Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Strago)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:15:01 2001
This has probably been done to death, but I don't care.
I was playing Unreal Tournament earlier and it got me thinking about
exactly what a smartlink display looks like. OK, so there's probably
an X or some kind of marker on the target, but so what? Does it
calculate where the gun has to be to hit the target? Or does it move
the hand to where it needs to be to hit Mr. Bad? And I think I
remember reading somewhere that a gyroscope is part of the smartlink,
but how?
My thought is that it looks kinda like a first person shooter video
game, but at first it's a "ghost" image that you see that's "filled
in" as you move the hand to the correct position. That would be
easier. An unconcious, robotic "pulling" of the arm and hand to
correspond would be nifty, but it would require more surgery.

Another thing about smartlinks is the problem with only using one
hand, though this is always a problem in SR. Why couldn't the
character have two smartlinks, one in each hand? If my thought is
correct, both hands could look "ghost-like," and filled in, with very
little reprogramming required. At first I thought "one smartlink in
each hand, one in each eye" but that's just silly. You see by
combining both eyes, so it would be a mishmash.

The final thought I had about smartlinks is how the smartlink knows
who you want to shoot. It would have to be a conscious action, ie.
"the one second from the left" (or the beginning scene from Spawn) but
the rules don't have this. I think this should be either a Free Action
or a Simple Action.
--
--Strago

When the Justice eludes you it's the fortunes of war
Wouldn't things be different had the tables been turned?
If the people won't protect you you must fend for yourself
When the Justice eludes you it's the fortunes of war
-Dropkick Murphys

Down with the Moral Majority
-Green Day
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:35:04 2001
>This has probably been done to death, but I don't care.
>I was playing Unreal Tournament earlier and it got me thinking about
>exactly what a smartlink display looks like. OK, so there's probably
>an X or some kind of marker on the target, but so what?

So what? So you know (EXACTLY) where the bullet will hit, without needing
to look through any sight or scope. Saves time, avoids the errors caused by
slight hand / eye / gun alignment variations.

>Does it
>calculate where the gun has to be to hit the target? Or does it move
>the hand to where it needs to be to hit Mr. Bad?

No, its a dumb sight. It has no idea what a "target" is, or who might be a
"badguy". It might give you an adjusted impact point based leading a a
moving target, but you'd probably have to specify the target first, and
estimate its velocity.

>And I think I
>remember reading somewhere that a gyroscope is part of the smartlink,
>but how?

I don't recall that, but the likely use would be to sense the guns
postition, so that the bullets travel path could be claculated and the
impact point extracted.

>My thought is that it looks kinda like a first person shooter video
>game, but at first it's a "ghost" image that you see that's "filled
>in" as you move the hand to the correct position. That would be
>easier. An unconcious, robotic "pulling" of the arm and hand to
>correspond would be nifty, but it would require more surgery.

Again, theres no pre-specified target, so it just moves a dot as you move
your hand (or, more acurately, move the gun by moving your hand). Actually,
more likely than a dot would be some sort of probabability map of where the
bullet is LIKELY to hit, since theres always some error.

>Another thing about smartlinks is the problem with only using one
>hand, though this is always a problem in SR. Why couldn't the
>character have two smartlinks, one in each hand? If my thought is
>correct, both hands could look "ghost-like," and filled in, with very
>little reprogramming required. At first I thought "one smartlink in
>each hand, one in each eye" but that's just silly. You see by
>combining both eyes, so it would be a mishmash.

You can put smartlink pickups in both hands, no big deal. Or you can just a
cable from the gun to your datajack, so it doesn't matter which hand you
hold it in. The problem isns't being able to use one hand OR the other, its
in being able to use BOTH at the same time.

>The final thought I had about smartlinks is how the smartlink knows
>who you want to shoot. It would have to be a conscious action, ie.
>"the one second from the left" (or the beginning scene from Spawn) but
>the rules don't have this. I think this should be either a Free Action
>or a Simple Action.

It doesn't know, hence the lack of a rule...

-m0ng005e
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Peter Kristiansen)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 17:55:01 2001
> >Another thing about smartlinks is the problem with only using one
> >hand, though this is always a problem in SR. Why couldn't the
> >character have two smartlinks, one in each hand? If my thought is
>
> You can put smartlink pickups in both hands, no big deal. Or you
can just a
> cable from the gun to your datajack, so it doesn't matter which hand
you
> hold it in. The problem isns't being able to use one hand OR the
other, its
> in being able to use BOTH at the same time.

We have always allowed a character to use two smartlinked weapons at
once. Ofcourse they have to have two smartlinks - one for each hand -
for this to work. Even though this might sound as a bit much I don't
really think it is. We add the +2 for using more than one weapon and
an additional +2 for the offhand one. All uncompensated recoil affects
later bursts. And remember the +2 modifier for engaging additional
targets.

Peter
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Strago)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 21:30:01 2001
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> >This has probably been done to death, but I don't care.
> >I was playing Unreal Tournament earlier and it got me thinking about
> >exactly what a smartlink display looks like. OK, so there's probably
> >an X or some kind of marker on the target, but so what?
>
> So what? So you know (EXACTLY) where the bullet will hit, without needing
> to look through any sight or scope. Saves time, avoids the errors caused by
> slight hand / eye / gun alignment variations.
>

So when it's on, it "points" to where the bullet would go, based upon hand
position?
<SNIP>

Basically, what you're saying is that the smartlink is like a laser sight that's
not visible to anyone other than you. I think I'm looking for something a bit
more. What I was describing will probably have to be a new piece of cyberware,
with a larger tactical computer. I'll work it out, and post it tomorrow, for
list review.

Speaking of that, are there any rules for creating a new piece of cyberware?
--
--Strago
Down with the Moral Majority
-Green Day
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Strago)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 21:35:01 2001
Peter Kristiansen wrote:

> <SNIP>
> We have always allowed a character to use two smartlinked weapons at
> once. Ofcourse they have to have two smartlinks - one for each hand -
> for this to work. Even though this might sound as a bit much I don't
> really think it is. We add the +2 for using more than one weapon and
> an additional +2 for the offhand one. All uncompensated recoil affects
> later bursts. And remember the +2 modifier for engaging additional
> targets.
>

IIRC, I successfully lobbied my GM to remove the +2 for more than one
weapon because I took the Pistols skill for each hand and I took the
Ambidextrous skill. Think about typing. Both hands do similar things, yet
if you really wanted to you could type with both hands simultaneously (the
computer would be confused, however, which makes it useless). Same with
firing two pistols, especially with two dots pointing the way.

>
> Peter

--
--Strago

All Hail Apathy! Or don't. Whatever. -abortion_engine

Down with the Moral Majority
-Green Day
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Ron Clark)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 22:30:01 2001
At 09:29 PM 4/24/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Sebastian Wiers wrote:
>
>> >This has probably been done to death, but I don't care.
>> >I was playing Unreal Tournament earlier and it got me thinking about
>> >exactly what a smartlink display looks like. OK, so there's probably
>> >an X or some kind of marker on the target, but so what?
>>
>> So what? So you know (EXACTLY) where the bullet will hit, without needing
>> to look through any sight or scope. Saves time, avoids the errors
caused by
>> slight hand / eye / gun alignment variations.
>>
>
>So when it's on, it "points" to where the bullet would go, based upon hand
>position?
><SNIP>
>
>Basically, what you're saying is that the smartlink is like a laser sight
that's
>not visible to anyone other than you. I think I'm looking for something a bit
>more. What I was describing will probably have to be a new piece of
cyberware,
>with a larger tactical computer. I'll work it out, and post it tomorrow, for
>list review.

Essentialy yes. The smartlink only shows bullet impact based on line of
sight and keeps no information on who or what is going on around it. I
would say you just answered your own question by mentioning the tactical
computer. The smartlink I and II would be considered more of a ballistic
calculator and not a tactical computer. I'm not sure how you would create
a cross between the two.

As far as using 2 smartlinks, there is a website, I can't remember exactly
which one for the life of me, that has a dual smartlink with some rules
there as well. If I find it I'll post it here

>
>Speaking of that, are there any rules for creating a new piece of cyberware?
>--
>--Strago
> Down with the Moral Majority
> -Green Day
>
>
>
>
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Tue Apr 24 23:00:01 2001
>> So what? So you know (EXACTLY) where the bullet will hit, without
needing
>> to look through any sight or scope. Saves time, avoids the errors caused
by
>> slight hand / eye / gun alignment variations.
>>
>
>So when it's on, it "points" to where the bullet would go, based upon hand
>position?

Thats how we always did it in our game. YMMV. It also what the Smartlink
"breakout" text in M&M is based on.

>Basically, what you're saying is that the smartlink is like a laser sight
that's
>not visible to anyone other than you.

Basically, yes. A bit better, because it can account for some things a
laser sight can't.

>I think I'm looking for something a bit
>more. What I was describing will probably have to be a new piece of
cyberware,
>with a larger tactical computer. I'll work it out, and post it tomorrow,
for
>list review.

Well, the smartlink does include some simsense feedback. That could easily
include feeling a "nudge" that helps you grip the gun properly, steady your
aim, and so on. In fact, that goes a lot farther towards explaining the +2
bonus than any simple imrovement on sighting would. I guess its a matter of
how "robotic" you want your cyberware to be...

>Speaking of that, are there any rules for creating a new piece of
cyberware?

Not as such, no. The character would obviously need certain skills and
equipment, and probably a whole lot of time if it was something entirely
unprecidented.

-Mongoose
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 05:15:01 2001
According to Strago, on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 the word on the street was...

> This has probably been done to death, but I don't care.
> I was playing Unreal Tournament earlier and it got me thinking about
> exactly what a smartlink display looks like. OK, so there's probably
> an X or some kind of marker on the target, but so what? Does it
> calculate where the gun has to be to hit the target? Or does it move
> the hand to where it needs to be to hit Mr. Bad?

I've always seen them as in Robocop: a crosshair in your field of vision
that shows where the bullet are going to hit (more or less, anyway).

> And I think I remember reading somewhere that a gyroscope is part of
> the smartlink, but how?

That was probably thought up by someone who had to explain how the
smartlink knows where the gun is pointing without having to use lasers,
range finders, etc.. It's easy enough to discover the angles between the
gun's axis and that of the gyroscope, and if you know the initial direction
of the gyroscope's axis, you know the direction the gun is pointing.

> My thought is that it looks kinda like a first person shooter video
> game, but at first it's a "ghost" image that you see that's "filled
> in" as you move the hand to the correct position. That would be
> easier. An unconcious, robotic "pulling" of the arm and hand to
> correspond would be nifty, but it would require more surgery.

Wouldn't it be much easier to do it the Robocop way? Move the gun and the
crosshairs move as well. Nothing complicated or difficult to learn there --
anyone who's learned to use a computer mouse knows how easy this would be.

> Another thing about smartlinks is the problem with only using one
> hand, though this is always a problem in SR. Why couldn't the
> character have two smartlinks, one in each hand?

I think the idea is that, if you have two crosshairs in your field of
vision, it's hard to tell which belongs to which gun. Even if they both
have different colors or shapes (say, one X and one +) it will take some
concentration to move the right gun at the right time. Not that training
couldn't overcome this, of course...

> The final thought I had about smartlinks is how the smartlink knows
> who you want to shoot. It would have to be a conscious action, ie.
> "the one second from the left" (or the beginning scene from Spawn) but
> the rules don't have this. I think this should be either a Free Action
> or a Simple Action.

This would probably be based on your own target recognition capabilities.
You move the gun while pressing the trigger on full-auto; once it's
pointing almost to someone you don't want to shoot, the smartlink senses
this (or you have to actively think it) and the gun stops firing.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 05:15:05 2001
According to Sebastian Wiers, on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 the word on the street was...

> No, its a dumb sight. It has no idea what a "target" is, or who might be a
> "badguy". It might give you an adjusted impact point based leading a a
> moving target, but you'd probably have to specify the target first, and
> estimate its velocity.

That last bit could probably be done by putting the crosshair on the
target and telling the smartlink to track it. This can be done by 1980s
fire control systems (for example in the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter) so
a 2050s/60s smartlink should have no trouble with it, IMHO.

> Again, theres no pre-specified target, so it just moves a dot as you move
> your hand (or, more acurately, move the gun by moving your hand). Actually,
> more likely than a dot would be some sort of probabability map of where the
> bullet is LIKELY to hit, since theres always some error.

Some sort of circle with a dot in the center, I guess. The dot is the
actual aiming point while the circle shows the area in which x% of rounds
will hit (statistically, anyway).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 12:45:01 2001
Strago writes:

> I was playing Unreal Tournament earlier and it got me thinking about
> exactly what a smartlink display looks like. OK, so there's probably
> an X or some kind of marker on the target, but so what? Does it
> calculate where the gun has to be to hit the target? Or does it move
> the hand to where it needs to be to hit Mr. Bad? And I think I
> remember reading somewhere that a gyroscope is part of the smartlink,
> but how?

If you check MM it explains how a smartlink is composed of several
subsystems:

* Ballistics processor (to calculate round fall off etc.)
* Limited display link (to display your crosshairs or whatever)
* Induction pad (to link with your weapon)
* Limited simsense rig (to allow the system to tweak your movements,
balanace, and firing direction to more optimally hit a target)

I would imagine that the half a kilo or so of junk that takes up space
inside a weapon and is called a smartlink would have to include some sort of
mechanism for internally determining the direction and angle of the weapon.
Otherwise the system wouldn't function very well. And since it doesn't use
rangefinders, lasers, ultrasounds, etc, etc, to determine this information,
a gyroscope is a pretty likely choice of technology for the job. OTOH, I
don't recall it actually saying anywhere if this is truely the case.

> My thought is that it looks kinda like a first person shooter video
> game, but at first it's a "ghost" image that you see that's "filled
> in" as you move the hand to the correct position. That would be
> easier. An unconcious, robotic "pulling" of the arm and hand to
> correspond would be nifty, but it would require more surgery.

I think that the actual crosshair bit could probably be customised easily
for the user. Some might want a simple "laser sight dot", while others a
cross hair, some a dot and a probability circle, and still others more
esoteric representations such as what you've described above. Since it's
all an overlay sent from the processor to the specialised image link, I don't
really see that it would be extremely restricted in what it could appear
as. As to the last point, I believe that the limited simsense rig
essentially does what you describe.

> Another thing about smartlinks is the problem with only using one
> hand, though this is always a problem in SR.

Other people have mentioned that this is more a problem of training,
practice and skill than anything else. There are offhand weapon skills in CC
that are training in using a second firearm. I'm not sure if they would let
you use a second smartlink in the rules, but it seems like a quite sensible
house rule to me.

> The final thought I had about smartlinks is how the smartlink knows
> who you want to shoot. It would have to be a conscious action, ie.
> "the one second from the left" (or the beginning scene from Spawn) but
> the rules don't have this. I think this should be either a Free Action
> or a Simple Action.

Again, this is something that has not really been covered. At least now the
smartlink doesn't essentially act as an IFF system and not allow you to
shoot "friends", like it used to (no concerns about accidently hitting
hostages and the like while blazing away at targets with fully automatic
weapons used to be the way things worked way back when). I guess that the
system essentially has a brain wired "safety", so that when you're pointing
at places you don't really want to be shooting (like the empty space between
two targets, or near your buddy Bill), the weapon disengages.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 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. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 13:10:01 2001
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> If you check MM it explains how a smartlink is composed of several
> subsystems:
>
> * Ballistics processor (to calculate round fall off etc.)
> * Limited display link (to display your crosshairs or whatever)
> * Induction pad (to link with your weapon)
> * Limited simsense rig (to allow the system to tweak your movements,
> balanace, and firing direction to more optimally hit a target)

That would be your own interpretation of the components. It can easily
be argued that the limited simsense rig is purely a feedback device; it
tells the processor where the arm is located and how its gripping the
weapon. There's nothing that suggests that the smartlink "aims" for
you. As previously mentioned, it truly is just a dumb implant. All it
really does is put a highly accurate targetting sight in your line of
vision, and allow you to do minor things to the firearm just as if you
were controlling any other datajack-driven device (eject the clip,
etc.).

> I would imagine that the half a kilo or so of junk that takes up space
> inside a weapon and is called a smartlink would have to include some sort of
> mechanism for internally determining the direction and angle of the weapon.
> Otherwise the system wouldn't function very well. And since it doesn't use
> rangefinders, lasers, ultrasounds, etc, etc, to determine this information,
> a gyroscope is a pretty likely choice of technology for the job. OTOH, I
> don't recall it actually saying anywhere if this is truely the case.

Its about the same weight as a laser sight (albeit the 80's style still
being used in 2060) or any other scope.

> Other people have mentioned that this is more a problem of training,
> practice and skill than anything else. There are offhand weapon skills in CC
> that are training in using a second firearm. I'm not sure if they would let
> you use a second smartlink in the rules, but it seems like a quite sensible
> house rule to me.

The rules are quite clear that you cannot use more than one targeting
sight at one time and gain the benefits, regardless of what method your
using. It is not a matter of training or cybernetic implants. Its a
matter of how your brain interprets what you see (you can only focus on
one thing).

For example, hold both your hands up in front of your face, placing your
index fingers together. Now focus on your index fingers. Move them
apart, and try to maintain focus on both of them simultaneously. You
can't do it unless you're some kind of mutated freak. :)
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Robert Manning)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 13:20:01 2001
>If you check MM it explains how a smartlink is composed of several
>subsystems:
>
> * Ballistics processor (to calculate round fall off etc.)
> * Limited display link (to display your crosshairs or whatever)
> * Induction pad (to link with your weapon)
> * Limited simsense rig (to allow the system to tweak your movements,
> balanace, and firing direction to more optimally hit a target)
>
>I would imagine that the half a kilo or so of junk that takes up space
>inside a weapon and is called a smartlink would have to include some sort of
>mechanism for internally determining the direction and angle of the weapon.
>Otherwise the system wouldn't function very well. And since it doesn't use
>rangefinders, lasers, ultrasounds, etc, etc, to determine this information,
>a gyroscope is a pretty likely choice of technology for the job. OTOH, I
>don't recall it actually saying anywhere if this is truely the case.
>
> > My thought is that it looks kinda like a first person shooter video
> > game, but at first it's a "ghost" image that you see that's
"filled
> > in" as you move the hand to the correct position. That would be
> > easier. An unconcious, robotic "pulling" of the arm and hand to
> > correspond would be nifty, but it would require more surgery.
>
>I think that the actual crosshair bit could probably be customised easily
>for the user. Some might want a simple "laser sight dot", while others a
>cross hair, some a dot and a probability circle, and still others more
>esoteric representations such as what you've described above. Since it's
>all an overlay sent from the processor to the specialised image link, I don't
>really see that it would be extremely restricted in what it could appear
>as. As to the last point, I believe that the limited simsense rig
>essentially does what you describe.


According to MM, the limited simsense rig component of a smartlink
system senses your body posture and gun position. It doesn't do the aim
tweaking bit though, for that you would need skillwires, and that's a whole
different issue.

archangel@*********.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12 (Decipher at http://www.geekcode.com/ )
GU d- s+: a22? C++ UL 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. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 14:25:01 2001
In article <200104251645.CAA26418@******.its.uow.edu.au>, Damion
Milliken <dam01@***.edu.au> writes
>I would imagine that the half a kilo or so of junk that takes up space
>inside a weapon and is called a smartlink would have to include some sort of
>mechanism for internally determining the direction and angle of the weapon.
>Otherwise the system wouldn't function very well. And since it doesn't use
>rangefinders, lasers, ultrasounds, etc, etc, to determine this information,
>a gyroscope is a pretty likely choice of technology for the job.

Doubt it - too tricky to keep a trio of mechanical gyroscopes up to
speed and in alignment, they drift too much for this sort of work
especially when shaken around.

A three-axis ring laser gyro, maybe, or a vibrating-silicon IMU, would
do the trick nicely: the SiIMU is robust enough to be built into
artillery shells, accurate enough to drop the shell into a 20m circle at
120,000 metres range, and cheap enough to be built into an artillery
shell...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Strago)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 14:45:01 2001
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> <SNIP>
> >Speaking of that, are there any rules for creating a new piece of
> cyberware?
>
> Not as such, no. The character would obviously need certain skills and
> equipment, and probably a whole lot of time if it was something entirely
> unprecidented.
>

Oh, I didn't mean like that. I meant me, the GM, creating a new piece of
cyberware for, say, Consignment Inc. (one of the bigger non-mega-corps in my
game).

>
> -Mongoose

--
--Strago

All Hail Apathy! Or don't. Whatever. -abortion_engine

Down with the Moral Majority
-Green Day
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 15:20:01 2001
oz@*****.net writes:

> That would be your own interpretation of the components. It can easily
> be argued that the limited simsense rig is purely a feedback device; it
> tells the processor where the arm is located and how its gripping the
> weapon.

Er, yeah, sorry. I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote
that. For some reason "simsense" was meaning something akin to
"skillwires"
in my mind. Simsense is a one way trip (you get the sensations, but the
sensations don't get you), although if RAS override is off, is it not
possible for simsense to affect your body? Anyway, someone else already
showed this theory to be wrong as MM specifically states that the limited
simsense rig is only for determination of weapon aiming.

> For example, hold both your hands up in front of your face, placing your
> index fingers together. Now focus on your index fingers. Move them
> apart, and try to maintain focus on both of them simultaneously. You
> can't do it unless you're some kind of mutated freak. :)

OTOH, is it neccessary to focus on two things to shoot at them? I wouldn't
know. However, I could see that cyberware could superimpose _two_ _focussed_
targeting points on your field of vision, and so long as you had those over
two (not neccessarily in focus) targets, then you'd be fine. And if you
happen to be shooting at the same target with both weapons, then there's no
problem. There's also little problem if you're shooting at two targets who
are both closely spaced in your field of vision.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 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. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 15:30:01 2001
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> > For example, hold both your hands up in front of your face, placing your
> > index fingers together. Now focus on your index fingers. Move them
> > apart, and try to maintain focus on both of them simultaneously. You
> > can't do it unless you're some kind of mutated freak. :)
>
> OTOH, is it neccessary to focus on two things to shoot at them?

Nope. But it is necessary to focus on two things if you're trying to
aim at two different things with a targetting system. You can shoot two
things at the same time all you want, no problem, you just suffer the
penalties for doing so.

> I wouldn't know. However, I could see that cyberware could superimpose _two_
> _focussed_ targeting points on your field of vision, and so long as you had
> those over two (not neccessarily in focus) targets, then you'd be fine.

How so? Having a blurred dot floating "somewhere over there" in your
line of vision wouldn't give you the -2 target modifier that comes from
seeing the dot/crosshair/whatever over the target you're focusing on.

Using the example I used in the last message, take both of your index
fingers and try to place them over two completely different targets
about, oh, six feet apart from each other. Then check each one by
focusing your attention on it while maintaining the other one, and then
checking it... then come back and check the first one again. You'll be
surprised at how inaccurate they are compared to what you thought.

> And if you happen to be shooting at the same target with both weapons, then
> there's no problem.

That might be an exception, but it could still be confusing. How would
you know *which* dot was which while you're trying to aim both of
them... you move the dot on the left of your line of vision, thinking
its your left gun, only to find out that it was really your right one.
Etc.
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 15:50:01 2001
oz@*****.net writes:

> Nope. But it is necessary to focus on two things if you're trying to
> aim at two different things with a targetting system. You can shoot two
> things at the same time all you want, no problem, you just suffer the
> penalties for doing so.

I thought that this was what the modifier for using two firearms would
include. This is a separate matter to smartlink modifiers, I would have
though.

> How so? Having a blurred dot floating "somewhere over there" in your
> line of vision wouldn't give you the -2 target modifier that comes from
> seeing the dot/crosshair/whatever over the target you're focusing on.

I think that the "red dots" would be in focus no matter where they were on
your field of vision, as they are cybernetically either projected onto your
retina, or spliced into your optic nerve. Of the two targets you are aiming
at, one would probably be in better focus than the other (the one you're
more directly looking at), unless you were looking somewhere between them,
in which case they'd both be slightly out of focus. Either way, shouldn't
it be possible to have a "red dot" over them still?

> Using the example I used in the last message, take both of your index
> fingers and try to place them over two completely different targets
> about, oh, six feet apart from each other. Then check each one by
> focusing your attention on it while maintaining the other one, and then
> checking it... then come back and check the first one again. You'll be
> surprised at how inaccurate they are compared to what you thought.

If I stand up at my desk, look over the partition at a sticker on a filing
cabinet about 3.5 m away, and a sticker on a monitor about 4 m away and 2 m
to the right of the filing cabinet (the two stickers are my targets), and
whip up my two index fingers then I get the following effect. Since my eyes
are focussed at around 4 m, both of the targets are more or less in focus.
Since my fingers are at arms length, they are both so out of focus so as to
be (apparently) two sets of two fingers. Each set of two fingers is roughly
centered on the targets in the distance. It's not entirely accurate, but my
target's are kind of small too. I certainly managed to just about
accurately target the cabinet and monitor, which are probably more
representative of human sized targets anyway. And if my fingers were
actually "red dots" that were superimposed IN FOCUS on my field of vision,
then I'd have a lot greater accuracy.

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you are getting at, I think that you're
wrong. Note that my overall point of focus during this operation is about
30% away from the cabinet towards the monitor.

> > And if you happen to be shooting at the same target with both weapons, then
> > there's no problem.
>
> That might be an exception, but it could still be confusing. How would
> you know *which* dot was which while you're trying to aim both of
> them... you move the dot on the left of your line of vision, thinking
> its your left gun, only to find out that it was really your right one.

A red dot for right and a blue/yellow/etc dot for left. Not too tricky. It
might take a little getting used to, but it'd be quite simple to do.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 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. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Hahns Shin)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 17:05:02 2001
My understanding of the smartlink is that it involved an induction pad
(not necessary if you have a cord running from the datajack), a
limited proprioception/body sense simsense rig (So the smartlink reads
a "datafeed" for arm position), a limited display link, and a
processor to chew on all the data that is flying at it (arm position,
gun position, visual stimuli, etc). The display is probably
personalized to the user (with several "standard" models, such as the
Ares Sniper or the Fuchi Longrifle, etc.), with ammo counter,
targeting dot, range (if you have a rangefinder), and other data. I
imagine, since it involves a simsense rig, that you'd have to
calibrate the smartlink every so often. Smartlinks don't target for
you, but rather show you where you are targeting at the moment. I
think the Smartlink-2 probably has some long range compensation
built-in when used with a rangefinder or perhaps a zoomed reticle at
long ranges (Mechwarrior 3).

As far as the smartlink "lockout" where targets are designated as
"bad" or "good", I've seen references to it in the books (novels and
sourcebooks), but I don't know the exact mechanism. The Cannon
Companion mentions the Safe Target system, but smartlinks were able to
do this in the past without Safe Target. I think it falls under the
realm of "traditional" smartlink abilities, such as firing a gun using
a thought command. I just remember the final scene from Robocop
involving something similar to this.

I think the main problem with paired smartgun links is the fact that
it takes a lot of training to be able to aim two separate weapons at
separate targets at the same time. I don't see a problem with aiming
both weapons at the same target (in fact, you could probably modify
the simsense rig so it "locks" both arms/guns on the same target),
John Woo style, but in order to hit multiple targets, you'd have to
fire at something that you only see in your peripheral vision. Try
going out with a pair of paintball guns and hitting trees, about 1
shot/sec, from both guns. It's much easier to hit only one tree with
both guns than it is to hit two trees with separate guns. By the same
token, it's easier to hit 2 two trees in the span of 1 second with
only one gun. I THINK you can get around this particular problem by
getting an encephalon and/or a tactical computer... this isn't canon,
but I imagine that linking some of your background targeting processes
to one of those devices would allow you to tackle two targets
simultaneously.

Hahns Shin, MS I
Budding cybersurgeon
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Wed Apr 25 17:55:01 2001
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> I thought that this was what the modifier for using two firearms would
> include. This is a separate matter to smartlink modifiers, I would have
> though.

One of the penalties, as clearly stated, is that you don't get to use
*any* targeting systems... not even laser sights. Sure, you can use a
targeting system for one of the weapons, but then you're giving
exclusive aim to those weapon at the expense at the other (so, as a GM,
I would penalize the other weapon with the same net bonus the first one
is getting, balancing the two out).

> I think that the "red dots" would be in focus no matter where they were on
> your field of vision, as they are cybernetically either projected onto your
> retina, or spliced into your optic nerve. Of the two targets you are aiming
> at, one would probably be in better focus than the other (the one you're
> more directly looking at), unless you were looking somewhere between them,
> in which case they'd both be slightly out of focus. Either way, shouldn't
> it be possible to have a "red dot" over them still?

Its not a matter of the dots being in focused or not -- they're just
showing up in your line of vision like a HUD, showing you where your
weapon is pointed. Its a matter of *you* focusing on a target and
shooting it accurately. Its little different than having two weapons
with laser sights, and trying to place those dots on two seperate
targets simultaneously with the same ease as pointing at just one. Even
if the dots are different colors. It's not possible unless you train
for years and years and years (and then only maybe).

Again, its a matter of what your *brain* can do, not what the smartlinks
are capable of. There's nothing at all stopping you from having two
induction pads with your smartlink; the only benefit, however, is that
you can use either hand... not both together.

Just because the sight happens to be in your line of vision does *not*
mean that you don't still have to aim. You do. The smartlink just
helps you aim better.

If you can prove to me that you can aim with two laser sights without
any difficulty whatsoever (compared to using just one), in the same
amount of time, I'll drop it. :) But somehow I don't think you can... I
know I couldn't when I experimented with it some time ago.
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Peter Kristiansen)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 03:10:00 2001
Strago wrote:
> IIRC, I successfully lobbied my GM to remove the +2 for more than
one
> weapon because I took the Pistols skill for each hand and I took the
> Ambidextrous skill. Think about typing. Both hands do similar
things, yet
> if you really wanted to you could type with both hands
simultaneously (the
> computer would be confused, however, which makes it useless). Same
with
> firing two pistols, especially with two dots pointing the way.
>

I'm not sure I would have bought that one. Granted I have never in my
life fired any firearm (well pellet guns but not any other - not even
paintball) and therefore my only experience (yeah :-) is from the
arcade video games. There are quite some games where you control some
dude with his gun. I could, after a practice game to get used to the
game, hit pretty ok without wasting too much ammo. Being the runner I
am I naturally had to try using two guns. The result: I hit absolutely
NOTHING! 2 games later I could get about the same number of hits in
with two guns as I did with one in the same time span. Aiming is right
out. Concentrating on hitting more than one target is a story of it's
own - unless they are veeery close and then I could hit them with all
the stray bullets. Granted they did not have the on-screen dot
(smartlink) but I'll say a +2 modifier is about fair.


Btw. do you have a pistol(right hand) and a pistol(left hand)??

Peter
Message no. 21
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 08:15:00 2001
>>I would imagine that the half a kilo or so of junk that takes up space
>>inside a weapon and is called a smartlink would have to include some sort
of
>>mechanism for internally determining the direction and angle of the
weapon.

Actually, that's what the limited simsense rig is for. Your body knows what
position it is in, how the hand is held, etc, relative to the eyes. The
only info needed is the guns shape, easy to fead through the smartlink-
combing the two would let the balaitics computer figure out the guns
position.

-Mongoose
Message no. 22
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 08:15:04 2001
>> >Speaking of that, are there any rules for creating a new piece of
>> cyberware?
>>
>> Not as such, no. The character would obviously need certain skills and
>> equipment, and probably a whole lot of time if it was something entirely
>> unprecidented.
>>
>
>Oh, I didn't mean like that. I meant me, the GM, creating a new piece of
>cyberware for, say, Consignment Inc. (one of the bigger non-mega-corps in
my
>game).

Oh. Common sense is the only rule there.
Well, there is a set of rules that lets you make official, "by the book
legal" cyber. First you write a proposal, then you send it to the line
developer, then you wait for the book its going into (SOTA would be a good
one for new Cyber) to start development....

-Mongoose
Message no. 23
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 12:00:01 2001
oz@*****.net writes:

> One of the penalties, as clearly stated, is that you don't get to use
> *any* targeting systems... not even laser sights. Sure, you can use a
> targeting system for one of the weapons, but then you're giving
> exclusive aim to those weapon at the expense at the other (so, as a GM,
> I would penalize the other weapon with the same net bonus the first one
> is getting, balancing the two out).

So it's technically possible to use two weapons, but only use a smartlink
for one of them. Do the SR rules actually allow firing upon two _separate_
targets in this instance? What I am getting at is that as far as I can
recall, the rules always assume that you are shooting both guns at the same
target. Don't they? By the way, would this be treated as a short burst?
Or two separate shots? So I have a feeling that allowing characters to
shoot at two different targets with two different guns, in the _same_ simple
action isn't allowed in the rules regardless of smartlinking or otherwise.
What is allowed is shooting at the same target with two guns for one simple
action (with appropriate modifiers) and benefits from aiming devices can
only apply to one gun. So if this is the case, it ought to be possible, at
least by your reasoning below, to use two smartlinks, in at least this
circumstance. OTOH...

> <snip reasoning why using two targeting devices is nearly impossible
> because of difficulties in focussing and aiming at two targets
> simultaneously>
>
> If you can prove to me that you can aim with two laser sights without
> any difficulty whatsoever (compared to using just one), in the same
> amount of time, I'll drop it. :) But somehow I don't think you can... I
> know I couldn't when I experimented with it some time ago.

I don't see why it would be any more difficult than aiming and shooting at
two targets with two different guns (one in each hand) _without_ smartlinks
or laser sight, however. So I guess if a GM allows a character to shoot at
two targets with a single simple action with a gun in each hand, then there
is no reason why targeting assistors like laser sights and smartlinks should
not apply. It's the aiming and focussing that's difficult (as you say), and
all the smartlinks and laser sights do is allow you to aim easier...

BTW, thanks for clarifying things!

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 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. 24
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 14:05:04 2001
According to Sebastian Wiers, on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 the word on the street
was...

> Oh. Common sense is the only rule there.
> Well, there is a set of rules that lets you make official, "by the book
> legal" cyber. First you write a proposal, then you send it to the line
> developer, then you wait for the book its going into (SOTA would be a good
> one for new Cyber) to start development....

Better make that a whole chapter full of new cyberware, then...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 25
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Strago)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 16:40:01 2001
Peter Kristiansen wrote:

> Strago wrote:
> > IIRC, I successfully lobbied my GM to remove the +2 for more than
> one
> > weapon because I took the Pistols skill for each hand and I took the
> > Ambidextrous skill. Think about typing. Both hands do similar
> things, yet
> > if you really wanted to you could type with both hands
> simultaneously (the
> > computer would be confused, however, which makes it useless). Same
> with
> > firing two pistols, especially with two dots pointing the way.
> >
> <SNIP>
> Btw. do you have a pistol(right hand) and a pistol(left hand)??
>
> Peter

Yes.

--
--Strago

All Hail Apathy! Or don't. Whatever. -abortion_engine

Down with the Moral Majority
-Green Day
Message no. 26
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Peter Kristiansen)
Subject: Smartlinks once again
Date: Thu Apr 26 21:15:01 2001
Strago wrote:
> Peter Kristiansen wrote:
>
[SNIP'o]
> > Btw. do you have a pistol(right hand) and a pistol(left hand)??
> >
> Yes.
>
Well, if one of my players would spend the karma for this I think I
would waive the +2 modifier just to be nice.

Peter

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Smartlinks once again, 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!