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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like these guys:-
and these guys:-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.