Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Smartlinks (Was Re: Rigger 2)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 10:30:32 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-19 07:24:02 EDT, you write:

<< That brings up an interesting idea. What percentage of the essence for a
smartlink would be the optic hookup? Honestly, I can't see where it would
require a direct neural hookup, just the ability to throw a targeting dot in
your field of vision. So, why shouldn't the main hookup part of the essence
cost be capable of being included in cybereyes as part of the "free"
essence?
Thoughts anyone? >>

Actually considering that with a smartlink you can control the various
functions of a smartgun such as Rate of Fire and ejecting a clip, there would
have to be a form of DNI involved. IMHO the DNI may account for 20% of the
essence cost. The other 5% could be the targeting processors (since the bonus
is more than the standard non-cybernetic smartlink a DNI and some sort of
mini combat computer can concievably be involved) or optic interface.

-Bandit
Message no. 2
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks (Was Re: Rigger 2)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:08:09 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-19 15:39:50 EDT, you write:

> Actually considering that with a smartlink you can control the various
> functions of a smartgun such as Rate of Fire and ejecting a clip, there
would
> have to be a form of DNI involved. IMHO the DNI may account for 20% of the
> essence cost. The other 5% could be the targeting processors (since the
bonus
> is more than the standard non-cybernetic smartlink a DNI and some sort of
> mini combat computer can concievably be involved) or optic interface.

Umm, what? What about the other 75%? Or were you thinking with a -
nevermind. I meant a non-cyberarm smartlink. Standard package,
flesh-and-blood arms.

Wolfstar
Message no. 3
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks (Was Re: Rigger 2)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:21:40 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-19 17:08:52 EDT, you write:

<< Umm, what? What about the other 75%? Or were you thinking with a -
nevermind. I meant a non-cyberarm smartlink. Standard package,
flesh-and-blood arms.
>>

My math is off today. Too much Caffine..

It should have been 50%, not 25%.

-Bandit
Message no. 4
From: "M. Sean Martinez" <ElBandit@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks (Was Re: Rigger 2)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 18:33:33 -0400
Greetings!!!

Looking at the smartlink I would guess that it is made up of the following:

DNI .1 essence or 20%
Tactical Enhancements (CPU) .1 essence 20%
HUD Interface .05 essence 10%
Smart Link Guts (pad, and misc. stuff) .25 essence or 50%

But that is just a guess.

-Bandit
Message no. 5
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Smartlinks (Was Re: Rigger 2)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:11:31 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-19 18:22:45 EDT, you write:

> << Umm, what? What about the other 75%? Or were you thinking with a -
> nevermind. I meant a non-cyberarm smartlink. Standard package,
> flesh-and-blood arms.>>
>
> My math is off today. Too much Caffine..
> It should have been 50%, not 25%.

Not a problem. Caffeine does the same thing to me. So, you are saying that
about 50% would be capable of inclusion in a cybereye and the other 50% would
be the induction pad/neural hookup, or am I misinterpreting?

Wolfstar

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Smartlinks (Was Re: Rigger 2), 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!