| From: | The Reverend <MDB0213@*****.TAMU.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Final thoughts: Internal rigs |
| Date: | Sun, 4 Apr 93 02:54:05 CET |
>Reverend, most of the things you say are true but what I was proposing was an
>extremly cut down version of the deck. For one thing you would have to be
>limited to 1/4 of a mile and you would only be able to control one drone at
>once.
Okay. However, I seem to recall several people taking your original idea and
turning it into a full-fledged Cybernetic Rig, capable of long distances,
control of multiple drones, etc.
>The system I proposed is nowhere near as effective as a rigger using a portable
>deck with a VCR/datajack/whatever. What I was trying to do was show that it was
>possible.
Okay. (this isn't a flame, but) what would be the difference b/n this and a
regular rig? Loss of part of your control pool? Or just the reduced # & range?
>I do disagree with some of your technolgical assumptions though.
Right. I think this has been pounded into the ground. Since most of you are
planning on doing it anyway, I'll go along and discuss those points. The only
internal rig I would agree with is one with MINIMUM range, NO ECM/ECCM, capable
of controlling ONE drone only.
>For one thing who said the drones have to transmit back full sensory data,
>surely vision and sound is enough, and why do you need full simsense in your
>head when a retinal display and cyberears will suffice. This doesn't fit in
>with the rigger archetype, but who said you have to.
Again, this goes back to the definition of a rigger. Everyone has their own
view, although I plan on asking Tom his opinion in the next week.
>The other point is that I think you underestimate technology in 2050.
Not necessarily. Some things are vastly improved, others are not.
>Filters, amps, sensory pickups, infact everything will be so much smaller
>than now. Today it is posisble to make remote controlled aircraft with small
>cameras and small transmission units aboard. Admittedly you need some
>slightly heftier equipment if you are to actually see what the remote is
>transmitting. But your drones shouldn't be too noticable though the cost
>will obviously go up.
I'm still not convinced. I understand where everyone's coming from, but I don't
think FASA would blow this thing THAT out of scale, just so it 'looks right'.
IMHO, as usual.
>This is also true for weight and I guess that the
>figure FASA came up with for the weight of the deck was one that 'looks right'.
I'm still not sure. For something that every rigger needs, it seems to weigh
quite a lot, especially considering that most riggers do NOT have the strength
for extra equipment. The way it looks, for a decent rig (I use a rating 4-5),
you are talking of quite a bit of weight. Considering that they are probably
using a Active-matrix display, I can't see the display being responsible for
the weight (and how do you explain the increase in weight for each port? A
bigger screen? Nope.)
>Anyway I do agree with your comments on missiles.
Thanks.
>Well sorry if this sounded like a flame it wasn't meant, honest :)
I understand. An actual DISCUSSION! Wow. *grin*
> -The Powerhouse
-The Reverend
