IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Messing with drones with out any cash., Trouble with drones and no weapons.
Frag-o Delux
post Mar 10 2004, 09:07 PM
Post #26


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,213
Joined: 10-March 02
From: Back from the abyss.
Member No.: 2,316



I can't let the rigger take on all the trouble, mainly because I need a ride, I don't own a car either. Yes I am a mage, Snake shaman to be exact. I lose spell dice when I fight and the character is a slight pacifist because of his totem. So I look for ways to do things before I go throwing spells around. Magic is a very powerful edge best served to the unexpecting. He is building his masking up to hide a foci or 2 but generally tries to look like he is no body important. It has worked well in the past, people just don't pay attention to him since the rest of the group is a troll wired to hell, a slutty street Sam (played by a girl so calm down) and the rigger who has foot in mouth disease ( he lokes to speak before thinking sometimes) I can usually keep quite and pretend not to be with them and can get to a lot of security places talking a good game and not carring anything illegal or out of place. He almost never wears armor and rarly carries a weapon, other then a Leatherman tool. Also dressing like Joe Everyday no one pays me much attention, being clean cut with no scars or tattoos, some of the players forget my character is a shadowrunner. I usually only use magic as a last ditch thing (even thought I have a vast array of spells and metamagics), I do this to avoid the "Geek the Mage First" unwritten rule. I hold actions to avoid moving fast like a SAM, especially canners will show I have no ware. I hold attacks to make it look like I am just lucky diving out of the way of things or blocking an attack or something. I do help in combat, just in a sneaky way. Last time we were in a stand up shoot out, my character screamed like a school girl and dove for cover. Everyone laughed including the GM, saying the enemies pay me no mind, then I started throwing concusion grenades at their feet from under the car. Acting like a bitch or a normal citizen can let you get the drop on the enemy, even during a shot out, mainly in crowded places.

So in short I am looking for ways to take care of drones with out resorting to magic, if at all possible.

My character still improves his sneaking skills and athletics skills for climbing and such. It is sort of like the Jedi train of thought, build a solid base of skills and only use the force when absolutely nessecery. And no this guy is not a Jedi wanna be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowPhoenix
post Mar 10 2004, 09:12 PM
Post #27


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 255
Joined: 10-May 03
From: CB/Omaha Sprawl
Member No.: 4,568



mono whips are nice slicey dicey, but might be too pricey for you to handle. steel cable, katanas, crowbars, firehose, pit traps, Tasers/raw voltage. Fire Extinguishers, shooting out/breaking out it's sensor systems.

magically: wreck, illusion spells, lightning spells, levitate, invisibility, silence, and a rust spell would be cool :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rev
post Mar 10 2004, 09:14 PM
Post #28


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 675
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 2,034



QUOTE (Darkest Angel)
Actually, no. A ducted fan arrangement could easily be used in a vectored thrust drone...

Also, the small jet engines found in model aircraft today aren't actually that loud, and really aren't that dangerous to stand behind so long as you're a couple of feet away.

Easily huh, well thats a nice assertation anyway. Are there any such vehicles today (I don't know, perhaps there are)? The new fighter/bomber the US is developing uses a ducted rotor to provide a small part of its thrust, but most of the power still comes from direct jet engines.

You are aware that a model jet airplane weighs just a few pounds, cannot hover, and can't carry lots of dead weight like armor and weapons while the vector thrust drones in shadowrun weigh at least 100 pounds, carry lots of dead weight, and can hover. Hovering takes much more power than flying. Really a heavy hovering drone must emit a large amount of heat, thats just thermodynamics that no technology in shadowrun is near overcoming.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fctarbox3
post Mar 10 2004, 09:17 PM
Post #29


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 8-March 04
Member No.: 6,134



Speaking of brainstorming, and maybe I've played too much battletech, but since you already have the narcoject pistol, what would be the feasability of loading a narcoject round with some sort of incendiary (gasoline?), and replacing the needle with some sort of "On-impact-shatter-and-ignite-round" device?

(RE: The battle tech reference, I'm thinking of the gooey payload of inferno missiles...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Mar 10 2004, 09:42 PM
Post #30


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



Considering that a narcojet dart probably is less that 1/4cc It wouldnt be useful for anything except a chemical delivery system, where you only need a small amount of something to be useful. It's not shooting water balloons at the target after all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Mar 10 2004, 09:42 PM
Post #31


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



Actually a taser would do nicely to a drone. excess voltage + electronics = need to buy new toys usually. They can also transmit that damage directly to a rigger when he's jumped into the drone. Also, while direct attack magic may be tough for you, what about the various indirect manipulations, like ice sheet to play with the ground pounders and wind for the flying ones?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lindt
post Mar 10 2004, 09:53 PM
Post #32


Man In The Machine
*****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,264
Joined: 26-February 02
From: I-495 S
Member No.: 1,105



Chemical foam fire extinguishers should work pretty damm well Id guess. If they didnt crash a flying drone, they would certinly blind the sucker...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 10 2004, 10:01 PM
Post #33


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Lindt)
Chemical foam fire extinguishers should work pretty damm well Id guess.

Or Freeze Foam! When a character would normally roll Quickness, what does a drone roll? A piloting test? That would make immobilizing it with freeze foam pretty difficult, but if you make it, most drones will be out of the game -- the foam has a BR of 12, which I think should be enough to keep the drone immobile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shanshu Freeman
post Mar 10 2004, 10:02 PM
Post #34


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: 18-February 03
Member No.: 4,110



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (Lindt)
Chemical foam fire extinguishers should work pretty damm well Id guess.

Or Freeze Foam! When a character would normally roll Quickness, what does a drone roll? A piloting test? That would make immobilizing it with freeze foam pretty difficult, but if you make it, most drones will be out of the game -- the foam has a BR of 12, which I think should be enough to keep the drone immobile.

where can I read more about freeze foam?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 10 2004, 10:06 PM
Post #35


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Man & Machine: Cyberware, p. 112.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fctarbox3
post Mar 10 2004, 10:23 PM
Post #36


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 8-March 04
Member No.: 6,134



Line a coat/blanket with foil or metal threads and you might convince your GM to let you use it as a Faraday cage to block the rigger's control signal(s). Of course, then you have to be able to "net" the drones, but I can't think of everything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Frag-o Delux
post Mar 10 2004, 10:27 PM
Post #37


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,213
Joined: 10-March 02
From: Back from the abyss.
Member No.: 2,316



For anyone out there that really knows electronics, mainly the ones in cars. How suseptable to electric shock are they? Electronics are usually in insulated and isolated, meaning not much electricity should get to them. I wouldn't think a Taser could get through to fry the electronics, maybe a high voltage power line that feeds your house, but a little taser?

I maybe wrong but doesn't a Faraday cage need to be grounded?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fctarbox3
post Mar 10 2004, 10:28 PM
Post #38


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 8-March 04
Member No.: 6,134



If you can grab the antenna, you've got a conductive line straight to the electronics. That's one heck of a called shot, though.

As for Faraday cages, it depends on the power of the incoming signal. Even an ungrounded cage can hold off a certain amount of EM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fahr
post Mar 10 2004, 10:40 PM
Post #39


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 13-August 02
From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS)
Member No.: 3,094



police use shock devices to kill fleeing cars today.

they are fairly suseptible if they have Electronics, otherwise, you might make it skip a few beats, but it would keep running, unless you burned out the wiring, but that takes a lot of voltage to do.

big capaciters, can deliver massive amounts of power over a short time, they may just have a long recharge.

-Mike R.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Frag-o Delux
post Mar 10 2004, 10:54 PM
Post #40


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,213
Joined: 10-March 02
From: Back from the abyss.
Member No.: 2,316



I believe those cop things lay on the ground and touch the bottom of the car's engine, throwing the timing and alternator and such thinks in to a fit, stalling the car. I would think if it does not do enough damage to fry the car a smart get away man would throw the car into park re-start and go on. Most people panic whent the car stalls and try to get it started again with it in drive. You have to put it in park then re-start a car will not start in drive, at least none of mine do.

And the antenna would really only go to the cars radio, why would it go to their electronic ignition or electronic fuel injectors? Tasering the antenna migh piss of the rigger becuase he can't hear his favorite station now, but I doubt it would do anything worse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fahr
post Mar 10 2004, 11:00 PM
Post #41


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 13-August 02
From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS)
Member No.: 3,094



most of todays IRL cars have enough computers running stuff like fuel injection and such that they can get totally fragged by one of these ground zappers. it does in fact sit underneath and zap the engine or frame, though it matter not much, as the voltage difference it causes is enough to fry any electronics that are grounded to the frame.

but older cars that have a timing chain and a carbeurator, are almost un-affected by these, as the only thing to get any damage is the alternator, and you can drive a long way without an alternator. often it won't even stall the car.

-Mike R.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fctarbox3
post Mar 10 2004, 11:05 PM
Post #42


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 8-March 04
Member No.: 6,134



Actually, I was thinking of the antenna on the drone. Y'know, the one being remote controlled by the rigger? Should go straight to the control circuitry.

Hey, if it's a slimline drone with a surface antenna, that called shot with the taser may not be so bad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Frag-o Delux
post Mar 10 2004, 11:32 PM
Post #43


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,213
Joined: 10-March 02
From: Back from the abyss.
Member No.: 2,316



QUOTE (fctarbox3)
Actually, I was thinking of the antenna on the drone. Y'know, the one being remote controlled by the rigger? Should go straight to the control circuitry.

Hey, if it's a slimline drone with a surface antenna, that called shot with the taser may not be so bad.

I must be sicker then I thought, when you said antenna I totally spaced out on it being a drone and needing an antenna to recieve signals. :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkest Angel
post Mar 11 2004, 10:02 AM
Post #44


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Manchester, England
Member No.: 1,062



QUOTE (Rev)
QUOTE (Darkest Angel @ Mar 10 2004, 08:04 PM)
Actually, no.  A ducted fan arrangement could easily be used in a vectored thrust drone...

Also, the small jet engines found in model aircraft today aren't actually that loud, and really aren't that dangerous to stand behind so long as you're a couple of feet away.

Easily huh, well thats a nice assertation anyway. Are there any such vehicles today (I don't know, perhaps there are)? The new fighter/bomber the US is developing uses a ducted rotor to provide a small part of its thrust, but most of the power still comes from direct jet engines.

Not that I'm aware of, but with the inclination towards stealthy technologies it's something that is being considered a lot more, given a ducted fan is far quieter and has a much lower heat signiture than a jet. It may not be fighter plane material, but it's very definately UAV material.

As for the carrying dead weight issue - it's exactly the same as a turbo prop engine, and I don't see anyone complaining that the C-130 or Tu-95 are underpowered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 11 2004, 12:18 PM
Post #45


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I know nothing about aerodynamics, but it seems to me that a turbo prop engine would have a few edges over a ducted fan. Mainly the fact that a turbo prop such as in a C-130 or a Tu-95 blows the air over the wings, causing additional lift -- how significant that effect is, I have no idea. And then there's the fact that a ducted fan will be quite limited in diameter, while the propellers of conventional turbo props are quite a lot bigger -- again, I have no idea whether that makes any real difference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Mar 11 2004, 12:19 PM
Post #46


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)
I believe those cop things lay on the ground and touch the bottom of the car's engine, throwing the timing and alternator and such thinks in to a fit, stalling the car. I would think if it does not do enough damage to fry the car a smart get away man would throw the car into park re-start and go on. Most people panic whent the car stalls and try to get it started again with it in drive. You have to put it in park then re-start a car will not start in drive, at least none of mine do.

And the antenna would really only go to the cars radio, why would it go to their electronic ignition or electronic fuel injectors? Tasering the antenna migh piss of the rigger becuase he can't hear his favorite station now, but I doubt it would do anything worse.

Well, the antenna is grounded to the vehicles body, so anything else that's grounded there also gets a taste of the juice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Burning One
post Mar 11 2004, 12:36 PM
Post #47


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Toronto, Canada
Member No.: 2,067



Digression Alert.

Sorry the whole chicken vs. windshield test reminded me of an old joke/urban legend.

Supposedly some while ago NASA built a cannon which was designed to fire chicken carcases at speeds similar to the high end capability of a jet fighter/space shuttle. The idea being that if they could simulate an impact with some sort of airborne fowl they'd know whether their windshields would survive the impact or not. Regardless another country caught wind of this cannon and asked to borrow it so they could test the windshields on their high speed trains.

NASA being ever generous agreed to lend the cannon and it was shipped over to the other country where they proceeded to run a series of tests. When the chicken was fired at the windshield of the train it not only punched straight through the glass, it snapped the pilots chair in two and embedded itself in the rear wall of the cabin. Horrified the country, which had borrowed the cannon, contacted NASA and after passing on the details of the test asked what could be done to fix the design flaw.

NASA responded with a single comment:

.

.

.

"Defrost the chicken first."

TBO
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 11 2004, 01:24 PM
Post #48


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



So what would the Power of a frozen chicken be as compared to an unfrozen one?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lantzer
post Mar 11 2004, 01:34 PM
Post #49


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 693
Joined: 26-March 03
Member No.: 4,335



QUOTE (The Burning One)
Digression Alert.

Sorry the whole chicken vs. windshield test reminded me of an old joke/urban legend.

Supposedly some while ago NASA built a cannon which was designed to fire chicken carcases at speeds similar to the high end capability of a jet fighter/space shuttle. The idea being that if they could simulate an impact with some sort of airborne fowl they'd know whether their windshields would survive the impact or not. Regardless another country caught wind of this cannon and asked to borrow it so they could test the windshields on their high speed trains.

NASA being ever generous agreed to lend the cannon and it was shipped over to the other country where they proceeded to run a series of tests. When the chicken was fired at the windshield of the train it not only punched straight through the glass, it snapped the pilots chair in two and embedded itself in the rear wall of the cabin. Horrified the country, which had borrowed the cannon, contacted NASA and after passing on the details of the test asked what could be done to fix the design flaw.

NASA responded with a single comment:

.

.

.

"Defrost the chicken first."

TBO

I'm not sure what parts are an urban legend.

Fact: Wright Patterson AFB has a chicken cannon for testing engines and aircraft canopies. I've seen footage of a canopy test. Some of those impact-rated canopies are pretty flexible. One I saw was a failure, because although it didn't break, it did deflect enough to smack a pilot.

Fact: The RAF has borrowed it in the past.

I don't know if the story about the frozen chicken is accurate, but it is oft-repeated in the USAF.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkest Angel
post Mar 11 2004, 01:44 PM
Post #50


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Manchester, England
Member No.: 1,062



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
I know nothing about aerodynamics, but it seems to me that a turbo prop engine would have a few edges over a ducted fan. Mainly the fact that a turbo prop such as in a C-130 or a Tu-95 blows the air over the wings, causing additional lift -- how significant that effect is, I have no idea. And then there's the fact that a ducted fan will be quite limited in diameter, while the propellers of conventional turbo props are quite a lot bigger -- again, I have no idea whether that makes any real difference.

Doesn't make any difference, the amount of air straight off the prop that goes over the wing is negligable, and in some cases in the past even non-existant. As for the blade diameter, that can be ovecome by adding more blades and altering the blade angle. There's very little if any difference between ducted fan and prop arrangements beyond ease of maintainance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th January 2026 - 11:05 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.