Register    Login    Forum    Members   Search    FAQ

Board index » Discussion and Debate » Trek/Wars




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:18 pm 
Offline
Padawan

Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:46 am
Posts: 73
l33telboi wrote:
Not in a verse that employs tech the way Trek does. A modern mine-field would be too easily detected by your bog-standard tricorder and then detonated by phasers (or sweep the entire area with wide-beam setting to make them all go boom).

The subspace mines don't only hide in subspace and pop out randomly because they're meant to induce a measure of fear, they also hide so that they can't be detected and disabled.


Ok, let me rephrase that.

A modern styled minefield, backed by Jem'Hadar ECM (Which was stated as being present) If tricorders are jammed, than you lose their ability to detect the minefield.

Quote:
How 'weak' will they get? You do realize that even the stun setting is going to be more then enough to incapacitate a soldier.


Only usable on stun setting, AFAIK. The fact is that widebeam has been used sparingly throughout the whole series, and was not used in the actual battle on AR-558, where it would have been the most useful.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:43 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
Vympel wrote:
Maybe the magical auto-aiming for which there is no real evidence mystically knew he was aiming at the wall as a warning, because it has an advanced neural linkup to his brain?


Hmm. It seems that some people seem to be using their minds in ways that might explain things, but then they fall flat because it is used in a derogatory fashion.

Well, I have speculated for a long time that phasers use eye tracking software, as a part of the computer's function. It fits with the idea of not looking to the path of zero elevation of the particle stream from a phaser output. The idea brings up the training game we've seen twice (once with Riker and Picard and second with Worf and Guinan). Fast moving lights on a holodeck's wall that change rapidly between colors. Hit it at the wrong time and it's a miss/loose a point.

It would also explain why you can immediately fire a phaser and it will fire off-axis and not always at zero elevation. Janeway and Seven's game of velocity brings to mind a zero elevation firing without taking the time to line up the phaser with the target. She and the disk were so close together that it just shot straight (or the angle was so small, you couldn't see it well enough to notice a difference between that angle and a zero degree elevation).

But, I have also theorized that when you press the trigger, the phaser targeting will stop moving, which can allow it to continuously fire at that same spot. At that point, the only reason why the beam would strike at another place, while it was continuously firing, is from your arm/wrist moving the phaser itself.

However, given that it might be software of this type, muscular twitches in the eye can at time cause it to miss. This would also be in line with the session we saw Guinan join in with Worf. He was angry and he was missing a lot. Guinan was calm and collected and was hitting them, though Worf was working on a level below Guinan's skill (based on her saying she could come down to that level).

The idea that there is eye tracking software along with this tracking/pivoting lock when the trigger is pressed won't guarantee that the user will hit their targets every time. What it does is increase the likelihood that they will hit what they want. And not everyone will have the same self-control or experience with firing a phaser

Quote:
Apart from all the misses with these supposedly auto-adjusting phasers these fools think exist, the best evidence against any sort of auto-adjustment worth a damn is the fact that when an obvious miss is occuring, the beam never adjusts itself to move and hit the target. I wonder why?


With my eye tracking theory, which has been around for some time now, the phaser shot that section of the wall because Sisko looked to the left of Odo and the thief when he fired. And the obvious miss is still an obvious miss.

In all honesty, it truly is much easier if the people watching this thread from any other site would please just come down here and sign up. That way, things like this can be discussed.

Now, even if you were to say that the eternal stalemate were to continue with a larger influx of active members, at least positions can be further elaborated on. The way things are now, many questions raised don't get answered in some form and are left in limbo, which is a shame.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:50 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Posts: 910
Location: Finland
Opecoiler wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase that.

A modern styled minefield, backed by Jem'Hadar ECM (Which was stated as being present) If tricorders are jammed, than you lose their ability to detect the minefield.


The jamming could undoubtedly still be cut through with equipment that's powerful enough. Hiding something in a region of space that isn't normally accessible from our own reality seem like the best way to actually hide them.

And, if you knew there was one mine somewhere (let's say someone actually steps on one), you could most likely still safely remove them, transport them out, use phasers to detonate them etc.

Quote:
Only usable on stun setting, AFAIK.


If I'm not remembering incorrectly, then Tuvok at one point threathned the crew on Voyager with killing them while using wide-beam.

Quote:
The fact is that widebeam has been used sparingly throughout the whole series, and was not used in the actual battle on AR-558, where it would have been the most useful.


And? How often do we see Vader mind-killing people? How often do you see that being claimed as valid during vs. debates? Long story short, the wide-beam setting exists and has been used, ergo it's fair to assume it might be used.

As for the reason why it wasn't used during AR-558, did you even try to explain it in a non-SOD breaking way, you know, the way you're supposed to do things in a vs. debate?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:28 pm 
Offline
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5494
A phaser on widebeam mode can be set to "kill" since as early as TOS' "The Enemy Within", and at least as recently as DS9's "Rapture" phaser on various widebeam settings have been used to heat rock to the glowing point, and or vaporize rock away. I'd say that would be enough by itself to kill a person, or very seriously injure them.
-Mike


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:07 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
Quote:
What a fucking twit. So I suppose widebeam phaser fire can demolish terrain now as well, and cannot be adjusted to a setting where it can reliably kill enemies without doing so?


Wide beam set to level 16, yes. Now, some do claim that because he was having trouble with reality, Riker couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't, so we can't trust the info. However, there is this near the end:

PICARD
We believe they were trying to
extract strategic information from
your memory using a neuro-somatic
technique.

~~~~~

If the point was to get info about starfleet, specifically strategic info, from Riker, why use a device that would destroy his memories? Earlier, the one running the session said this:

ADMINISTRATOR
(to assistant)
We haven't finished the neuro
chemical drain -- get him sedated!

~~~~~~~

The point was to sedate him and keep him under until they finished removing whatever neurochemicals from his mind. When you can control the level of chemicals in someone's mind, like serotonin and dopamine, you can control their mind.

The point of the procedure was to get him mixed up about whether he was a starfleet officer or a psych patient, not whether the amount of damage a phaser can do is brutal or if the necessity of a warp drive is to put the travelers into stasis. If they were trying to get strategic information, they wouldn't want to mess with that. Just his control.

The fact he kept switching back and forth and kept focusing on the idea that he was a stafleet officer meant that they weren't controlling his mind to the level that information couldn't be trusted.

We know that there was plenty of information that was real: the crew, the interior of the ship. The fact that he brought himself out of the sedation means they couldn't control him to a large degree, just change what he thought was his surroundings.

And, what you need to do is look at what I wrote. I'll retype it:

"Even a kill (but, not quite disintegrate) setting would damage the bottleneck, even if it was from brute force over the long term."

I said via 'brute force' and 'over the long term'.

Quote:
This idiotic apologetic makes a wonderful all purpose tool - heck, they didn't use it in Way of the Warrior, because they would've hulled the station!


The phaser sweep was to look for changelings, not destroy the whole station. If they wanted that, they could have blown the station. But, that would have left the wormhole without any protection and there was no guarantee that a changeling was on the station at all.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:05 am 
Offline
Padawan

Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:46 am
Posts: 73
l33telboi wrote:
The jamming could undoubtedly still be cut through with equipment that's powerful enough. Hiding something in a region of space that isn't normally accessible from our own reality seem like the best way to actually hide them.


And yet hiding them in that fashion makes them turn from an area-denial weapon into a simple nuisance (And not a very effective one, as they caused less than one casualty a day).

The point of a minefield is to deny an area to the enemy, not to simply inflict a few losses.

Quote:
And, if you knew there was one mine somewhere (let's say someone actually steps on one), you could most likely still safely remove them, transport them out, use phasers to detonate them etc.


Mineclearing techniques are as old as land mines themselves. Saying that a minefield becomes useless just because it can be cleared is like saying that a tank is useless just because it can be destroyed.

Quote:
TAnd? How often do we see Vader mind-killing people? How often do you see that being claimed as valid during vs. debates?


This is a red herring, as this thread has nothing to do with Star Wars.

Quote:
Long story short, the wide-beam setting exists and has been used, ergo it's fair to assume it might be used.


But it's not used in-universe during plenty of times when it would be useful. So either Starfleet officers are idiots, or there are limitations to widebeam. The inverse square law shows that there are limitations to widebeam.

Quote:
As for the reason why it wasn't used during AR-558, did you even try to explain it in a non-SOD breaking way, you know, the way you're supposed to do things in a vs. debate?


Cpl_Kendall and consequences already explained it. A little something called the inverse square law, which means that the phaser will either get weaker or use up more energy the wider it gets, or both. This also means that the phaser will be useless at anything but extremely close ranges, simply because the beam will grow wider the farther it goes, and thus weaker. How is applying geometry violating suspension of disbelief?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:39 am 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1342
Nothing's wrong with the inverse square law. I would, however, tend to dispute the proposition that it makes phasers useless in the way suggested, especially in direct reference to AR-558. That is supposition on top of geometry.

Tactically, one guy against a few guys is the best situation for a phaser on widebeam, and indeed this is the situation in which we've generally seen it employed (i.e. the Landru episode, Tuvok vs. the Bridge, etc). You can wipe the floor with your opponents in one fail swoop.

It's basically the same difference as having a modern assault rifle on full automatic versus single-shot or three-round burst. If you've got clips for days and are sorely outnumbered, you'll probably tend to go with full auto. But if you're looking at a long firefight and limited ammo, even if outnumbered, you'll probably avoid it.

Similarly, there's a very good reason (besides economics) why we don't outfit every soldier with the biggest, baddest-ass gun we have. Heavy weapons guys generally require additional support and equipment. In the case of a hypothetical phasers-on-widebeam heavy weapon guy this is perhaps somewhat diminished (a backpack full of power packs and maybe spare parts doesn't seem like too awful a burden), but the general principle remains.

And in larger-scale fights, it's easy to imagine a potential problem. Imagine the battlefield at Geonosis. Let's say that several soldiers have phasers on a minimal spread . . . say, for antipersonnel use . . . maintaining decent effectiveness and increasing enemy casualties. Does that not make the guys with phasers on widebeam the hottest targets around? They'd be brutally obvious, even moreso than beam-shooters on higher setting.

Now apply these concepts to AR-558. For starters, the frontline troops received additional power packs for their phaser rifles. This implies that they were prepared for one or more protracted firefights against an enemy with overwhelming numbers . . . not a situation where you want to waste ammo needlessly.

Also, if there had been a few widebeam-firing positions, these would've represented a concentration of firepower that the Jem'Hadar would've targeted even more than everyone else. And, if we assume as some seem to that a few distant-kill shots of widebeam is enough to drain a phaser rifle, then these locations would've had to have received a concentration of capital in the form of additional power packs, so if the position was hit the power packs would be lost.

Further, we never saw anyone wildly slinging their phaser beam around to hit more guys, which would be another option besides widebeam. Nor did we see rock-blasting, shrapnel-producing shots employed, which would've been yet another possible choice. Presumably they were firing at the lowest functional kill setting, and all the Starfleet folks . . . even the non-soldiers . . . maintained controlled firing throughout, often at a pace of multiple shots per second, indicative of solid training.

We did see that the Starfleet lines were overrun . . . one position with two people was overrun by Jem'Hadar headed toward it roughly in a single file, after which point we see numerous Jem'Hadar within the Starfleet lines. While a sustained beam or other tactics modification would've been helpful here, even this situation didn't call for widebeam.

In any case, all of the above is only partially useful. We know damn good and well that widebeam exists, we know damn good and well that it is useful, et cetera. The above is mere conjecture as to possible reasons why it would not be used at a certain time when we, the audience, might think it best. All that can be said for sure is that there were clearly reasons it was not used . . . the "characters = idiots" cop-out is not useful, and generally not worth the pixels it is printed on.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Starfleet military vs. RL military
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:05 am 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am
Posts: 910
Location: Finland
Opecoiler wrote:
And yet hiding them in that fashion makes them turn from an area-denial weapon into a simple nuisance (And not a very effective one, as they caused less than one casualty a day).


Ever considered that mines might have become somewhat of an obsolete weapon in Trek, due to technological progression? This happens sometimes, see. Things that used to be useful on the battlefiled, like say, cavalry, suddenly isn't as useful anymore, due to new technologies and the like. And as such, they're not used anymore.

Expecting them to start laying normal mines would a bit silly, IMO, because if they did that, the kill ratio would be 0 total, instead of 1 per day. And the resources to make those mines and the time it took to lay them there, would be for nothing.

This is something I've noticed in a lot of debators, they refuse to realize that battlefield tactics will change with new technology.

Quote:
The point of a minefield is to deny an area to the enemy, not to simply inflict a few losses.


Really? I had no idea. Good thing you took your time and explained this not-so-mundane thing to me, because I don't think I would ever have realized it otherwise.

Quote:
Mineclearing techniques are as old as land mines themselves. Saying that a minefield becomes useless just because it can be cleared is like saying that a tank is useless just because it can be destroyed.


See, this is exactly what I meant when I said some people don't seem to realize what happens with the advent of new technology. Do modern soldiers have tricorders that can detect pretty much everything around them with a sweep of the arm? No, but UFP 'soldiers' do. Are individual modern soliders able to clear out said minefield on their own? No, but UFP 'soldiers' are.

This means that a minefield loses it's effectiveness, because it now has a closer to 0% chance of killing stuff. Minefields are actually expected to kill people and vehicles, see, and when they cease to be able to do that, they become... useless.

Quote:
This is a red herring, as this thread has nothing to do with Star Wars.


No, it has a little something to do with consistancy. It has to do with not performing double-standards, just like you are doing right now. You see, the people you are mee-tooting for are quick to consider the above example as oh so very valid, but widebeam, for some reason, isn't.

Same rules for both sides. Sucks, doesn't it?

If it's been shown possible, then it is possible.

Quote:
But it's not used in-universe during plenty of times when it would be useful. So either Starfleet officers are idiots, or there are limitations to widebeam. The inverse square law shows that there are limitations to widebeam.


Yes, the beam becomes a bit weaker. And yet, it's capable of both killing and stunning people on said setting. Which is more then enough, and I've also said this previously. Odd that you didn't respond to that particular point.

Quote:
Cpl_Kendall and consequences already explained it. A little something called the inverse square law, which means that the phaser will either get weaker or use up more energy the wider it gets, or both.


Did you miss the part where I said that stun is enough.

Quote:
This also means that the phaser will be useless at anything but extremely close ranges, simply because the beam will grow wider the farther it goes, and thus weaker.


In other words, you're assuming the people firing the things are going to fire it on a too-wide setting to be effective at the ranges they're targeting stuff? Does that mean I can assume the marines, if replacing the UFP, will accidentally all shoot themselves in the knee 0.003 seconds after they touch down?

...Talk about jinxing the scenario in your favor.

Also, you lack any sort of quantification for this. You're simply saying 'They're weaker! They can't be used at long ranges!' and then hoping that's enough. Problem is, you don't know how long a range 'long' is. It's true that the beam probably loses its effectiveness somewhere along the line, but where? What's 'long' range?

You also don't seem to realize that the 'stun' setting is probably a completly different method of firing the weapon (much like the disintergrate method) then normally. This means that J/m^2 might not be as telling anymore, because I doubt it's the raw energy stunning the victim.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:18 am 
Offline
Redshirt

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm
Posts: 18
I'm sorry, are people still trying to act like the use of widebeam fire at AR-558 wouldn't have been useful for holding the position in the final fight? Not that this is actually saying much, as a few strands of easily replicated razor wire would also have immeasurably improved their position.

What they had was a single axis of approach, the area that needed to be targeted limited by the terrain, a known distance to the opening, and time beforehand to set up to their hearts content so they could dial in the appropriate settings. The fact that the Jemhadar broke the Starfleet lines clearly shows that the fire being put out was insufficient to effectively deal with the attackers.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:34 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
consequences wrote:
I'm sorry, are people still trying to act like the use of widebeam fire at AR-558 wouldn't have been useful for holding the position in the final fight?


Do you want to be the guy in a unit that needlessly wastes resources?

If starleet is getting resupplied, what makes you think the Jem'Hadar would get more resources?

And most importantly, you do need to think of how a phaser would effect the surrounding teritory, as a secondary effect. It isn't like firing a gun, where you get chipped paint, some holes in walls and a few pieces of building material lying on the ground.

Quote:
Not that this is actually saying much, as a few strands of easily replicated razor wire would also have immeasurably improved their position.


Did it slip your mind that there are disintegration functions with phaser/disrupter technology?

Quote:
What they had was a single axis of approach, the area that needed to be targeted limited by the terrain, a known distance to the opening, and time beforehand to set up to their hearts content so they could dial in the appropriate settings. The fact that the Jemhadar broke the Starfleet lines clearly shows that the fire being put out was insufficient to effectively deal with the attackers.


Jemmies are very willing to die for the changelings and to kill their own for continued disobedience in just social interactions. And with all phasers set to wide beam, what makes you think the jemmies wouldn't throw a bunch of their soldiers in the path of the wide beams, as living shields for other soldiers? And then, grab their bodies and hold them up to block more kill shots and tossing them at the starfleet people once they got near?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:45 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1342
consequences wrote:
What they had was a single axis of approach


Only at the ravine some distance from the comm array. After that we don't know much about who was coming from where. Jem'Hadar were coming in behind positions that were well back from Sisko's spot, for instance.


Quote:
the area that needed to be targeted limited by the terrain, a known distance to the opening, and time beforehand to set up to their hearts content so they could dial in the appropriate settings.


What opening? To the ravine? That was far away from the comm array.

Quote:
The fact that the Jemhadar broke the Starfleet lines clearly shows that the fire being put out was insufficient to effectively deal with the attackers.


Only in the case of the two people I mentioned who had a file of Jem'Hadar soldiers overrun their position, producing an entry point, wherever that was. It appeared to be far to the right from Sisko's position. Other than that I don't think we see any JH make it past the lines, until the attacks from the rear make the lines go away.

In any case, there are few battles in history where your armchair quarterbacking would not find fault . . . and I daresay you'd find more fault in Star Wars battles than in this case, were you to care to look with the same standards.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:03 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
Vympel wrote:
Thanks for all the verbage! Why don't you show some actual evidence for this feature you just made-up on the spot to support another feature for which you also have no actual evidence?


1. Off-axis firing and hitting the desired target.
2. Off-axis firing and not hitting the desired target.

Both of these are established in the canon. I have very willingly said that my idea of eye tracking software was theory. I have always said it was. I never said or hinted that it was canon. In the post you quoted, which you say is verbal garbage, I was explaining how the theory fits in with the examples seen in the canon. I also flat out said it wouldn't give you a perfect shot every single time.

Quote:
No thanks. I want to call your bullshit bullshit, and not have it magically translated into "reasonable", if it's all the same to you.


Then, put a hyphen or a space between the second L and the S. Or change the S to a dollar sign. It isn't difficult to get around it and all of us on both sides of the aisle are smart enough to understand what the word is, even if it isn't correctly spelled in english. Because it's the internet, many people leave badly spelled words because they either miss it when proofreading or they don't proofread what they write.

Quote:
Let's leave aside your fantasies about building-demolishing Lvl 16 phasers (suffice to say that when we actually saw a lvl 16 phaser shot, it did nothing more than clear rubble from a pre-existing tunnel) - who said that on AR-558 they should use only Level 16, pray tell? Oh that's right, no one.


I've missed your use of strawmen against me. I never suggested that only level 16 could be used.

Quote:
Rubbish. We've seen many kill type phaser settings impact terrain and do sweet fuck all


And again, another strawman. I also said "over the long term". I never suggested that with every shot, massive damage would be done.

Quote:
Do try and get your episodes straight. I was actually talking about the episode where the Klingons attack the station, board it, and proceed to wave bath'leths around, absolutely fearless of the wide-beam phaser blasts which you and your ilk insist will be used everywhere but the actual show.


Vympel, you need to think more clearly.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Way_of_the_Warrior

"The story begins with the Deep Space 9 crew hunting a Changeling through the station. Using wide-angle phaser sweeps, the crew chase the Changeling to the Promenade, where it suddenly resumes humanoid shape and grabs hold of Doctor Julian Bashir after emerging from the Promenade directory. It is Odo, and the chase was really a surprise drill. Odo asks the computer how much time it took to catch him: 3 hours and 27 minutes. Odo remarks that if he had been a Founder, Bashir might well be dead and cautions everyone to phaser sweep any and everything as a Changeling can be a reflective surface, almost anything, and adding the fact that the Founders are likely much better shapeshifters than he is. Captain Sisko says they'll keep it in mind."

You are thinking of The Way of the Warrior, too, but what I said happened at the 'beginning' of the episode. You're thinking the end of it.

Quote:
Like these guys:-

Yarrr!

and these guys:-

Yarrr!

All of whom were dealt with something other than the widebeam for which they were perfectly arranged for a quick knockout.


None of us have suggested that the wide beam setting is used more often than not. It is actually your side that keeps saying essentially 'why aren't they using the wide beam setting, get them all knocked down immediately. That's what I would do.'

Remember which side you're actually on.

Darth Wong wrote:
Didn't one Trekkie once claim that the phaser can track the user's eye movements in order to determine where he wants it to shoot?

It is as I said: copied creationist tactics. In this case, the "support an absurdity by inventing more absurdities" technique.

EDIT: OMG, in the post Vympel just made, the Trekkie did exactly that


Eye tracking software has actually existed in the real world, such as this:

http://www.stormingmedia.us/05/0576/A057623.html

The eye tracking theory is a perfectly valid explanation, unless there is some other way to explain off-axis firing with each use not being at the same angle of elevation.

The idea of a floating mechanism doesn't hold up to scrutiny because the weapon shaking around would increase the number of times you'd miss and wouldn't be effective for really fast moving targets, like those seen in holodeck phaser training programs.

Typhonis 1 wrote:
UM don`t they realise the more complicated something is the easier it is for it to mess up?


Okay then. Let's get rid of modern automotive technology and return to the horse and buggy. Modern automotive tech is far more complicated than the horse and buggy.

Quote:
Auto aim, auto adjusting width of beam, neural link, eye aiming link, 16 settings plus wide beam........and as ergonomic as a dustbuster and lacks even basic iron sights.


1. Auto-aim, sometimes you hit the target you want, sometimes not.
2. Auto-adjusting width of beam, never seen in the canon, as far as I know. It has always been a manual adjustment.
3. Neural link. It has only been your side that has suggested that a neural link exists between the user and his phaser. Strawman.
4. Eye aiming link. Fits with off-axis firing and sometimes hitting and sometimes missing the intended target. If it was totally computer controlled it would fire in the direction the target was moving to, not where he was.
5. Ergonomics, which I dealt with are designed around not needing the hand and/or arm to absorb recoil, just as it is designed with rifles where the shoulder take the recoil impact. Read the thread. It's just on the last page or you can research rifle design theory.
6. Iron sights, only a necessity when the only elevation a weapon fires on is zero elevation. Off-axis firing says 'only zero elevation' doesn't exist with phasers.

Quote:
All of those systems and if one gets thron out of whack....how usefull would it still be?


We have seen training games of velocity that use zero elevation firing.

Quote:
Also what about the power drain from those OTHER systems?


Off-axis, zero elevation and wide beam/conical firing all coming from the same weapon indicates that there is some kind channeling system going on. It would require more information of just what is on the inside, but we lack that. We also lack the information on how much energy is within the power cells, as well as the drain of any part of the weapon.

Stark wrote:
Even more amusing, how do you configure, control or monitor it? If it's some magic eye-reading thing, what if I pass my gun to the guy standing next to me?


In my theory, you wouldn't expect it to be user specific, unless someone went to the trouble to add in other security features, so only they were able to use it.

Quote:
Is it still reading my eye muscle movements through magic?


The sensors of the computer. Since it is an energy weapon, there would be some kind of sensors involved for the regulation/generation of phaser particles. It would also be involved in whether a phaser/disrupter would produce energy for the different settings or if you wanted the thing to overload and blow up.

Quote:
Is it simulating an eye structure and using muscle movements to update it and determine aimpoint, or do you have to zero in?


It would presumably be limited to visual acuity, but we don't know how well the technology is for sharpshooting. For the TR-116, the user wears a sensor to look through solid material. Some kind of related sensor technology might be in a phaser, but I can't be certain with the canon. However, the likelihood is high there is something in there for sensors.

Quote:
If it has this magic, wouldn't a simple image-recognition thing be simpler? We're talking accuracy vs short-range starship guys, so camoflage isn't a factor, and reading eye movements and computing a geometric aimpoint seems harder than just slapping a camera in the gun which aims at the guys with horns.


This does not explain why a single stream of phaser particles can fire off-axis and hit a target, but at the same time, the technology would still allow miss shots to exist.

Your suggestion ignores the off-axis firing examples. It does not attempt to explain them.

Coiler wrote:
I would actually agree with GStone here, Vympel. It would be much simpler if you simply went over there and presented your rebutall rather than all this cross-board hopping.


On strek-v-swars.com's forum, when Vympel had a question in response to what I had written, he wouldn't even remove those questions he had just typed when he found the answers in the same post he was quoting. Now, that is fucking lazy. He said he didn't care about removing the questions. He just typed them as he came to them. Like his short term memory was so shitty or he was totally incapable of reading an entire post before writing.

Because of that, I don't expect him to ever get off his ass and come over here.

Batman wrote:
Besides, unless the guy has been permabanned (which wouldn't surprise me one bit) why can't Gstone come here?


I have never signed up at SDN, even under a name other than GStone, so I couldn't have been banned, permabanned or any other variation of the idea. I've never even posted as a 'guest'. The reason is because the charge of the money. I don't see why I have to pay someone to discuss a subject online, regardless of what has happened in the past with their board. The other way to sign up is releasing my personal information to a group people who have a history of stalking and even suggesting that they go up to one's house and knock on the door.

Plus, putting your personal information out online is like putting piss into a swimming pool. Once it's out there, like on myspace, facebook, etc. anyone around the globe with internet access can access it. And I don't trust the people or the security measures at SDN to keep my personal information safe.



~~~~~~~~~~~~


And all of this here is a very good example of why cross board responses are bad. I quoted and answered these sections here for further elaboration of the idea I have proposed for a long time. But, I see no reason for further cross board responding.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:12 pm 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
2046 wrote:
In any case, there are few battles in history where your armchair quarterbacking would not find fault . . . and I daresay you'd find more fault in Star Wars battles than in this case, were you to care to look with the same standards.


Here's a serious, off topic question. If droidekas have personal shields, why wouldn't clonetroopers? Was there something about there being dangerous levels of energy output for the wearer? I can't remember. Even if it was the size of a thin backpack, if I was a clonetrooper, I'd want one.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:35 am 
Offline
Bridge Officer

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 154
Location: Polish Commonwealth
Does EU tell us where droidekas' shield generators are?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:05 am 
Offline
Starship Captain

Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Posts: 1016
Location: Undercover in Culture space
I don't know, but I thought they might have been those small things that sit on either side of the droid's waist right above the legs that look like triangles with holes in it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Board index » Discussion and Debate » Trek/Wars


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: