Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Dark Thought Publications." <JEK5313@*****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Smartlinks.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:52:23 CET
Soren Blackshadow (Cybered Shaman):
] I agree with Mongoose... A smartgun adapted gun almost HAS to
]have some sort of imaging system, and hence a camera of some sort. If
]a smartgun only projected a DOT onto the target, it would be no better
]than a fraggin laser sight, 'cept it would cost more and you would lose
]essence for it. Having some form of camera/imaging device would be the
]only reason you would need wires running into your nervous system/up to
]your goggles. That's also the only way you could really avoid shooting
]your friends.

>>>>>[I don't know if this has been dealt with in my absence, but since I'm
cleaning out my mailbox, I'll take this one too. . .
As per Tom Dowd, a smartlink's imaging capabilities put a dot on your
retina (or if goggles, a dot on your goggles) where the gun is aimed. Any
questions of whether the gun is moved to bear on your target are now moot in
SRII, as the offending sentence has been officially struck out. As such, you
cannot see around walls with a smartgun link.]<<<<<

>>>>>[As for rigging some camera attachment-- sure, try a length of
shielded
optical fiber down your sleeve, and rig it to a HUD system (which can be found
in the book) or to a display link.]<<<<<
--Flare <NULLSIG COURTESY OF DOOM>

Dark Thought Publications & Doom Technologies, Inc.
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
Message no. 2
From: Richard Pieri <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 10:02:19 EDT
>>>>> "TYGER" == Hobbes Patrol Headquarters
<TYGER@****.Winona.MSUS.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

TYGER> Going back to the smartgun thing, a smartgun makes your gun an
TYGER> extention of your hand (IMHO). So it's simmilar to that in the
TYGER> aspect of 'part of your body' cyber. I could be wrong. (No doubt,
TYGER> you won't fail to tell me gang...)

Ummm... no (actually you mean "smartlink" not "smartgun"):

Smartlink: This is the feedback loop circuitry necessary to take full
advantage of a smartgun. Targeting information appears on the user's
retina or cybereye as a small dot or cross hairs that corresponds to the
smartweapons's current line of fire. [...]

Ok, this answers a couple of things about smartlinks. First, it's a
pinpoint targeting system, not a full remote cyberoptic. And it doesn't
control your shooting arm, *you* do. It doesn't make the weapon an
extension of your hand, just easier to aim.

And second, it includes some kind of ballistics computer to calculate
trajectories. I'm sure it would be simple (and inexpenisive) to include
ranging and elevation information in the targeting display. 'Course, that
could be a bit confusing in a firefight, but... :-)

Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el v1.5
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
The best steel goes through the fire/And you seem to burn
The dead man's always a liar/Look out, there's another one learning.
--Dio, Hide in the Rainbow
Message no. 3
From: Christopher Higgins <as812@*******.CARLETON.CA>
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 14:47:00 -0400
I hate to jump in on all this technical discussion but I've always
seen the Smartlink system as nothing more than a glorified mouse. It
calculates the position of the gun in the hand, the angle of the wrist,
elbow, shoulder, etc. then through that information calculates a line of
fire and then drops that info into your visual cortex as a crosshair, dot,
etc. The small amount of equipment in the gun includes nothing more than
the hand/grip sensor, ammo sensor/mechanism and gun mode control. A
Smartlink can only be fooled by illusion because illusions phuck up the
mind that's receiving the info. The target # bonus comes from the accuracy
of the line-of-fire calculation; it shows you exactly where you're
pointing not where the target is.
As far as the shuriken are concerned:
A) Won't enchantment dissolve the dikote coating just as Anchoring does?
(pg.49 GrimoireII)
B) How do you throw a hellblast through a power focus? Throw the damned
thing then astral project while it's in mid-flight and cast a D drain
spell. Isn't drain always Physical when cast from the astral?
C) Won't the mono-wire cover the dikote'd edge making it redundant?
D) I say let him have the things. Let him rip his hand open when he
tries to grab them (at least T# 6 like the whip). Let him fry himself when
he tries to throw a spell through it. Finally, let him lose one only to
have it found by a mage/shaman, highly skilled in ritual sorcery, who
perhaps hates munchkins or works for Lone Star.
Christopher Higgins.
Message no. 4
From: JOHANNA BURWELL-KALES <burwell@******.EDU>
Subject: smartlinks...
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 14:12:19 -0800
You can smartlink an arm or a vehicle as it says in FoF. The way
my players have been doing this is that whatever it says in the sidelines
is fair game.

later...
Message no. 5
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: smartlinks...
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 17:49:02 -0500
On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, JOHANNA BURWELL-KALES wrote:

> You can smartlink an arm or a vehicle as it says in FoF. The way
> my players have been doing this is that whatever it says in the sidelines
> is fair game.

A fact which will no doubt come back to haunt you...

Marc
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: smartlinks...
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 19:13:20 -0500
>>>>> "JOHANNA" == JOHANNA BURWELL-KALES
<burwell@******.EDU> writes:

JOHANNA> You can smartlink an arm or a vehicle as it says in FoF.

As has been pointed out to me already, only the ``improved'' smartlink that
shows up in FoF can be used this way. Standard smartlinks cannot be used
through a VCR.

JOHANNA> The way my players have been doing this is that whatever it says
JOHANNA> in the sidelines is fair game.

As you would, but you may regret it. :)

BTW, how do you deal with contradictory sidenotes, anyway? :)

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 7
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: smartlinks...
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 20:12:12 EST
Marc writes:

> On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, JOHANNA BURWELL-KALES wrote:
>
> > You can smartlink an arm or a vehicle as it says in FoF. The
way
> > my players have been doing this is that whatever it says in the
sidelines
> > is fair game.
>
> A fact which will no doubt come back to haunt you...
>
> Marc
>
Not necessarily. Remember, the sidelines can be taken as true or
false. In FoF, if I remember correctly, one person had it work and
another did not. Maybe some of the software is better then others, or
beta-tests got out and the corps want them back. Never
underestimate the side quotes for all sorts of mayham to dish out on
runners.


Many people fear Death, saying it is the bitter end.
I say Death is just lonely, crying out for a friend.

-Shadowdancer- <briddle@*****.vinu.edu>
Message no. 8
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: smartlinks...
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 10:16:31 -0500
On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:

> Marc writes:
> > A fact which will no doubt come back to haunt you...

> Not necessarily. Remember, the sidelines can be taken as true or
> false. In FoF, if I remember correctly, one person had it work and
> another did not. Maybe some of the software is better then others, or
> beta-tests got out and the corps want them back. Never
> underestimate the side quotes for all sorts of mayham to dish out on
> runners.

I understand that. My comment was directed at the fact that what
was true and factual from the sidelines was left up to the players, a
practice that can, indeed, come back to haunt you.

Marc (who knows full well about dishing out mayhem)
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Smartlinks?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:33:06 +0100
>Marginal, to be honest, once the sight radius gets over about 16 inches.
>And have you seen the L85, G11 and the Steyr AUG recently? I think all the
>US Army's ACR candidates had optic sights for just the reasons you mention.

I remember reading something about an Israeli sight that worked similar to
an aircraft HUD -- it projected a dot onto a little transparent plate on top
of the weapon. As long as you can see the dot you can put it onto the target
and hit it -- with both eyes open. Current day smartgun technology? :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
<te huur: 1 lege regel (opschrift naar keuze), hier te bezichtigen.>
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 10
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 21:41:55 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, U-Gene wrote:

> 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 brings up a good point. Keep in mind that for smartguns
to work, you have to have either smartlink cyberware or smartgoggles. I
assume that both of these devices have mechanisms for measuring cornea
distension etc. to determine where the user's vision is focused. If you
look up at a target that's at a 35 degree angle of elevation, but only at
a range of 3 meters, the equipment can tell that the target's close, and
thus will have you shooting directly. The gear on the gun itself will
have some sort of small, gimballed counterweight (mini-INS?) to be able to
determine the *weapon's* elevation angle and position relative to
target. With all of this information, smartlink doesn't seem such a
far-fetched concept at all.
What Smartlink II does is takes the range data from your point of focus
and known weapon firing characteristics (remember, installing smartlink
hardware requires calibration) and is able to calculate indirect
fire-arcs. Keep in mind that when using a smartlink, you are not
necessarily looking down your weapon's sights. You are trusting the
cross-hairs displayed in your field of vision. Basically, smartlink II
just offers a more powerful (i.e. probably faster) ballistics computer
capable of more complicated calculations.
I will agree with Rat and PJA that different ammunition loads
will produce different fire characteristics, but given sixty years of
technological advancement, it is not totally unreasonable to assume that
the weapon "knows" what kind of ammo it is currently loaded with and
takes that information into account when calculating trajectories.

Marc
Message no. 11
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:03:12 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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

MAR> U-Gene brings up a good point. Keep in mind that for smartguns
MAR> to work, you have to have either smartlink cyberware or
MAR> smartgoggles. I assume that both of these devices have mechanisms
MAR> for measuring cornea distension etc. to determine where the user's
MAR> vision is focused.

That's a bad assumption. Smartlinks can work with otherwise unmodified
eyes, based on the description. Besides, why make things more complex
by futzing with the human's optics when you can get more accurate and
reliable results by taking the rangings at or near the weapon's muzzle?
And given a narrow enough field of view the smartgun can only "see" what
the weapon is pointed at, the issue of IFF is a non-issue; with only one
target to choose from there's really no need to make a choice. Simpler
system = more reliable system.

But if ranging/IFF happens at the shooter's eye, how can a Smartlink II
work with rigged weapons where there is no line of sight between shooter
and target?

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

iQCVAwUBMLFBbJ6VRH7BJMxHAQG0XAP9FXsS8m5ARcX1Bwloesm1Aeaz6uqNnLt7
obtbKzPtO0c+psi7rEE2tnuY12cnro6m7+BoPPWz/OAprpZR4Kj6kZ1KqzHNgz+u
3SFM5at1LrAQD2YOr+zTvRkX836760jvXBmyWL/Fciik2mH68Nt89KA0ysbTTTfz
aoo81X+5v68=
=rmZE
-----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. 12
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:28:08 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> That's a bad assumption. Smartlinks can work with otherwise unmodified
> eyes, based on the description.

Your point is valid, but you're not listening to what I'm saying.
The point remains that a smartlinked weapon is *useless* with either a)
smartlink cyberware, or b) smartgoggles. Both of these devices could
easily tell where your point of focus is. The smartgoggles are sitting
on your face and the cyberware is attached to your freaking brain.

> Besides, why make things more complex by futzing with the human's
> optics when you can get more accurate and reliable results by taking
> the rangings at or near the weapon's muzzle?

Because the weapon's muzzle isn't necessarily pointed where the
shooter is looking. You *have* to go off the shooter's point of focus or
the thing would never work at all. It'd have no way to tell where you
wanted your shots to land. You'd get no ranging and drop information
because your gun can't tell whether you're shooting at long range or at
the guy standing two feet in front of you. It may be called a
"smartlink" but the gun is still the stupidest part of the system.

> And given a narrow enough field of view the smartgun can only "see" what
> the weapon is pointed at, the issue of IFF is a non-issue; with only one
> target to choose from there's really no need to make a choice. Simpler
> system = more reliable system.

The whole IFF things is dodgy to me. It's never really all that
well justified and there are too many situations (dark, surprise, chaos
of cambat) where IFF would be damn near impossible in the way they
ascribe to it.

> But if ranging/IFF happens at the shooter's eye, how can a Smartlink II
> work with rigged weapons where there is no line of sight between shooter
> and target?

Simple answer. It can't. The whole "rigged weapons + smartlink
II" was a *sidebar* comment in FoF that I chose to ignore. Some dumbass
was talking trash on the shadowboard. Such is life.

Marc
Message no. 13
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:57:08 +0100
Marc A Renouf said on20 Nov 95...

> I will agree with Rat and PJA that different ammunition loads
> will produce different fire characteristics, but given sixty years of
> technological advancement, it is not totally unreasonable to assume that
> the weapon "knows" what kind of ammo it is currently loaded with and
> takes that information into account when calculating trajectories.

I'm still using the SR1 rules/explanations/guidelines that a smartgun not only
projects a crosshair, but also other weapon data, like the current number of
rounds left in the weapon, the kind of ammunition loaded, safety status, etc.
into your field of vision and/or directly into your mind.

--
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. 14
From: Nathan Walker <NTWALKER@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:16:25 -0500 (EST)
Klingon Name: Captain K'vort, Commander, DSF C7 "Victory"
MIME: We shoot them here.

From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu>
> U-Gene brings up a good point. Keep in mind that for smartguns
>to work, you have to have either smartlink cyberware or smartgoggles. I
>assume that both of these devices have mechanisms for measuring cornea
>distension etc. to determine where the user's vision is focused. If you
>look up at a target that's at a 35 degree angle of elevation, but only at
>a range of 3 meters, the equipment can tell that the target's close, and
>thus will have you shooting directly. The gear on the gun itself will
>have some sort of small, gimballed counterweight (mini-INS?) to be able to
>determine the *weapon's* elevation angle and position relative to
>target. With all of this information, smartlink doesn't seem such a
>far-fetched concept at all.

I agree... If you were shooting at something close, for instance, and you
were shooting from the hip or something, The LOS from your eye would be
drastically different from the LOS from your gun. The gun would be off
about two and a half feet below where the crosshairs were. But, if the
Link has some sort of sensors implanted in your eye that would measure angle
and focus, (corresponding to angle and distance) then it could compensate
for those things. Otherwise, you could have problems.

>>>>>>>>> Nate, the sometimes serious.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| NTWalker@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US |
| a.k.a. The Joker |
| |
| Where does he get those marvelous toys? |
| - Joker |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:- a--->? C++++ UV+>++++ 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. 15
From: seb@***.ripco.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:56:04 -0600 (CST)
>
> > 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?

For that matter, if it has, say 1/2 degree angle of view, how does it
distinguish between your assasination target and his bodyguard, your terrorist
and her hosstage, your security guard and unarmed peds, or the red ranger and
the green ranger standing next to eachother at 300 feet? Obviously there is
some cerebral input as far as target designation goes.
Message no. 16
From: W.Blount@*******.anu.edu.au (Warwick)
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 18:08:03 +1000
> The whole IFF things is dodgy to me. It's never really all that
>well justified and there are too many situations (dark, surprise, chaos
>of cambat) where IFF would be damn near impossible in the way they
>ascribe to it.
>

It might be dodgy, but it's a very useful things for Everyone to have.
Especially when a SR team bursts into a crowd of people and Security guards
open fire with their smartlinked SMGs.

If you think even harder about the IFF issue, it gets even iffier :). For
exampe, a Smartlinked Panzer Assault Cannon oppens up with the intent to
assasinate (Well, mince anyway) one person in a crowd (designated friends).
What happened to the rounds if they miss? (the target happened to move at
the exact instance that the trigger was pulled). What happens to the
rounds? Do they harmlessly dissapate or does an innocent passerby get
hammered?
(And more importantly, can you get a refund on your smartlink because it
hit the wrong guy?? ;)
Message no. 17
From: Gallas William <gallas@**.ec-lyon.fr>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:57:06 MET
> Warwick:
>
> If you think even harder about the IFF issue, it gets even iffier :). For
> exampe, a Smartlinked Panzer Assault Cannon oppens up with the intent to
> assasinate (Well, mince anyway) one person in a crowd (designated friends).
> What happened to the rounds if they miss? (the target happened to move at
> the exact instance that the trigger was pulled). What happens to the
> rounds? Do they harmlessly dissapate or does an innocent passerby get
> hammered?
> (And more importantly, can you get a refund on your smartlink because it
> hit the wrong guy?? ;)

I apply this rule: If the shot should have hit without the modifier from friends
around the victim, one of the friend is shot with successes from this T.N.
If the one who fires would not have hit, well, he hits nothing.
The firer could have no modifier but the target would be designated randomly.

- Cobra.

_______
/ \
| _ )
\_/ \ /
/ ) /
/| / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / __
/ /______/ )
(___________/\|
Message no. 18
From: Kevin Dole kdole@***.vsc.edu
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:22:34 EST5EDT
Starrngr@***.com
>than the original Smartlink. IE, guns euiped with Smart II's could
>do what yoru describing here while those with smart I's would have
>to adjust for this fact "manually".

IF they are connected to a range finder.

I think the ideas about figuring out how the ballistics of various
loadings difer is interesting, I'd only worry about it if the characters
where shooting in a compition or in a very odd situation (ie, the
dwarf sam with lots of armour and cyber, who kicked out the
kneecaps of a troll, and now using said troll as a human shield with a
gun to the temple). For the most part, a "point-blank" or
"battlefield"
zero is good enough.
What this means is that you will hit, with an acceptable
derivation from zero based off of the range, with just about any
loading that is similiar in mass and velocity to the one you zeroed
with. (Yes, some guns like to toss, for example, the same weight and
velocity loadings from two seperate makers about 3+MOA apart, but
thats too nitpicky for a "sane" RPG.) Will you be dead on?
Probably not. But you will hit main (human) body mass at the range
you zeroed it at. For extreme long range or highly precise
marksmanship, it makes a difference, but for most shooting, not
really. If there is any place for the modifier to be placed, it would be
for called shots.




Kevin Dole /:|
kdole@***.vsc.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/4151/welcome.html
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death, and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
Message no. 19
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:00:43 +0000
In article <199902241924.OAA14312@****.vtc.vsc.edu>, Kevin Dole
<kdole@***.vsc.edu> writes
>I think the ideas about figuring out how the ballistics of various
>loadings difer is interesting, I'd only worry about it if the characters
>where shooting in a compition or in a very odd situation (ie, the
>dwarf sam with lots of armour and cyber, who kicked out the
>kneecaps of a troll, and now using said troll as a human shield with a
>gun to the temple). For the most part, a "point-blank" or
"battlefield"
>zero is good enough.

I'd say it could matter a little at longer ranges, but as you say in the
text I snipped, at battlesight ranges there isn't a great deal of
difference: a couple of inches high or low aren't going to matter.

Loading lightweight flechette, gel or APDS in a weapon set up for heavy-
bullet subsonics will be a problem, though...

>For extreme long range or highly precise
>marksmanship, it makes a difference, but for most shooting, not
>really.

Especially not at SR ranges. We zeroed our assault rifles to hit dead-
centre at 300 metres: that meant at 100-200 metres our bullets would hit
a couple of inches above the point of aim. BFD.

> If there is any place for the modifier to be placed, it would be
>for called shots.

I've suggested previously that careful choice of ammunition, picking
what worked best, expending several hundred rounds, and setting the
weapon up for that particular round, could get you an extra die to roll
in your Firearms test. Like customising the grips, weight and balance;
certainly nothing as dramatic as a modifier to the target number.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 20
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:58:11 -0700
What is going on with Smartlinks? In the new rules, they appear to be either
specialised eyewear or not cyberwear at all. C'm on!
--Anders
Message no. 21
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:20:00 -0600
On 10/19/05, Anders Swenson <anders@**********.com> wrote:
> What is going on with Smartlinks? In the new rules, they appear to be either
> specialised eyewear or not cyberwear at all. C'm on!
> --Anders

You know, mainframe comp... mmmm... a giant M&M filled cookie...

(Please forgive the in joke. Trust me, it was needed ;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 22
From: raymacey@*****.com (Ray Macey)
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:28:10 +1000
On 10/20/05, Anders Swenson <anders@**********.com> wrote:
> What is going on with Smartlinks? In the new rules, they appear to be either
> specialised eyewear or not cyberwear at all. C'm on!
> --Anders

You can still get a smartlink implant if you want...

--
http://cyron.id.au
Message no. 23
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:07:48 -0200
On 10/19/05, Ray Macey <raymacey@*****.com> wrote:
> You can still get a smartlink implant if you want...

Which, by the way, is a cybereye accessory :). I liked it (cheaper,
costs much less Essence), and I also liked the fact that the non-cyber
version gives the same bonus.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 24
From: wyldwolf@*****.com (Kevin Kelley)
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:34:07 -0500
I just like the fact that you don't have to pay essence for each hand.

--
Kevin

On 10/19/05, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/19/05, Ray Macey <raymacey@*****.com> wrote:
> > You can still get a smartlink implant if you want...
>
> Which, by the way, is a cybereye accessory :). I liked it (cheaper,
> costs much less Essence), and I also liked the fact that the non-cyber
> version gives the same bonus.
>
>
> --
> Bira
> http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
> http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
>
Message no. 25
From: zebulingod@*****.com (Zebulin M)
Subject: Smartlinks
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:02:56 -0700
On 10/21/05, Kevin Kelley <wyldwolf@*****.com> wrote:
>
> I just like the fact that you don't have to pay essence for each hand.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
> On 10/19/05, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/19/05, Ray Macey <raymacey@*****.com> wrote:
> > > You can still get a smartlink implant if you want...
> >
> > Which, by the way, is a cybereye accessory :). I liked it (cheaper,
> > costs much less Essence), and I also liked the fact that the non-cyber
> > version gives the same bonus.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bira
> > http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
> > http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
> >
>

That may be true, but you still can't use two Smartlinks at the same time.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Smartlinks, 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!