Reach out and touch someone. :)
>

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the range table works nicely
for most streetfighting ranges. A nifty trick that gives most weapons on
the table a "realistic" number for their range categories is to multiply
the ranges by the rating of any sight fitted to the weapon by the rating
of the scope+1.

IE, a sniper rifle, instead of going to only 400 meters, has an extreme
range of 1600 meters with a rating-3 scope.

This fudge is easy to implement, easy to use, and works quite nicely with
weapons that have a short range when hip-shot, but a longer range when
shouldered and scope-shot
Message no. 13
From: seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 18:22:09 -0600 (CST)
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Nathan Saunders wrote:
>
> > Ok I no this will sound kinda weird but can you smartlink/gun
> > a Ranger X-Bow? If not why not.

This is precisely what the bow acsesory mount is for- external smartlinks or
lazer sights or vision scopes. Internal smartlink? Well, if you wanna blow
the cash, I dont see why the optics, harware, and inductance link cannot be
miniturized and built in.

seb
Message no. 14
From: seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 18:44:18 -0600 (CST)
>
> I don't see a standard smartlink working for a bow weapon. This is
> primarilly because for most firearms it takes a fraction of a second
> from firing to reach the target -- the projectile is small and fast
> enough external forces such as gravity and wind velocity aren't going to
> drastically affect the shot. With arched attacks the projectile is much
> larger and slower, taking three or more seconds to reach the target.

Not that long, for most shots. Good bows have the same balistics caracter as
hand guns. In fact, a recent multiple asuult case involving a crosbow
wielding nut who used prostitutes a s targets here in chicago had the cops
baffled- they figured he must be using some airpowerd devvice. Nope, just a
cheap crossbow with a scope.
Also, note that crossbows at least are EXTREMELY consistant- a bencmounted
crossbow WILL strike its own quarells.
Magnesium compound bows are also exteremely powerful, with high arrow speeds,
and propper relese teqniques, such as those developed by the mongol raides,
can make them as consistant as crossbows.
Message no. 15
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:05:31 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "SW" == Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.ripco.com> writes:

SW> Not that long, for most shots. Good bows have the same balistics
SW> caracter as hand guns.

Only at what would be considered to be in the short to medium range
steps for the bow. Let's face it, there's no way you're going to arch an
arrow at anywhere approaching Mach 1. Yes, acceleration due to gravity
is the same but it's quite apparant that it will take much longer for an
arrow to reach its target than any bullet from a firearm.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMKthQJ6VRH7BJMxHAQF/SQP/XmSXRBfdPaHx6zFRYCTojR/6810uW3d8
jRqNORUDcK4eL6OfPLGjYghBYCgPrOIUKvgB+iuIByzgXqgNCZK1i48YWFA0hvRp
o4luMmGoXt66GxtVOLEAehliKBGaH0t1ev0yxWswA+ob4fjcLk1iskIy6qPdHjr8
wI6UfT+p7SA=
=ZMrh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 16
From: "k.lin-student-civ-ghostgum-93087284" <kwlin@***.itd.uts.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:53:23 +1100 (EST)
On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Quicksilver wrote:

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the range table works nicely
> for most streetfighting ranges. A nifty trick that gives most weapons on
> the table a "realistic" number for their range categories is to multiply
> the ranges by the rating of any sight fitted to the weapon by the rating
> of the scope+1.
>
> IE, a sniper rifle, instead of going to only 400 meters, has an extreme
> range of 1600 meters with a rating-3 scope.
>
> This fudge is easy to implement, easy to use, and works quite nicely with
> weapons that have a short range when hip-shot, but a longer range when
> shouldered and scope-shot
>

Great idea <much applause from audience...flowers thrown...fairy claps from
the boxes>

This is a good fix for a problem with the SR2 rules that has been buggin'
our role-play group from day 1.

Thanks...

Fade to the Black...

Kin
Message no. 17
From: Captain Elvis Sputnik Kid <MALOYD7847@***.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 21:58:28 -0600 (CST)
However one thing you are overlooking is that the English (well, Welsh really)
longbow _does_ have excellent range and penetration capabilities. In the hands
of a competant archer a bow can be just as deadly as a decent sniper rifle
(okok discounting some of the .50 rifles used today ;>).

And if you really can't see a normal smartlink being able to deal with the
special problems that bows offer why not just charge a little more, increase
the weight a bit, and sell it as a smart-link specificially for bows...afterall
we're assuming that (meta)humankind has developed technology that can interface
the (meta)human nervous system, indeed the very brain itself, with
technology...having a computer handle a few hundred variables at once should be
a cakewalk after that.
Message no. 18
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:38:35 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "CESK" == Captain Elvis Sputnik Kid
<MALOYD7847@***.edu> writes:

CESK> And if you really can't see a normal smartlink being able to deal
CESK> with the special problems that bows offer why not just charge a
CESK> little more, increase the weight a bit, and sell it as a
CESK> smart-link specificially for bows...

Angle the bow up to 45 degrees for maximum range, and then tell me that
a standard smartgun system with a less-than-5 degree "sight" bore can
see a target horizontal to you. Or, assuming it can by some means, tell
me how the system can distinguish between the target you want to hit at
zero degrees elevation and a bird at 35 degrees elevation? A regular
smartgun system with a narrow sight bore doesn't have to worry about
this kind of problem because it can only "see" a single target at any
given time; a smartbow system would need to either be able to see
everything in 45 or more degrees of elevation, or it's going to need
some kind of gymbal mount which is going to be a maintainance nightmare,
not to mention a general pain in the ass to deal with.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMKysaZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGrQwQAsthteOa8uak+mN0Co0zkcDnY28BuEDFU
ku0LrCWbp5J6SNLDLvjQ/UMV3UGSU3+zttJnQxkWfzWx8gt5OA6MVcK/AaPkfpX8
3g5nMA0Bc5Lq18JUGDiqDuNtNh6MLj8recFgkT2Mc8wTI+CU5n5+8wDiLiOC+FOF
yTAFZeNTs9o=
=PYIt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Message no. 19
From: seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 14:21:38 -0600 (CST)
>
> Angle the bow up to 45 degrees for maximum range, and then tell me that
> a standard smartgun system with a less-than-5 degree "sight" bore can
>yaddda yadda yadda natter yadda

Angle a gun up to 45 degrees for maximum range, and then tell me your even
fucking aming at any specific target. Do you know how a bow is used, say in
hunting? Can you imagine anybody hoping to do damage with, say throwing
Knives, using the Jarts like procedure you seem to think bows use at longer
range? (remember Jarts? could be fun, but not mutch good in combat, except
maybe in suprise situations). From what your saying, smart-link is out for
grenade launcers at all but short range, and for morters.
Message no. 20
From: seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 14:43:51 -0600 (CST)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "SW" == Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.ripco.com>
writes:
>
> SW> Not that long, for most shots. Good bows have the same balistics
> SW> caracter as hand guns.
>
> Only at what would be considered to be in the short to medium range
> steps for the bow. Let's face it, there's no way you're going to arch an
> arrow at anywhere approaching Mach 1. Yes, acceleration due to gravity
> is the same but it's quite apparant that it will take much longer for an
> arrow to reach its target than any bullet from a firearm.
>
Thats why I said "hand guns" and "good bows"- look at the comparative
ranges-
short rande for a bow is long range for a pistol.
Message no. 21
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:56:39 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "SW" == Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.ripco.com> writes:

SW> Angle a gun up to 45 degrees for maximum range, and then tell me
SW> your even fucking aming at any specific target.

With a longbow, at long to extreme range, that's exactly what you're
doing. This is one of the fundamental differences between shooting a
gun and shooting a bow.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMKz3AJ6VRH7BJMxHAQGa9QP/Tk+XQKVnwhJpWG7Ftc3ShPHkYo6lqL0I
Qbe5Gg9F+naNSMaiBkuV5gRlYF7IzeqiZU1YuQdRX3VcSk3usnGfIeWVboXLLe/0
/0VZEZHnUksR7saJUVPvixIYD3nYV7DV6MYBZvScnLhEXyEmOyPBDAaIPnuDPi/f
uQu5fpn93J4=
6MX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 22
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 22:59:42 GMT
Rat wrote, re. high-angle bowshot:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> With a longbow, at long to extreme range, that's exactly what you're
> doing. This is one of the fundamental differences between shooting a
> gun and shooting a bow.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

In that case I want Extreme range for a medium MG to be an absolute
minimum of 1800 metres, because that is what we do now with GPMG(SF).
Rat, you're getting too literal. A forty-five degree shot with an L1A1 SLR has
a range of over five miles! If 'extreme' bow range includes that sort of
fire, then we should rewrite the firearms tables to suit.

At short ranges your trajectory is to all intents and purposes flat.
Yes, you can argue forever about the extreme-range shots: based just
on time-of-flight I'd rule them out in a world where your target
has wired reflexes. See the shooter loose, take two or three steps to
the right or left, watch the arrow miss.

Now, why can't I put a smartlink on a crossbow and have it be completely
effective at a range of twenty metres? For a powerful enough bow, where's
the breakpoint where it stops working? Or do you just drop those complexities
and say it works across the weapon range?

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 23
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 08:46:28 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:

PJA> Rat wrote, re. high-angle bowshot:
>> With a longbow, at long to extreme range, that's exactly what you're
>> doing. This is one of the fundamental differences between shooting a
>> gun and shooting a bow.

PJA> In that case I want Extreme range for a medium MG to be an absolute
PJA> minimum of 1800 metres, because that is what we do now with
PJA> GPMG(SF).

I'm not talking numbers here, I'm just using some generalities. To hit
a target at a firearm's "long" or "extreme" ranges, regardless of what
those ranges are, you don't shot at a 45-degree angle. With a bow you
do. Firearms are direct fire weapons out to their maximum effective
ranges; bows are indirect fire weapons beyond "medium" range. That's
why a conventional smartgun system isn't going to work -- like laser
sights they're designed for direct fire use. Making an indirect fire
smartgun system isn't impossible, but it will be a tremendously more
complex system, at least an order of magnitude more complex.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMK3jrZ6VRH7BJMxHAQFt+QP+NQTIVYfNsILxQjBPKDW7ygPEcbZs5PH8
EKQzV612GhjkXAAt6q1VSY7d3ysghUL5G4M/j061vnWdB7riACiWRcy7SozMHdEv
+dXcfvDILbkBqtrluU0xjx5Ozc30kA+COQh0X1TNXxIenWA74vDOii0k7B6qpmBZ
+OkRWI4r8FM=
=bZu8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 24
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 17:51:25 GMT
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> I'm not talking numbers here, I'm just using some generalities. To hit
> a target at a firearm's "long" or "extreme" ranges, regardless of
what
> those ranges are, you don't shot at a 45-degree angle.

With GPMG(SF) you do. Effective fire possible to 1800 yards, straight
from my MTQ2 tactical handbook. Muzzle elevation is about 20 degrees
at that point.

Now, either high-angle fire is possible or it isn't. If you can do
it for bows why can't you do it with medium MGs? (Which are a damned
sight more effective in that role, BTW).

> With a bow you
> do. Firearms are direct fire weapons out to their maximum effective
> ranges; bows are indirect fire weapons beyond "medium" range. That's
> why a conventional smartgun system isn't going to work -- like laser
> sights they're designed for direct fire use. Making an indirect fire
> smartgun system isn't impossible, but it will be a tremendously more
> complex system, at least an order of magnitude more complex.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

It's called a ballistic computer, and there's one on every artillery piece
in the British Army down to the 105mm Light Guns, and every mortar fire
controller has one. It's about the size of a laptop computer (because it
basically is one) at the moment. In sixty years I think we can assume it's
small enough to mount on a bow :)

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 25
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 22:40:12 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:

PJA> Now, either high-angle fire is possible or it isn't. If you can do
PJA> it for bows why can't you do it with medium MGs? (Which are a
PJA> damned sight more effective in that role, BTW).

In theory, no reason you can't. That isn't the point. Firearms are
parimarlly direct fire weapons and bows (not crossbows, they're much
different beasts, more akin to firearms) are primarilly indirect fire
weapons. You can use firearms as indirect fire weapons but they're much
less effective in that role than weapons designed as such. The point is
that a smargun system designed for a direct fire weapon will not work
with an indirect fire weapon; the dynamics are completely different.
You could, theoretically, make an indirect fire smartgun system, but it
would by necessity be a much more complex piece of equipment.

The trajectories of most bullets under most circumstances, not counting
suppressive fire, are flat enough that you don't need a "real"
ballistics computer, just an automatic sight up/down "clicker" tied to
the ranging system and maybe a little bit of input from the shooter. A
sophisticated upgrade to the laser sight, one that puts a dot on the
shooter's retina instead of the target.

The trajectories of most arrows beyond short range are demonstrably
parabolic and you would need a ballistics computer sensing minute
changes in tension in the bow (for best reliability they would have to
be manufaturered in the bow itself; aftermarket surface sensors would be
much less exact) and string (not easy at all) in real time. It would
have to be mounted to the bow with a motorized gymbal; simplest from a
mechanical/sensory perspective. It has to be compact and reasonably
light or it's useless.

So, what you end up with is a very expensive, moderately fragile system.
Not impossible, but certainly not as simple as taking a generic
aftermarket smartgun system and sticking it on a mounting bracket.

And to address your point, go ahead, shoot at targets at 2000 meters
with your GPMG. Just don't expect your smartgun system to be at all
useful because the best you can do is suppressive fire and hose the
area, and smartlinks are pretty much useless for that.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMK6nEZ6VRH7BJMxHAQF7XwQAqVk6PlfqtmHZzC6QRYE/l1uNPhqD7a9r
ao2+NPm+NY3JN5Egtow/xnVcc+IuCtlnPgotJN+iufAHYnJ4J+do5a0LqGWEMJ2M
/zJyQRvVoKBEWwVxofrXwLtpj+S3MWCmzcU8ICvVeWVLqJveh03+XW+YB+WAB/32
pdChSPzPYT0=
Ìmt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 26
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 00:43:25 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:

> It's called a ballistic computer, and there's one on every artillery piece
> in the British Army down to the 105mm Light Guns, and every mortar fire
> controller has one. It's about the size of a laptop computer (because it
> basically is one) at the moment. In sixty years I think we can assume it's
> small enough to mount on a bow :)

And even small enough to be installed into the human brain. Ah,
the joys of smartlink cyberware.

Marc
Message no. 27
From: Charles McKenzie <kilroy@**.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 05:18:17 -0600 (CST)
On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> And to address your point, go ahead, shoot at targets at 2000 meters
> with your GPMG. Just don't expect your smartgun system to be at all
> useful because the best you can do is suppressive fire and hose the
> area, and smartlinks are pretty much useless for that.

What are the limits on SmartgunII's indirect fire abilities?
Fields of Fire says that it can calculate indirect fore arcs, but it
doesn't go in to any specifics. I know it applies -1 at long and -2 at
extreme range, but it really doesn't mean much, because as far as I can
tell, even extreme range for most weapons is nowhere near indirect fire.

Chuck McKenzie kilroy@***.cs.wisc.edu
Finger me for my PGP key http://yar.cs.wisc.edu/~kilroy/
Message no. 28
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:33:26 +1100 (EST)
Charles McKenzie writes:

> What are the limits on SmartgunII's indirect fire abilities?

Actually, you bring up a good point. The smartgunn II gives additional
accuracy at long and extreme range, and also allows greater accuracy for
indirect fire weapons. Sounds like the smartgun II has an oomphed up
ballistics computer in it that allows it to cope with non-linear fire.
Mayhaps a smartlink II could cope with a bow?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 29
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 10:40:28 GMT
Rat writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:
> PJA> Now, either high-angle fire is possible or it isn't. If you can do
> PJA> it for bows why can't you do it with medium MGs? (Which are a
> PJA> damned sight more effective in that role, BTW).
>
> In theory, no reason you can't. That isn't the point. Firearms are
> parimarlly direct fire weapons and bows (not crossbows, they're much
> different beasts, more akin to firearms) are primarilly indirect fire
> weapons. You can use firearms as indirect fire weapons but they're much
> less effective in that role than weapons designed as such.

Uh, no they're not, at least not until you start comparing GPMG(SF)
indirect fire to mortar fire :) Sustained-fire MGs firing on arched
trajectories were widely used by Soviet forces in Afghanistan for
interdiction fire: fire a long burst every few minutes, and you
make the valley you're registered on into a nightmare of ricochets.
Discourages anyone using it either from concealment or movement.

Again, if you're defining bows as primarily indirect-fire weapons, I think
you're using massed fire at long range a la Agincourt for the general
use of a bow. This is news to the couple of toxophiles I know, as
well as to bowhunters. With that high-arched trajectory and a relatively
slow projectile, you really ought to allow a Reaction or Quickness test
for targets at long range to dodge.

When there are hundreds or thousands of arrows coming down from the sky,
there's nowhere to run to. When it's a single archer you don't have that
problem.

> The point is
> that a smargun system designed for a direct fire weapon will not work
> with an indirect fire weapon; the dynamics are completely different.
> You could, theoretically, make an indirect fire smartgun system, but it
> would by necessity be a much more complex piece of equipment.

And entirely achievable with today's technology, though somewhat bulky.

> The trajectories of most bullets under most circumstances, not counting
> suppressive fire, are flat enough that you don't need a "real"
> ballistics computer, just an automatic sight up/down "clicker" tied to
> the ranging system and maybe a little bit of input from the shooter. A
> sophisticated upgrade to the laser sight, one that puts a dot on the
> shooter's retina instead of the target.

What's so special about suppressive fire? Twenty-five aimed shots per minute
on the target's area, if the targets aren't sportsmanlike enough to stand
up and be shot at. For long-range harassing SFMG fire, you adjust fire by
correction: spotting tracer to 1000-1200 metres, then observing strikes
beyond that.

By your argument, you could claim aimed fire with a bow if you had a hill
in the way and an observer on the crest.

> The trajectories of most arrows beyond short range are demonstrably
> parabolic and you would need a ballistics computer sensing minute
> changes in tension in the bow (for best reliability they would have to
> be manufaturered in the bow itself; aftermarket surface sensors would be
> much less exact) and string (not easy at all) in real time. It would
> have to be mounted to the bow with a motorized gymbal; simplest from a
> mechanical/sensory perspective. It has to be compact and reasonably
> light or it's useless.
> So, what you end up with is a very expensive, moderately fragile system.

If you built it today. The nearest thing I've seen to smartgun
technology today is a bulky breadboarded package, about the same size
as the M-16 it was mounted on. How robust was a typical portable computer
sixty years ago? :) And building small motorised gimbals is trivially
easy today: we're replacing the control surface actuators in the Sting
Ray torpedo (currently hydraulic) with electrical drive.

> Not impossible, but certainly not as simple as taking a generic
> aftermarket smartgun system and sticking it on a mounting bracket.

You're assuming that in sixty years nobody has tried to develop this,
and when they do they use only 1990s technology? And this may explain why you
need a specialist accessory mount to put a laser sight or smart adapter on the
bow. Put the difficult parts into the mount, then just clamp a generic
aftermarket smartgun adaptor onto it.

And when you interface a smartgun, it projects the aiming mark
either into your eye or onto your glasses. So, exactly why does the
adapter or its mount have to pivot? It's calculating trajectories and
generating aiming symbols. The ballistic computer on a 155mm FH70
doesn't have to be clamped to the barrel.

> And to address your point, go ahead, shoot at targets at 2000 meters
> with your GPMG. Just don't expect your smartgun system to be at all
> useful because the best you can do is suppressive fire and hose the
> area, and smartlinks are pretty much useless for that.

But you're claiming you can aim shots with a bow in similar (high angle, time
of flight about two seconds) circumstances? What a smartlink - especially a
smartlink II - would do is cut the uncertainly of the first shots down,
and give you an idea of the dispersion. Precision in that fire mode is very
hard to attain with any weapon: once again, why can you do it with a single
arrow when you can't with a belt of 7.62mm?


Finally, Rat, I notice in my 1992 Parker-Hale catalogue that Aimpoint
manufacture a bow sight: a 30mm tube red-dot sight and mount.

"Designed into the bow sight is a patented cam operated mounting system.
This allows the archer to set the bow sight for different distances. A scale
on the mount lets the archer place a mark for a set distance and
repeatability.".

Now, if this is useless, why are Aimpoint manufacturing it and Parker-Hale
selling it for UKP285 ?

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 30
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:02:03 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:

PJA> Uh, no they're not, at least not until you start comparing GPMG(SF)
PJA> indirect fire to mortar fire :) Sustained-fire MGs firing on arched
PJA> trajectories were widely used by Soviet forces in Afghanistan

Just to refresh your memory, the Soviets *LOST* that war.

PJA> for interdiction fire: fire a long burst every few minutes,

You can't use a smartgun for suppression/interdiction at all.

PJA> Again, if you're defining bows as primarily indirect-fire weapons,
PJA> I think you're using massed fire at long range a la Agincourt for
PJA> the general use of a bow.

Massed *indirect* fire.

PJA> This is news to the couple of toxophiles I know, as well as to
PJA> bowhunters.

Anyone bowhunting is doing so at most just over the "short" range step
for the weapon, where the effects of the parabolic trajectory are
minimized. Beyond that trees get in the way.

PJA> With that high-arched trajectory and a relatively slow projectile,
PJA> you really ought to allow a Reaction or Quickness test for targets
PJA> at long range to dodge.

I'd say Reaction.

[...]

PJA> And entirely achievable with today's technology, though somewhat
PJA> bulky.

Again, I never said impossible, just impractical.

[...]

PJA> What's so special about suppressive fire? Twenty-five aimed shots
PJA> per minute on the target's area,

Now there's a contradiction in terms. You don't "aim" suppressive fire
at a target, you attempt to minimize the ammount of clear space so that
if whomever is being held down tries to move he'll run into your fire.

PJA> By your argument, you could claim aimed fire with a bow if you had
PJA> a hill in the way and an observer on the crest.

Works for artillery. I never meant to imply that it would be easy, but
it would be easier for a skilled bowman to make the shot than an
equivalently skilled machinegunner.

[...]

PJA> You're assuming that in sixty years nobody has tried to develop
PJA> this, and when they do they use only 1990s technology?

Most of everything in common use in Shadowrun, aside from cybernetics,
are based on 1990's technology, why should this be any different?

PJA> And this may explain why you need a specialist accessory mount to
PJA> put a laser sight or smart adapter on the bow. Put the difficult
PJA> parts into the mount, then just clamp a generic aftermarket
PJA> smartgun adaptor onto it.

Because a generic smartgun adaptor isn't going to have the systems to
actuate the motorized gymbal, and it isn't going to have the sensor
inputs for bow and string tension measurements. Without those it is
going to be dead weight for anything beyond a few tens of meters.

PJA> And when you interface a smartgun, it projects the aiming mark
PJA> either into your eye or onto your glasses. So, exactly why does the
PJA> adapter or its mount have to pivot? It's calculating trajectories
PJA> and generating aiming symbols. The ballistic computer on a 155mm
PJA> FH70 doesn't have to be clamped to the barrel.

Tell me, how does a generic smartgun used on a highly ballistic shot
differentiate between the target you want to hit at zero degrees
elevation and the bird at 30 that's in your direct line of fire? It has
to pivot in order to maintain sighting on the real target; if it doesn't
pivot it can't see the target; if it can't see the target then it's
useless.

[...]

PJA> But you're claiming you can aim shots with a bow in similar (high
PJA> angle, time of flight about two seconds) circumstances?

Beyond short range that is exactly what any bowman does.

[...]

PJA> "Designed into the bow sight is a patented cam operated mounting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PJA> system.
^^^^^^
Exactly. The sight pivots. You set the range for X meters by "clicking
down" on the sight. When you bring the bow back to shoot, you level the
sight resulting in a consistant shooting angle and if you are consistant
in your draws you'll consistantly hit the target. If the sight didn't
pivot then you'd be looking at clear sky if you were shooting at a
target beyond about a hundred meters.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLCmcZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGi/QP9HSQ6ciYd1fYgVqvwULVq3mMSncWxK67W
oADGXHXvUMVSMBoha4cQKmBkWwN6ERaQXDfBjWT72iT4fOBAbzcKjJIaX11Zlu/x
IFs1nTx0ECoLoIABT4l3ZEHdBR/is/Y6IqlYrqjVIbMILEO7+3H1OwvTpe4biQ1l
2te1UD6XMG4=
=T/4C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Message no. 31
From: U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 11:41:01 EST
Stainless Steel Rat:
>Or, assuming by some means, tell me how the system distinguishes between the
>target you want to hit at zero degrees elevation and a bird at 35 degrees
>elevation?

Where you're looking at? :)

U-Gene << couldn't hit a barn at 3 meters and 0 deg. elevation w/ a bow >>
Message no. 32
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:48:53 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "U" == U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU> writes:

>> Or, assuming by some means, tell me how the system distinguishes
>> between the target you want to hit at zero degrees elevation and a
>> bird at 35 degrees elevation?

U> Where you're looking at? :)

No, I'm quite serious about this. A smartgun sight isn't going to have
a tremendously wide field of vision, probably not more than two or three
degrees off center, certainly not more than 5 degrees off center. More
than that and it will become confused by multiple targets in it's field
of vision. It has no way of knowing that the guy on the left is your
buddy and the guy on the right is the Renraku Red Samurai about to slice
him.

Now, to bring up the bird example. You slap a standard smartgun onto a
bow with a fixed mount and angle up to about 30 degrees. You might be
looking at the Red Samurai but the sight can't see anything but the
bird. How useless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLC/X56VRH7BJMxHAQH1KgP/V4PJJgNp44ypoS3jkgLKBqKC3TgwYAOE
0sq6CFR1MlvepHmLmZ+nGOa3QzALTAkvjxllB9Z9LaBls9EFGSoQmanTfFt4h9z5
1/wzw+DvLCdz8aQzoW5HkhWvASP10hQYOGSjsqkH0KXyMyJE8TRHkPeSFOIlJCTw
ENVJYTvgl90=
=+Lta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ of skin.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 33
From: Mike <ASMAD@*****.alaska.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:45:42 -0800
> No, I'm quite serious about this. A smartgun sight isn't going to have
> a tremendously wide field of vision, probably not more than two or three
> degrees off center, certainly not more than 5 degrees off center. More
> than that and it will become confused by multiple targets in it's field
> of vision. It has no way of knowing that the guy on the left is your
> buddy and the guy on the right is the Renraku Red Samurai about to slice
> him.
>
> Now, to bring up the bird example. You slap a standard smartgun onto a
> bow with a fixed mount and angle up to about 30 degrees. You might be
> looking at the Red Samurai but the sight can't see anything but the
> bird. How useless.

My take on the smartgun system was that it merely projects a crosshair or
dot or whatever on whatever target your weapon was pointed at. So anything
within your field of vision was a viable target, but only the object that you
had it pointed at was designated as "the target". So it's basically a very much
more sophisticated laser sight. And if you look at it as a laser sight, you can
kind of see what I'm talking about.

If we take your example of the bird, a laser sight doesn't even factor the
Red Samurai into the equation, since the weapon is not pointed at it. But once
you swing the bow back down, and point it at the Samurai, it forgets that the
bird exists, and focuses on him. That's how I think that a smartgun should work
(welll sort of anyway).

And since I'm on the subject, I've never played that a smartgun had FF
(Friend or Foe) equipment in volved with it, though I know that other people
have and still do. It seems to me that there are too many ways for this to go
wrong and I haven't really seen anything to support it. Have I missed
something? I just see it as a targeting system incapable of making those
judgements. But if there were some sort of FF signal being transmitted from
smartgun to smartgun I could see it. In fact I use it for Lone Star weapons and
some corp guns. (shameless plug)

Mike Driggins
Message no. 34
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:17:57 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "M" == Mike <ASMAD@*****.alaska.edu> writes:

M> My take on the smartgun system was that it merely projects a
M> crosshair or dot or whatever on whatever target your weapon was
M> pointed at. So anything within your field of vision was a viable
M> target, but only the object that you had it pointed at was designated
M> as "the target".

If the sight doesn't "see" the target it can't calculate a range to that
target, and thus cannot adjust for acceleration due to gravity, and all
your shots fall short or hit low. This is what would happen if a
smartgun is as simple as you describe.

M> So it's basically a very much more sophisticated laser sight. And if
M> you look at it as a laser sight, you can kind of see what I'm talking
M> about.

A laser sight has a vision cone of about 1-2 degrees of arc at a range
of 20 meters, give or take a bit due to diffraction. It "sees" a very
narrow target within that cone; that's where the shot will hit,
approximately, if it is within a certain range that the sight has been
calibrated for. Make the laser an invisible, random variable frequencey
laser, add a receiver for the reflected light, maybe include a sonar
system like you find on Polaroid instant cameras for redundancy, a
simple ballistics computer that calculates range based on reflected
signals and adjusts the aim point accordingly, and a simple transmitter
to send telemtry up the smartlink and you've got a smartgun system.

With 1980's technology, no less, though you'd need 1990's construction
to make it small enough to be useful.

M> If we take your example of the bird, a laser sight doesn't even
M> factor the Red Samurai into the equation, since the weapon is not
M> pointed at it.

But in order to hit the Red Samurai at 200 meters it *must* be angled
up. And if the sight is on a fixed mount it won't be pointing anywhere
near the target, it will be pointing up at the sky somewhere. Or, if
it's pointed at the target then the shot will fall way short unless it
has been adjusted for range to the target. Thus the need for a pivoting
mount.

M> And since I'm on the subject, I've never played that a smartgun had
M> FF (Friend or Foe) equipment in volved with it, though I know that
M> other people have and still do. It seems to me that there are too
M> many ways for this to go wrong and I haven't really seen anything to
M> support it. Have I missed something?

That's why the sight has such a narrow field of vision. It doesn't need
any kind of IFF if all it can see is a single target. There's no need
for an IFF system because... there's no need for one.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLDUYJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFk3AQAsC6K1sMjtOdJEqc4z4ZTE3Dh4ef6OrY/
d0eERWgeXptf6xTZe+JwEiwjHtM3n+yNQGIzLgyTZdhn4GnrBkhqwK3ug7ESoMYb
8PcghEBtv2zGF/QubX0N776jzGKZeSCG2gGa75uIdpJo99oyiogJLm4jf8+PHOpp
3CnZcA26W74=
ìyx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ head.
Message no. 35
From: KASPAR BRYCE PETRUS <Bryce.Kaspar@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:50:50 -0700 (MST)
Correct me if I'm wrong, don't smartgun(or whatever) links merely show
you , via crosshairs, where the weapon is pointed? If there was a range
finder couldn't it just shift its aimpoint down to compensate?
For the draw weight on a bow couldn't you just preset the weight and have
the link assume you are using the full draw and calculate aimpoint from that?
(Calculators can be programed to do that now.)

. .
// Bryce Kaspar \\
// CU Boulder Aerospace \\
// kaspar@***.colorado.edu \\
// _._ \\
.---. .//|\\. .---.
________ / .-. \_________..-~ _.-._ ~-..________ / .-. \_________
\ ~-~ / `-=.___.=-' \ ~-~ /
~~~ ~~~

______________________________________________________________________________

The sun was shining on the sea,Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make the billows smooth and bright --
And this was very odd, because it was the middle of the night.
-- Lewis Carroll
Message no. 36
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:03:54 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "KBP" == KASPAR BRYCE PETRUS
<Bryce.Kaspar@********.EDU> writes:

KBP> Correct me if I'm wrong, don't smartgun(or whatever) links merely
KBP> show you , via crosshairs, where the weapon is pointed? If there
KBP> was a range finder couldn't it just shift its aimpoint down to
KBP> compensate?

A smartlink does a lot more than just show where the weapon is pointed.
It calculates the expected parabolic trajectory of the round as a
function of range to target, acceleration due to gravity, expected speed
of the bullet, and direction of the bullet (shooting angle in relation
to the horizontal plane). And the better ones will also adjust for
parallax. It's a very simple formula, actually (y = x^2), and by
calculating the trajectory it determines where the round will hit.
These coordinates are sent up the link and that gets mapped onto the
display. Since this is occouring in real time the pipper moves as the
weapon moves.

KBP> For the draw weight on a bow couldn't you just preset the weight
KBP> and have the link assume you are using the full draw and calculate
KBP> aimpoint from that? (Calculators can be programed to do that now.)

Humans aren't quite that consistant. Nor is the weather which can have
a greater impact on actual draw weight than a bullet's velocity.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLDfIZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEhoQQAm/wLLbqhB3pqJRMqt0bzwM4izYfWzIET
Jx1v5tYBhVJrle2ZyOKD+gIyUaFGBqxwQjzE4HJZOP9QptbEv0ZG+YkwU1LRp38B
J7RyuKdU1GPTaB8cyv30w0CHwqFLAZpap02Z+GlhJz3u8Bj0J7NOhny8xX4Lzai7
d7h55icgFmk=
=zqEV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 37
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:53:33 GMT
Rat writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> PJA> Uh, no they're not, at least not until you start comparing GPMG(SF)
> PJA> indirect fire to mortar fire :) Sustained-fire MGs firing on arched
> PJA> trajectories were widely used by Soviet forces in Afghanistan
>
> Just to refresh your memory, the Soviets *LOST* that war.

Did I say otherwise? I could also mention the delays inflicted on the
German paratroopers by long-range rifle fire on Crete in World War 2
(one of the reasons we were able to evacuate troops rather than have them
captured), the use of a platoon of Vickers guns to provide ten *hours*
of suppressive indirect fire at the Somme in 1916... (999,750 rounds
fired by four guns in ten hours)...

> PJA> for interdiction fire: fire a long burst every few minutes,
>
> You can't use a smartgun for suppression/interdiction at all.

Why not? Please show me a reference :) We can and do use GPMG(SF) and
M2 Brownings in the long-range indirect fire role now. Why should adding
a sighting system invalidate that?

> PJA> Again, if you're defining bows as primarily indirect-fire weapons,
> PJA> I think you're using massed fire at long range a la Agincourt for
> PJA> the general use of a bow.
>
> Massed *indirect* fire.

And this is the general use of these weapons in Shadowrun? Or are we
talking individual archers shooting at individual targets? I haven't
seen a massed phalanx of Knight-Errant longbowmen in any of the
published adventures, though I admit I'm missing a couple.

> Anyone bowhunting is doing so at most just over the "short" range step
> for the weapon, where the effects of the parabolic trajectory are
> minimized. Beyond that trees get in the way.

So, why can't you use a smartlink at that range?

> PJA> And entirely achievable with today's technology, though somewhat
> PJA> bulky.
>
> Again, I never said impossible, just impractical.

So it can be done today. Why can't it be done better in sixty years?

> PJA> What's so special about suppressive fire? Twenty-five aimed shots
> PJA> per minute on the target's area,
>
> Now there's a contradiction in terms. You don't "aim" suppressive fire
> at a target, you attempt to minimize the ammount of clear space so that
> if whomever is being held down tries to move he'll run into your fire.

Rat, I trained to do this. The British Army has a reasonable idea of how
to pin an enemy down in his position. The idea is, as you say, to make
sure the enemy can't move or fire back without being hit by your fire.
To make that fire effective, it has to be aimed, and aimed accurately.

If you can see the target, naturally you shoot at the target. If not, you
aim slightly short of his position, so that the rounds will pass either
very close overhead or ricochet along the ground (grazing fire).
Bullets kicking up dirt in front of you are more persuasive than rounds
flying overhead. But one thing experience has taught us, is that fire
not within a yard or two of the enemy is as good as wasted.

Accuracy is very important when you're laying suppressive fire on a target
at 200-300 metres. Otherwise we'd use submachineguns so we could carry
more ammunition.

> PJA> By your argument, you could claim aimed fire with a bow if you had
> PJA> a hill in the way and an observer on the crest.
>
> Works for artillery. I never meant to imply that it would be easy, but
> it would be easier for a skilled bowman to make the shot than an
> equivalently skilled machinegunner.

Absolute bollocks, Rat. Have you ever trained in the use of a medium
machine gun? Been to the firepower demo at Warminster? Talked to
instructors from the School of Infantry, or Falklands veterans?
GPMG(SF) is very effective in this role: this is why every British
infantry battalion has a GPMG platoon attached to its fire support company.

> PJA> You're assuming that in sixty years nobody has tried to develop
> PJA> this, and when they do they use only 1990s technology?
>
> Most of everything in common use in Shadowrun, aside from cybernetics,
> are based on 1990's technology, why should this be any different?

"Based on" being the operative word. We can and do, scope bows now.
Therefore it can be done in the 2050s.

> Because a generic smartgun adaptor isn't going to have the systems to
> actuate the motorized gymbal, and it isn't going to have the sensor
> inputs for bow and string tension measurements. Without those it is
> going to be dead weight for anything beyond a few tens of meters.

So change the processor chip, and instead of calculating input from the
muzzle velocity sensor the new chip does the math for arrow velocity.
Modular electronics, remember?

> PJA> And when you interface a smartgun, it projects the aiming mark
> PJA> either into your eye or onto your glasses. So, exactly why does the
> PJA> adapter or its mount have to pivot? It's calculating trajectories
> PJA> and generating aiming symbols. The ballistic computer on a 155mm
> PJA> FH70 doesn't have to be clamped to the barrel.
>
> Tell me, how does a generic smartgun used on a highly ballistic shot
> differentiate between the target you want to hit at zero degrees
> elevation and the bird at 30 that's in your direct line of fire? It has
> to pivot in order to maintain sighting on the real target; if it doesn't
> pivot it can't see the target; if it can't see the target then it's
> useless.

Where do you get the idea that the smartgun adaptor has to pivot to hold
LOS? I can find no reference to this, and it doesn't make sense. The
smartgun link provides angle-of-look input to a ballistic computer,
and provides that data to your visual sensor (be it smart goggles or
your eyes). Angular rate can be derived by simple accelerometers a lot
more easily than by any imaging system (forty-year-old technology already),
rangefinding is slightly more of a problem but you solve that with a
cybereye rangefinder.

> PJA> But you're claiming you can aim shots with a bow in similar (high
> PJA> angle, time of flight about two seconds) circumstances?
>
> Beyond short range that is exactly what any bowman does.

Then a rifleman can take high-angle aimed shots out to 1200-1500 metres.
Time of flight two seconds. If you have one you have the other, Rat,
or else a ludicrous logical contradiction.

> PJA> "Designed into the bow sight is a patented cam operated mounting
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> PJA> system.
> ^^^^^^
> Exactly. The sight pivots. You set the range for X meters by "clicking
> down" on the sight. When you bring the bow back to shoot, you level the
> sight resulting in a consistant shooting angle and if you are consistant
> in your draws you'll consistantly hit the target. If the sight didn't
> pivot then you'd be looking at clear sky if you were shooting at a
> target beyond about a hundred meters.

That's right, Rat. This is a red-dot sight: look through it, put the
red dot on the target, shoot. Now, didn't you keep claiming that this
was impractical, implausible et cetera? But if you can use one of these,
you can put a smartlink on a bow.

An Aimpoint you have to look through, and offset the dot manually to
allow for range. A smartgun system fixes this. Stop thinking of a smartgun
adaptor as some sort of telescopic sight you have to peer through. The
smartlink doesn't have to pivot, it just has to know what angle it's being
pointed at (exactly the way a firearm one does). The only difference is
the size of the angle, and the ballistic model for the projectile.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 38
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:16:47 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

*sigh*

How many ways do you want me to say the same thing?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLDwNJ6VRH7BJMxHAQHBHwQAmBNgcY12ATkAd9j1tcmwNSvHQA1udwgS
txgGIVEqosJv08nusMQEwFYBSlJYQ8dO4w3Ryy2WL77krcBQgUwRR7l2I9EBxVWt
OAXxF9oGELljOFLAqI7TULrOa5lx7q98WqPbh+Mo2NeZbkORL6IbuUevzrb+I9sA
82uZbxTovbw=
=TLKZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Message no. 39
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:36:20 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Look, not once have I ever said a smartbow system was impossible.
NEVER. And I'm begining to resent your implications that I somehow did.
What I have said all along is that a smartbow system is by necessity a
more complex system, and I've repeatedly backed up my statements with
the facts and physics to prove it while all you've done is toss back
annecdotes and aspersions. I've been shooting bows and firearms for
more years than many of the people on this list have lived, and while
I've never been exceptional with the bows I've qualified marksman
numerous times with shoulder arms. I think I have a good idea as to
what I'm talking about.

Now, if you care to continue this discussion logically and rationally,
without tossing veiled insults every chance you get, fine. Otherwise
don't bother wasting any more of your time because I'm not going to
bother wasting any more of mine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLD0yZ6VRH7BJMxHAQE24gP9HPx5g+s2e0hvWK5OETzJoSUq0uQ21cat
RK9V3k9qB8ljCHmfEkNWJkvKrhP+QD4xg5yRhdwM+b+XNx4IBKmgUdbbumldT+O9
q2N5jbpGqpRouncVsoND7TQ1ibdi0nkdA0EHEXhq3ILTCgyruvZpWDYi3GhO0Vos
RPw+YChHjuw=
=Zfvt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 40
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:59:21 GMT
Rat wrote:
> If the sight doesn't "see" the target it can't calculate a range to that
> target, and thus cannot adjust for acceleration due to gravity, and all
> your shots fall short or hit low. This is what would happen if a
> smartgun is as simple as you describe.

The *sight* doesn't calculate a range to the target at all, Rat, or else
why does the Smartlink II require an external rangefinder to provide the
additional bonuses at long and extreme range? If the smartlink itself
acts as a rangefinder, you don't need to add one. There is nothing in the
rules to say the smartlink itself has any imaging capability.

"...the system provides a feedback circuit relating the gun's angle of
fire to the shooter's line of sight."

A smartlink probably needs the range setting to 50 or 100 metres just as
iron sights do: but the rules assume that's done for free for firing over
smartlinks, iron sights or laser sights. For reference, if you zero at
200 yards, 7.62mm NATO drops about five feet at 500 metres. Aim for someone's
chest without correction and you'll just chew up the ground by his feet.

> M> So it's basically a very much more sophisticated laser sight. And if
> M> you look at it as a laser sight, you can kind of see what I'm talking
> M> about.
>
> A laser sight has a vision cone of about 1-2 degrees of arc at a range
> of 20 meters

Actually, one *minute* of arc. The Laserdot by Aimpoint has a dot diameter
of 1.5" at one hundred yards, although it's rather dim by then.

> , give or take a bit due to diffraction. It "sees" a very
> narrow target within that cone; that's where the shot will hit,
> approximately, if it is within a certain range that the sight has been
> calibrated for. Make the laser an invisible, random variable frequencey
> laser, add a receiver for the reflected light, maybe include a sonar
> system like you find on Polaroid instant cameras for redundancy, a
> simple ballistics computer that calculates range based on reflected
> signals and adjusts the aim point accordingly, and a simple transmitter
> to send telemtry up the smartlink and you've got a smartgun system.

With this system why would you then, later, need to add a rangefinder
to interface with a Smartlink II? This system *is* a rangefinder.
It would also become useless in fog or heavy rain, but that's another
story.

Another possibility for the smartlink is an angle-of-look sensor,
possibly with a gyrocomputing adjunct to calculate lead on moving
targets. For range you just dial in an appropriate setting: no harder
than what we do now for everything we now use.

A red-dot sight with lead-computing and no need to look through the
scope tube. A lot simpler to engineer, the hardest part being the
interface to the shooter, and this actually corresponds to what the rules
say.

> With 1980's technology, no less, though you'd need 1990's construction
> to make it small enough to be useful.

Parker-Hale make the military LORUS sight and have done for some years,
a decent scope with a laser rangefinder integrated. This is for sniping
out to 800 - 1000 yards. One problem remains making sure the shooter
overrides spurious returns on the rangefinder, from intervening objects.

> M> If we take your example of the bird, a laser sight doesn't even
> M> factor the Red Samurai into the equation, since the weapon is not
> M> pointed at it.
>
> But in order to hit the Red Samurai at 200 meters it *must* be angled
> up. And if the sight is on a fixed mount it won't be pointing anywhere
> near the target, it will be pointing up at the sky somewhere. Or, if
> it's pointed at the target then the shot will fall way short unless it
> has been adjusted for range to the target. Thus the need for a pivoting
> mount.

What happens if you're aiming through clutter? The old problem of autofocus
cameras through windows, intervening brush, chainlink fences, whatever:
you end up focussed on the obstacle, not the target. What if you're standing
in tall grass and firing from the underarm assault position? The sight can't
see a thing.

Or, if you use the system I envisage, the smartgun doesn't care what it's
looking at. If you're shooting at such high angles that accurate range
estimation becomes vital, how are non-cybered individuals hitting anything
anyway?

Of course, if you just tweak the sight (cybernetically, quite possibly)
to 200 metres... SMG sights are calbrated in 50-metre steps on the MP-5,
100 and 200 metres for the Sterling. Rifle sights are adjusted in 100-metre
stops. Why is it so hard to do this? British Army fire control orders always
include the range to set on your sights anyway: the mnemnonic is GRIT, for
Group, Range, Indicator, Type of fire (Section, Three hundred yards, Enemy
at base of tall pine, Rapid fire!)

> M> And since I'm on the subject, I've never played that a smartgun had
> M> FF (Friend or Foe) equipment in volved with it, though I know that
> M> other people have and still do. It seems to me that there are too
> M> many ways for this to go wrong and I haven't really seen anything to
> M> support it. Have I missed something?
>
> That's why the sight has such a narrow field of vision. It doesn't need
> any kind of IFF if all it can see is a single target. There's no need
> for an IFF system because... there's no need for one.

I can't see why the sight would need to see anything. There's no description
to say the smartlink includes any sort of camera: if you're using an assault
rifle sight, to see only a single target at 250 metres, your sight
would see such a narrow arc as to make any sort of "aiming" useless - about
0.1 of a degree.

Look at any ballistic table for clarification, Rat. Take a sporting rifle
calibre like .22 Hornet: at the claimed optimum sighting-in range for the 45-
grain FMJ by MEN (137 metres), the point of impact at 300 metres is 1.19
metres below point of aim. Even a real high-power round like .30-06 is best
sighted in at 163 metres and point-of-impact is 44cm below point of aim
at 300 metres. That's enough to miss a prone man, or even a crouching man
depending on your exact point-of-aim.

And you *still* haven't said why a smartgun link won't work on a bow
at twenty metres.

Finally, you claimed an off-the-record conversation with the DLoH was
absolute in the grounding arguments. Street Samurai Catalogue, page
18, states "Mountable accessories include laser sights, imaging scopes
and smartgun adapters." re the bow accessory mount. If you have anything
more binding than that, please post it. Think about it - lasers and imaging
scopes suffer from every single problem you have stated, yet they are usable
on bows simply by the use of this mount.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 41
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:00:54 +1100 (EST)
<Mentally prepares himself to wade forth into a debate that he should wisely
steer way clear of...>

I would have thought that a smartgun system derived at least some of its
input from the users brain. "It reads your mind". A datajack, for example,
can "read" your thought patterns and generate the desired electrical signals
for responses. Since a smartgun is a cybernetic linkup, then I would assume
it has this type of capability also. This way the smartgun "knows" what you
wish it to hit, because it takes information directly from your brain as to
what is the intended target. Some type of rangefinder system is still
neccessary for it to correctly perform the calculations for adjustments due
to gravity and such, however (at least I assume - it'd be tricky otherwsie,
no?). This type of approach also solves the "Friend or Foe" dilemma too -
because it derives information on the desired target from your brain, then
it can identify things/people you do not wish to shoot at.

Hmmm, a thought just occured to me - this cannot, by definition apply to
smartgun systems relying on smartgoggles can it? No brain interface. Oh
well, there goes that idea.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 42
From: seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:48:08 -0600 (CST)
> I would have thought that a smartgun system derived at least some of its
> input from the users brain. "It reads your mind". A datajack, for
example,
> can "read" your thought patterns and generate the desired electrical
signals
> for responses. Since a smartgun is a cybernetic linkup, then I would assume
> it has this type of capability also. This way the smartgun "knows" what
you
> wish it to hit, because it takes information directly from your brain as to
> what is the intended target.

I like this a lot. I can see the smartlink senseing from the persons brain
the desired target, and then feeading little muscle twitch pulses to help
guide the gun, correct for wind and other things the person can not sense, and
fire at the correct monent. explains the LARGE essence cost relative to other
information recieve systems (why not just jack the gun into a datajack?) and
the decrease for cybered limbs and the lower effectiveness of the goggle
system. Not that this helps, or is intended to help, the bow topic.

> Hmmm, a thought just occured to me - this cannot, by definition apply to
> smartgun systems relying on smartgoggles can it? No brain interface. Oh
> well, there goes that idea.

well, maybe not- there could be trodes built in, which are basicly low res,
low bandwidth datajacks.
Message no. 43
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:57:08 +0100
Mike said on20 Nov 95...

> And since I'm on the subject, I've never played that a smartgun had FF
> (Friend or Foe) equipment in volved with it, though I know that other people
> have and still do. It seems to me that there are too many ways for this to go
> wrong and I haven't really seen anything to support it. Have I missed
> something?

I think the best way to do this, apart from a massive computer coupled to a
camera and video-recognition software, would be the badges from CP2020's Solo
of Fortune -- the gun won't fire at anyone who wears a certain badge so you
can't shoot any friendlies.

I think the way smartguns work intis respect is that the user can cut out the
firing at ny instant (s)he wants, so if the gun is pointing at someone the
_user_ identifies as friendly, the gun doesn't fire. For instance, if you do a
full-auto sweep, a smartgun doesn't hit the people you don't want to hit (or so
says SR).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Zo'n ambtenaar zit er niet om de burgers te helpen
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/~mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 44
From: Brian LaShomb <Brian_LaShomb@*****.com>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: 21 Nov 95 9:38:23
Gurth said on 21 Nov 95...

>I think the way smartguns work intis respect is that the user can cut out the
>firing at ny instant (s)he wants, so if the gun is pointing at someone the
>_user_ identifies as friendly, the gun doesn't fire. For instance, if you do a
>full-auto sweep, a smartgun doesn't hit the people you don't want to hit (or
so
>says SR).

Assuming that during that full-auto sweep you're eyes were looking at everyone
in turn in the lof. I don't know about you, but my full-auto sweeps aren't
always so controlled. Just think of it as crowd control...


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 45
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:42:16 GMT
Rat writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Look, not once have I ever said a smartbow system was impossible.
> NEVER. And I'm begining to resent your implications that I somehow did.
> What I have said all along is that a smartbow system is by necessity a
> more complex system, and I've repeatedly backed up my statements with
> the facts and physics to prove it while all you've done is toss back
> annecdotes and aspersions. I've been shooting bows and firearms for
> more years than many of the people on this list have lived, and while
> I've never been exceptional with the bows I've qualified marksman
> numerous times with shoulder arms. I think I have a good idea as to
> what I'm talking about.

Exactly who are you talking to here, Rat? The entire list?

I just get amused by someone who claims an off-the-record conversation
at a GenCon is an absolutely binding decision on the entire Shadowrun
universe (grounding through quickenings, for the few who missed it)
yet feel happy to contradict the rulebooks when it suits you.

For your information, I have more than a little experience in various
means of translating kinetic energy into lacerated flesh. I can only assume
you can't mean me since I haven't insulted you at all, have returned real-
world data, asked you to explain some of your more interesting assertions.

You've ignored the logical contradictions in your position, cheerfully
contradicted the printed rules, extrapolated seven thousand bowmen at
Agincourt to 2050s one-on-one firearm combat, and you call this "facts"?
Then when you're challenged, you start getting petulant. Interesting.

> Now, if you care to continue this discussion logically and rationally,
> without tossing veiled insults every chance you get, fine. Otherwise
> don't bother wasting any more of your time because I'm not going to
> bother wasting any more of mine.

Rat, when you were arguing in the grounding debate, an unattributable,
unquoted, off-the-record comment at a game convention was held to be
absolute and binding truth.

Now, the printed rulebooks are somehow in error, and anyone who points
this out to you is 'tossing veiled insults'.

Please don't get petulant. Why is the idea that you might be out of step
with FASA, and that they have deliberately made bows' ranges unrealistically
long in comparison to firearms, so abhorrent to you? If you want to base
your argument on real-life bows, accept the compromise the rest of us have
to live with and realise that there's real life, and the FASA rules, and
the two only occasionally meet.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 46
From: U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 11:38:51 EST
I think the problem with the discussion lies in the interpretation of how
the smartlink works. I think Rat was in the thinking that the gun gets
all the targeting info and sends that to the eye while I think
(and who was on the other side of the debate?) its the
gun sends it's barrel direction to the eye and the eye (or brain)
calculates targets.

Since the Smart link isn't described as working either way (that I know of),
I suppose we could both be right.

But let us assume it functions as I paraphrased by Rat. How about if the
Smartlink for the bow was hooked up with a rangefinder in the _eye_.
Then based on this range, the smartlink adjusts by calculating the curve as
you mentioned so it is looking at where the target you are looking at is.
Does that sound feasible then?

U-Gene << typically has trouble figuring out what the heck is going on >>
Message no. 47
From: U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 11:59:46 EST
Paul Jonathan Adam:
>realise that there is real life, and the FASA rules, and the two only
>occasionally meet.

Ha! Shadowrun _is_ real life! You can't fool ME! I know what your upto.
Your trying to undermine my confidence in my sanity and my Running abilities.
Well it won't work!!! I _know_ what's going on. Oh yes, I will get you.
[loads a clip into his Colt Manhunter]
Here I come!

:)

U-Gene << is having trouble distinguishing RL from SR >>
Message no. 48
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:44:38 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "U" == U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU> writes:

U> But let us assume it functions as I paraphrased by Rat. How about if
U> the Smartlink for the bow was hooked up with a rangefinder in the
U> _eye_.

What about people with smartlinks and unmodified optics?

The human eye does nothing other than convert visual information into
neurochemical impulses. Image processing, including distance/depth
estimation, is handled by the brain, not the eye. The eye can't be used
for ranging estimates because the eye doesn't do it. And then it is
only a rough estimate that the brain can come up with. Light and dark,
obscurement, and just plain human error are going to prevent an
unaugmented human eye and brain from measuring distances with the kind
of accuracy you would want from a supposedly highly accurate targeting
system. And smartlinks don't have the kind of optical reconstruction
and cranial invasion necessary to pick up the slack.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLIQAZ6VRH7BJMxHAQF9CwQAn5OzfYySiqxrETqkYtPjITDTQSs+praj
KvURyu8CCOnUWZcdrR2pR+MpFzNeWwmSUlu26yuwgMIchWn5cxwGjleTqkXQb5Vz
00/Vh1pF+vPWdvDsn823v1QgR4RwWzDiSVLao9kSFn8aynNGPFDdSRcMdXPObSHd
T6NRyJdUWn0=
=OV3p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Message no. 49
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:48:36 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> What about people with smartlinks and unmodified optics?

Simple optics, Rat. You can easily measure the neural impulses
sent to the cornea, which controls your focus quite accurately. Once you
have calibrated the neural commands to the cornea for various known ranges
(enough to extrapolate and interpolate), you can easily tell what
distance the eye is focusing to.
Again, listen to what I'm saying. The smartlink cyberware
doesn't need to do complicated image processing. It doesn't need to do
anything with neurochemical signals coming back from your retina. All it
needs to do is figure out the range by determining how much curvature
your cornea currently has, which (assuming that cyberware is feasible at
all) should be a fairly trivial task. 0.25 Essence is about right (I say
0.25 because a smartlink in a cyberarm costs 0.25, so I assume that the
0.5 cost for a normal cyberlink is split half-and-half between the neural
stuff and the wire/induction pad assembly).
The reason I say that this is the way a smartlink works is
because the gun itself is not capable of figuring out its own range,
because it doesn't know what it's pointed at. Without input from the
user of where you intend to shoot, the thing would be useless.

Marc
Message no. 50
From: Justin Thomas <Justin.C.Thomas-1@**.umn.edu>
Subject: Smart Bows...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 12:52:37 -0600
Looking at the previous controversy both sides are split, obviously there is
not going to be any conclusion or changing of sides in this conflict. I
recommend that both sides play how ever they feel if the right way. There
are good arguments for both sides, and until FASA prints a book or has a
ruling on it I create a motion to hold of on the degrading comments and
flames from both side before it escalates further. My humble opinion and be
gentle...
******************************
Justin Thomas
"Farr"
Email:
thom0767@****.tc.umn.edu
or if that doesn't work
Justin.C.Thomas-1@**.umn.edu
or
justin.thomas@*********.mn.org
Message no. 51
From: KASPAR BRYCE PETRUS <Bryce.Kaspar@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:27:36 -0700 (MST)
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Justin Thomas wrote:

> Looking at the previous controversy both sides are split, obviously there is
> not going to be any conclusion or changing of sides in this conflict. I
> recommend that both sides play how ever they feel if the right way. There
> are good arguments for both sides, and until FASA prints a book or has a
> ruling on it I create a motion to hold of on the degrading comments and
> flames from both side before it escalates further. My humble opinion and be
> gentle...
I second the motion. The arguments seem to be getting kind of personal!

. .
// Bryce Kaspar \\
// CU Boulder Aerospace \\
// kaspar@***.colorado.edu \\
// _._ \\
.---. .//|\\. .---.
________ / .-. \_________..-~ _.-._ ~-..________ / .-. \_________
\ ~-~ / `-=.___.=-' \ ~-~ /
~~~ ~~~

______________________________________________________________________________

The sun was shining on the sea,Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make the billows smooth and bright --
And this was very odd, because it was the middle of the night.
-- Lewis Carroll
Message no. 52
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:29:59 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "MAR" == Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
writes:

MAR> Simple optics, Rat. You can easily measure the neural impulses
MAR> sent to the cornea, which controls your focus quite accurately.
MAR> Once you have calibrated the neural commands to the cornea for
MAR> various known ranges (enough to extrapolate and interpolate), you
MAR> can easily tell what distance the eye is focusing to.

What if you are looking directly forward but the weapon is angled to
your right or left, or the weapon is pointed in one direction but you're
eyes are scanning left and right in and out of the line of fire? Is the
pipper going to follow your line of sight or the weapon's? Would you
want to rely on a system that is often using totally incorrect data
being read from your cornea or always using correct information being
read from the weapon itself? Which can determine better what is in the
weapon's line of fire and how far away it is, your eyeball which isn't
even looking in that direction or a laser/radar ranger attached to the
weapon and inlined with the barrel?

The system you describe is feasable, but it's use is limited to
situations where the weapon is already aimed at the target you are
looking directly at. Good for a range and maybe hunting or sniping, not
so good for heavy combat. The system I describe is more feasable and
reliable because it uses simpler technologies, and will work in any
situation, regardless of whether you are looking directly at the
intented target or not. Good for the range, hunting and sniping, and
heavy combat.

A rhetorical question: which would you rather shell out for?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLIosp6VRH7BJMxHAQEyIQP/Wl421cqHV71FOBxO8FBlUbqsKq52SB1A
4ZxOuVwP+MGLmNBdlqFDomAHxL9v9j1Bsw2k/veSd8ZBH3bo0Tf4AeNCm+/4EVqi
sonSAWl/vQev7LuAQqe5UKKSMxdGZqDCIuMUuKtL8D8crOGM/pnHNQb2z3Gza4ih
E4hsQbkUwsg=
=hkMc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ returned to its special container and
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \ kept under refrigeration.
Message no. 53
From: tkerby@***.net (Tim Kerby)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 95 21:02:42 EST
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:23:41 -0500 you wrote:

>I second the motion. The arguments seem to be getting kind of personal!

Yes, and very entertaining!

<<<Munch, Munch>> Eating popocorn, enjoying the show....


____TIM KERBY____ |===================================================
tkerby@***.net |"Never relax. Your run may be over, but someone, somewhere,
drekhead@***.com | is just starting his and the target could be you."
_________________ |===================================================
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1
GCA d-(+)@ s: a- C+(++)>+++$ U--- P? L+ E? W N o? K- w--- O++>+++$ M-- V? PS+ PE++
Y PGP- t+(++) 5 X+ R(+) tv@ b++ DI(+) D++ G e h--- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 54
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:48:34 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Which can determine better what is in the weapon's line of fire and how
> far away it is, your eyeball which isn't even looking in that direction
> or a laser/radar ranger attached to the weapon and inlined with the barrel?

What happens in cases where you have cluttered returns. Your
system is useless in a jungle, for instance. Plus also, how does the gun
know what its target is? How does it know which signal to pick out from
the background clutter, especially at longer ranges where background
clutter is more significant (wider targetting aperture)? No, range
information from the gun would be useless. It would just pick out the
biggest blob in front of its muzzle and say, "Duh. Target."
I know you have experience shooting, so I know you know that you *look*
at what you're shooting at when you finally decide to shoot it. Panning
your view back and forth and across is what you do to *spot* targets.
You engage by fixing them breifly enough to touch off however many rounds
you see fit, then move on to the next target. I make the assumption that
the gear is fast enough to keep up with you.
The way I see a smartgun working is similar to combination of
both our arguments. I agree that the orientation of the gun is necessary
information. So the weapon sends its position relative to the shooter
(i.e. how the shooter is holding the gun, what angle, what elevation, etc.)
through the link circuitry to the headware, which calculates the ranges
from the user's optic dilation. The headware then does the necessary
calculations and projects a cross-hair onto your field of view. If you
are not looking directly at your target, your range information may not
be entirely accurate, but then again, why are you shooting without
looking anyway?
This would explain why you do not get bonuses (boni?) for using
two smartlinked weapons. That is, you can't be looking in two places at
once, and thus will not get accurate range data for the links.

Marc (who plans to go home for Turkey Day and blow 100+ rounds through
his 9mm Beretta just because.)
Message no. 55
From: W.Blount@*******.anu.edu.au (Warwick)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 17:15:18 +1000
>It's called a ballistic computer, and there's one on every artillery piece
>in the British Army down to the 105mm Light Guns, and every mortar fire
>controller has one. It's about the size of a laptop computer (because it
>basically is one) at the moment. In sixty years I think we can assume it's
>small enough to mount on a bow :)
>

But is the ballistic computer actually able to get live feed from the
target area and decide not to shoot if there is a friendly target there, or
does it just make it easier to hit a specific spot by making a heap of
complex calculations for you???



Chaugnar Faugn

Some were the figures of well-known myth gorgons, chimaeras, dragons,
cylcops, and all their shuddersome congeners. Others were drawn from darker
and more furtively whispered cycles of subterranean legend black, formless
Tsathoggua, many-tentacled Cthulhu, proboscidian Chaugnar Faugn, and other
rumoured blasphemies from forbidden books like the Necronomicon, the Book of
Eibon, or the Unaussprechlichen Kulten of von Junzt. (The Horror in the
Museum)
Message no. 56
From: W.Blount@*******.anu.edu.au (Warwick)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 17:48:14 +1000
>From reading the many arguments about having a Smartlink for Bows, it seems
to me that the easiest way to design it for use in angle firing would be to
have the whole setup changed slightly. For instance, wouldn't it be
posible for the smartlink on the bow to be angled directly at the target,
to work out Range, gravity, FF, etc. and have a second 'smarteye' or
whatever it's called, having a wider LOS, angled, so that the two inputs
(together with any others, eg string tension) can be used to calculate
whether the arrow will hit the target.

Alternatively, could a feedback link be made from the eye/goggles, which
gives it the information it needs. (I don't know squat about archery, but
I'm assuming that the archer can see enough to make his shot accurate).

Another option could be to let the archer get some bohnuses for the
smartlink, but not all. For example, I'm sure it would be a big help to an
archer if he knew exactly how far away a target was from him.
Message no. 57
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 17:53:45 GMT
>
> >It's called a ballistic computer, and there's one on every artillery piece
> >in the British Army down to the 105mm Light Guns, and every mortar fire
> >controller has one. It's about the size of a laptop computer (because it
> >basically is one) at the moment. In sixty years I think we can assume it's
> >small enough to mount on a bow :)
> >
>
> But is the ballistic computer actually able to get live feed from the
> target area and decide not to shoot if there is a friendly target there, or
> does it just make it easier to hit a specific spot by making a heap of
> complex calculations for you???

Given that the target area is forty kilometres away, and flight time from
firing to impact is measured in scores of seconds, that could be challenging
to say the least :) The decision to shoot or not is yours: you decide where
you want the shots to go and live with the consequences. The targeting
computer (of whatever type) merely assists you by translating your wishes
into rounds on target. If your judgement of "friend" and "enemy" is in
error...

Gulf War example. Iraqi T-72s proved unable to score hits on enemy tanks
at 1,000 metres, due to a combination of crew training and deficient fire
control. A British Challenger scored a first-round hit at 5,500 metres.
The targeting computer didn't classify the targets: it just made sure
that the gunner hit what was under his reticule. Pull the trigger on a
friendly, and the targeting computer neither knows nor cares.

No way does a Y2,500 smartlink have the processing power to decide for itself
whether it's shooting at friendlies or not! Imagine if someone were to have
contaminated the analysis software, so that all Knight-Errant uniformed
personnel were "friendly" to your smartlink and the weapon wouldn't fire...
The smartlink gives the user enough control to interrupt the weapon's fire
as necessary, it doesn't decide for you whether a target is a good guy or
a bad guy any more than a telescopic sight does now.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 58
From: t_little@**********.utas.edu.au (Timothy Little)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 19:34:08 +1100
><Mentally prepares himself to wade forth into a debate that he should wisely
>steer way clear of...>
>
>I would have thought that a smartgun system derived at least some of its
>input from the users brain. "It reads your mind". A datajack, for example,
>can "read" your thought patterns and generate the desired electrical signals
>for responses. Since a smartgun is a cybernetic linkup, then I would assume
>it has this type of capability also.

Also remember that a cybernetic smartlink costs more than twice as much
Essence and nuyen as a datajack does, and hence must be a more complex system.

> This way the smartgun "knows" what you
>wish it to hit, because it takes information directly from your brain as to
>what is the intended target. Some type of rangefinder system is still
>neccessary for it to correctly perform the calculations for adjustments due
>to gravity and such, however (at least I assume - it'd be tricky otherwsie,
>no?). This type of approach also solves the "Friend or Foe" dilemma too -
>because it derives information on the desired target from your brain, then
>it can identify things/people you do not wish to shoot at.
>
>Hmmm, a thought just occured to me - this cannot, by definition apply to
>smartgun systems relying on smartgoggles can it? No brain interface. Oh
>well, there goes that idea.

That would be why smart goggles aren't any more accurate than a laser sight.

I see a smartlink system as providing a visual ballistic arc for the weapon
it is mounted on. Interpreting that arc (including depth information) is up
to the user. If the smartlink is cybernetic, it gets to use the built-in
depth perception of its user, and you can give a mental "no go" message when
the line-of-fire crosses a friendly. This way, all the weapon mounting
needs is a position/angle sensor and ballistic models for the ammunition -
whether it be Dikoted 10mm APDS or wooden arrows. A bow might also need a
strain sensor strip, but nothing really tricky.

--
Tim Little
Message no. 59
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:20:05 +1100 (EST)
Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

> No way does a Y2,500 smartlink have the processing power to decide for
> itself whether it's shooting at friendlies or not!

Why not? It is a direct neural interface, so it can quite easily draw
friend/foe targeting information from the users own brain. For comparison,
the cheapest deck is around 5000Y (I think), and it is able to handle a heck
of a lot more procesing and identifying of information from the users brain
than a smartlink will ever be required to do.

> Imagine if someone were to have contaminated the analysis software, so
> that all Knight-Errant uniformed personnel were "friendly" to your
smartlink
> and the weapon wouldn't fire...

Actually, I rather like this idea... <evil GM grin> It might give runners
reasons to tinker with their smartlinks and turn off the IFF portion as well
(especially after they've had an experiences as you describe above...).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 60
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:35:44 +1100 (EST)
Timothy Little writes:

> Also remember that a cybernetic smartlink costs more than twice as much
> Essence and nuyen as a datajack does, and hence must be a more complex
> system.

Well, not neccessarily - Bone Lacing costs around ten times as much as a
datajack, but it's one of the last things I'd call complex. The essnce cost
of cyberware is determined on a basis of how different to a regulrar human
you would become by the implantation of the cyberware, rather than how
intrusive or complicated the particular cyberware is.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 61
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 11:18:17 GMT
> Paul Jonathan Adam writes:
> > No way does a Y2,500 smartlink have the processing power to decide for
> > itself whether it's shooting at friendlies or not!
>
> Why not? It is a direct neural interface, so it can quite easily draw
> friend/foe targeting information from the users own brain. For comparison,
> the cheapest deck is around 5000Y (I think), and it is able to handle a heck
> of a lot more procesing and identifying of information from the users brain
> than a smartlink will ever be required to do.

The problem here is that a basic smartlink is shading a long way towards
being a tactical computer here :) It really depends on how you define
"processing friend/foe information from the user's brain". I see it as
letting you interrupt the fire of the weapon whenever it's aimed to hit a
"non-valid target". If your interpretation of what is and is not a valid
target is wrong, you're in trouble.

Again, I don't give the weapon any imaging capability of any sort when I
GM smartlinks, but that's just my own mechanic. I also like putting the
onus on the PC to work out what's going on, rather than claiming his
smartgun link will do it all.

'Course, if it *does* have imaging capability, does it have low-light?
Thermographic? Ultrasound? Are all those built-in, and what happens if
they are but the PC doesn't have them? No need to buy all that expensive
night-vision gear, just watch the world through your smartlink :)

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 62
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:09:44 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "PJA" == Paul Jonathan Adam
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> writes:

PJA> 'Course, if it *does* have imaging capability,

You know, I never suggested any kind of "real" image processing
capability, mostly because I said that the ranging/targeting sensor has
such a narrow field of vision that it would be unnecessary. I did say
that if you give the sensor a 45+-degree field of view, necessary for a
smartbow system that didn't pivot to track the desired target, it would
require some kind of imaging system in order to distinguish between
various potential targets at various ranges and elevations. But as I
said, if the sensor's field of vision is so narrow that it can't be
pinging more than a single target at any given time, image processing is
totally unnecessary.

PJA> No need to buy all that expensive night-vision gear, just watch the
PJA> world through your smartlink :)

Be just like looking down the IR camera of a Maverick missile. Or a straw.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMLifN56VRH7BJMxHAQGXmAP+K+uu70D45NS3lW78snOCi0XHTWugtRrr
z3/ugC+psOTswWbJ38RT1L2JpW7Rl0AaN2B+pxeX4WtsbpQD8K+O+rjYEfqgFRJg
qqMpK0rbRToNc0hDi/Lqhw6ZvxIRzuFA/vLMUT/Bl8kQZSAO599usfzph53CEoor
gCiO0gDUWao=
=6K/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 63
From: Charles McKenzie <kilroy@**.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:26:34 -0600 (CST)
On Sun, 26 Nov 1995, Paul Jonathan Adam wrote:
> 'Course, if it *does* have imaging capability, does it have low-light?
> Thermographic? Ultrasound? Are all those built-in, and what happens if
> they are but the PC doesn't have them? No need to buy all that expensive
> night-vision gear, just watch the world through your smartlink :)

I can picture that in a lot of interesting circumstances.
At a party, the Stuffer Shack, the airport...:)

Chuck McKenzie kilroy@***.cs.wisc.edu
Finger me for my PGP key http://yar.cs.wisc.edu/~kilroy/
Message no. 64
From: "Damion Milliken" <adm82@***.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:45:16 +1100 (EST)
Paul Jonathan Adam writes:

> The problem here is that a basic smartlink is shading a long way towards
> being a tactical computer here :) It really depends on how you define
> "processing friend/foe information from the user's brain". I see it as
> letting you interrupt the fire of the weapon whenever it's aimed to hit a
> "non-valid target". If your interpretation of what is and is not a valid
> target is wrong, you're in trouble.

I was thinking of something a little more automatic. After all, I doubt if
there will be a lot of time for a concious decision on your part to halt
your fire at particular moments during your sweep. However, if you know
that you wish to hold fire for a particular target, then the smartlink will
be able to recognise this and do so. Really we're saying the same thing -
just I think it is a little more speed orientated (and therefore due to my
mechanism of holding fire, subject to the problem you mentioned previously
about "all KE uniforms are friendly").

> Again, I don't give the weapon any imaging capability of any sort when I
> GM smartlinks, but that's just my own mechanic. I also like putting the
> onus on the PC to work out what's going on, rather than claiming his
> smartgun link will do it all.

I agree, they shouldn't have image procesing capabilities. In fact they
need very little other than a system or mechanism to determine direction and
angle - since they do not have rangefinding capabilities.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 65
From: W.Blount@*******.anu.edu.au (Warwick)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:05:17 +1100
>> Paul Jonathan Adam writes:
>> > No way does a Y2,500 smartlink have the processing power to decide for
>> > itself whether it's shooting at friendlies or not!
>>
>> Why not? It is a direct neural interface, so it can quite easily draw
>> friend/foe targeting information from the users own brain. For comparison,
>> the cheapest deck is around 5000Y (I think), and it is able to handle a heck
>> of a lot more procesing and identifying of information from the users brain
>> than a smartlink will ever be required to do.
>
>The problem here is that a basic smartlink is shading a long way towards
>being a tactical computer here :)

And what's wrong with that? You can get skill chiops stuck in your head to
gain skills that you never had before, so why can't a smartlink have the
computing power of a tactical computer

>'Course, if it *does* have imaging capability, does it have low-light?
>Thermographic? Ultrasound? Are all those built-in, and what happens if
>they are but the PC doesn't have them? No need to buy all that expensive
>night-vision gear, just watch the world through your smartlink :)

Playing in a game once I *did* use the ultrasound scope linked into my
smartgun to look around a corner and _see_ (sort of) if there was anyone
there.
Message no. 66
From: Paul@********.demon.co.uk (Paul Jonathan Adam)
Subject: Re: Smart Bows
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:02:20 GMT
> >The problem here is that a basic smartlink is shading a long way towards
> >being a tactical computer here :)
>
> And what's wrong with that? You can get skill chiops stuck in your head to
> gain skills that you never had before, so why can't a smartlink have the
> computing power of a tactical computer

Because I don't like a Y2,500 smartlink having the same abilities as a
Y350,000 tactical computer. I also don't like the idea that a PC can insist
that, because they use a smartgun, they will never accidentally shoot a
colleague or innocent bystander.

Of course, if you insist that your smartlink has a built-in IFF capability,
you need to decide how it works. Then you need to ensure that no adversary
ever finds the chinks in that. And, finally, how failsafe is it? There is
an indistinct shape rushing at you out of the darkness. You have instants
only to fire.

Option one... point and shoot. Gun responds "Target not confirmed hostile."
and refuses to fire. Charging monster tears PC limb from limb.

Option two... point and shoot. Gun responds "Target not confirmed hostile",
PC overrides it and fires anyway. Teammate collapses, riddled with bullets.

What happens if the software gets corrupted? Or if you bought it from
Ares, and you discover too late that the smartlink will not fire at anyone
in a Knight-Errant uniform? Or that your Fuchi smartgun can be deactivated
by a coded radio signal? Or... Anything more complex than a ballistic
computer is open to all of this.

> >'Course, if it *does* have imaging capability, does it have low-light?
> >Thermographic? Ultrasound? Are all those built-in, and what happens if
> >they are but the PC doesn't have them? No need to buy all that expensive
> >night-vision gear, just watch the world through your smartlink :)
>
> Playing in a game once I *did* use the ultrasound scope linked into my
> smartgun to look around a corner and _see_ (sort of) if there was anyone
> there.

That's fine by me, the ultrasound sight works just fine like that as far
as I read it. I let people put microcameras on their weapons or in
fingertip compartments, so you can peek around a corner exposing only
a finger rather than your head: but I want that to be a bonus for
players who think of smart ideas, not a God-given right for everyone
with a smartgun.
>
>
>

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 67
From: "Larry White (WPG) (Exchange)" <Larryw@********.MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: RE: Smart Bows
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:45:35 -0800
The thread below (reverse order at the end of the message) often compares a
smartlink with a tactical computer's target recognition capabilities.

My group doesn't interpret the smartlink's capabilities like a tactical
computer at all. Please stay with me through the following ... its long but
I believe the well-accepted capabilities are a key to understanding this
area of discussion.

The smartlink systems gives these capabilities that I recall:
1) Targeting information, either crosshairs or a dot, appears on the retina,
cybereye, or image of smart goggles). The targeting information indicates
where the weapon (bow with external smartgun adapter, gun with external
smartgun adapter, or gun with internal smartgun) is aiming. (Smartlink SRII
p. 249; SmartGoggles & Smartgun SRII p. 241)

2) The player with smartlink using a gun with internal smartgun can eject a
clip as a Free Action (SRII p. 81). This is not available with Smart
Goggles or External Smartgun adapter because it has neither the mental
control of the smartlink or the hardware in the gun of the internal
Smartgun.

3) The player with smartlink using a gun with internal smartgun can change
the fire mode (SS, BF, FA) of his gun as a free action (SRII p. 81).

4) When "walking" full auto-fire from one target to another there is
normally a round expelled (a stray shot or wasted round) for every meter of
distance between the two targets. Smartguns never waste rounds (SRII p.
93). We interpret this to work only when a smartlink is used (not smart
goggles) and only when the weapon has internal smartgun. We believe this is
because the player's brain says "don't shoot" while the weapon is traversing
the intermediate space and the gun simply stops or delays what it would
otherwise do. We treat it very close to the type of control for (2) and
(3).

I believe the notion that smartguns don't hit unintentional targets arises
from the optional Stray Shot rule (SRII p. 93) having to do with rounds
expended between targets when walking full auto-fire. (Does anyone know of
any other reference to smartguns not hitting unintentional targets?)
Because smartguns are capable of not wasting rounds when walking autofire
between targets then it doesn't generate stray fire.

My group uses the following practice: If the player can recognize that the
gun is pointing at something he doesn't want to shoot he uses a mental
command to stop the bullet from being fired even if the finger is pressing
on the trigger. (Very much like #2 and #3 above, and only available with
smartlink and internal smartgun.) Because it doesn't rely on the speed of
moving muscles its a lot quicker than removing the finger from the trigger.
Its how you avoid wasting rounds when walking autofire between targets and
its how you avoid splattering the mayor who runs across between you and the
target while you're continuously spraying the target ("lead fire hose").

To carry this to the logical conclusion, round which do no damage due to
armor and body rolls have obviously struck the target. Rounds which miss
completely due to a combination of player's penalties (stun, electric shock,
confusion, his movement, recoil, visibility) and target's movement (running,
or even because you don't have the bonus for the target standing still) were
likely still fired by the gun because the player's mind thought the gun was
on-target, these rounds still go somewhere and might hit an unintentional
target.

I believe Smart Bows may hit unintentional targets. The fingers have let
the arrow fly, and the arrow does indeed go somewhere. There are no
cybernetic controls which mentally prevent the arrow from flying.


I remember the Samurai who hooked up a test lead from the smartlink inductor
in his palm to the grip of his Ingram. Then he fastened a rubberband to the
trigger of the Ingram and left the Ingram lying on the table. Sitting
calmly in an overstuffed easy chair, all the time thinking "don't shoot,
don't shoot", with his weapon clearly out of his reach, the opposition
roamed around the room as they questioned him. When the target indicator in
his eyes told him their leader was in direct line of fire from the gun he
stopped thinking "don't shoot". The recoil effects were amazing.

LarryW in the Barrens

----------
Thu, 12/14/95 9:03am Paul@********.demon.co.uk:
Because I don't like a Y2,500 smartlink having the same abilities as a
Y350,000 tactical computer. I also don't like the idea that a PC can insist
that, because they use a smartgun, they will never accidentally shoot a
colleague or innocent bystander.

-------
Tue, 12/12/95 11:02pm W.Blount@*******.anu.edu.au
And what's wrong with that? You can get skill chiops stuck in your head to
gain skills that you never had before, so why can't a smartlink have the
computing power of a tactical computer

-----
Some response:
Why not? It is a direct neural interface, so it can quite easily draw
friend/foe targeting information from the users own brain. For comparison,
the cheapest deck is around 5000Y (I think), and it is able to handle a heck
of a lot more procesing and identifying of information from the users brain
than a smartlink will ever be required to do.

------
Original:
No way does a Y2,500 smartlink have the processing power to decide for
itself whether it's shooting at friendlies or not!
Message no. 68
From: MikeE@******.dragonsys.com
Subject: RE: Smart Bows -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:08:27 -0500
I agree with Larryw's interpretation of smartlinks,
with the following addition: IMHO someone with
a smartlink and an internal smartgun can fire the
weapon WITHOUT actually moving his finger on
the trigger. My rational: one of the main
reasons for missing a target when shooting a
pistol (acording to my pistol instructor at college,
anyway) is pulling the gun slightly to the left (if
you are right handed) when you pull the trigger.
Good pistol shots (of which I am NOT one) have
learned to carefully and gently "squeeze" the
trigger, without shifting aim.

If you already have full neural control of things
like ejecting clips, adding a trigger pull to it
seems like a no-brainer to gain a bit of extra
accuracy. In fact, this is the justification I use in
my game for smart goggles giving -1 TN and a
smart link a -2.
Message no. 69
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: RE: Smart Bows
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:14:50 +0100
Larry White (WPG) (Exchange) said on 14 Dec 95...

> I believe the notion that smartguns don't hit unintentional targets arises
> from the optional Stray Shot rule (SRII p. 93) having to do with rounds
> expended between targets when walking full auto-fire. (Does anyone know of
> any other reference to smartguns not hitting unintentional targets?)

SR1 specifically states that a smartgun will miss "targets" you don't want
to hit when walking fire from one target to the next. It even gives a
map-like diagram to show this. This is not in SR2 AFAIK.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Oh no... The front door exploded...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Smart Bows, 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!