 Some sensor Qs |
  |
 Aug 16 2004, 04:34 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 16-August 03 Member No.: 5,501  |
just a few things that i dont think were covered in the books, or things that i missed reading about (the more likely event)
-If I have a couple of drones; do they share their sensor data? Do I need to buy yet another part to get them to do this? (An example for you, a rigger has a couple aerial drones are looking at the same target but from different angles, neither drone has enough successes to properly ID the target, could they pool their sensor data to identify the target?) -What happens to the signature of my gas SUV when I turn it off? Does the signature rating improve? -This is sort of inspired by Starwars so please bear with me, are there any anti-sensor camouflage nets that I can spread over my truck to hide it in the woods? I do know that I could just use a camo net and get a +4 to visual searches, but I am looking for something that works against vehicle sensors that is not ruthy polymers. thank you for any response you feel like giving |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 04:40 AM
Post
#2
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Considering how important the type of power plant is in determining the Signature of a vehicle, it probably should improve, at least once the engine has had time to cool down. Slowly improving the Sig to what it would be if the SUV had an EFC power plant.
Dunno if there are any in the rules, but there absolutely should be some. Radar scattering, IR and heat blocking camo nets should be common in the 2060s, and should give a similar TN penalty to Sensor tests to spot the vehicle. Maybe not the full +4, because it probably still doesn't fool all sensors, but at least +2 or +3. And much more expensive than a simple camo net, too. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 16 2004, 05:05 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 260 Joined: 20-March 04 From: That really good state. Yeah, you know the one... Member No.: 6,177 |
Isnt there a camoflage pattern that specifically affects sensors in CC? I think that it only works at night but I dont really remember the details though.
Edit- There it is. Page 97 CC. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 10:43 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 201 Joined: 13-August 04 From: Fort Smith, Arkansas Member No.: 6,560 |
Not a clue but I'm curious if anyone knows an answer to the first part of his question. The only thing I can think of is reduced TNs for multiple target acquisition???
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 16 2004, 02:12 PM
Post
#5
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 519 Joined: 27-August 02 From: Queensland Member No.: 3,180 |
Two additions that allow for drones to share info are Battletac IVIS and FDDM. None relate to identifying targets specifically. No rules exist for adding drone sensor successes together for improved recognition which is reasonable - both drone are probably receiving much the same sensor returns. You could extend the perception test rules to include multiple drones where you you take the lowest sensor rating and add 1 dice per additional drone to sensor tests. This would give a higher chance to better ID targets.
Extend the rules for armour mods from Cannon Companion to camouflage nets with up to 4 points of such modification. The thermo option would give (up to) +4 to signature. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 17 2004, 05:50 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
the Indirect Fire rules in CC are, as i recall, relevant to the question of drones sharing data.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 06:39 AM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 226 Joined: 29-July 03 Member No.: 5,137 |
Camouflage Netting, pp 74 SotA |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2004, 09:25 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 541 Joined: 2-August 04 From: South Africa Member No.: 6,531 |
Well with a battle tactical monitor you can script lame program to follow.
Drone one get engaged drone 2 and 3 lock drone 1 gps position and assist. You can right small simple programs for you drones to follow. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 10:13 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,763 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Special Hell Member No.: 284 |
BattleTac FDDM is specifically designed to allow drones to share targeting information between them. That is, when one FDDM drone has a lock on a particular target, all drones then function as if they had the same lock. There is nothing specific related to collating sensor data to enhance passive or active perception of a surveilled target. What you can do is purchase an autosoft system and the clearsight autosoft, which could be interpreted as doing something similar.
Since signature is a composite of the visual/radar/thermal/aural aspects of the vehicle, it should remain relatively static. An improvement in one or two aspects (thermal, aural since the vehicle's powerplant is shutdown) will be matched by a decrease in other aspects (radar, visual, since the vehicle is no longer moving and thus cannot be lost in ground clutter, nor is it likely to break LOS).
As mentioned above, anti-sensor camo netting is listed in Cannon Companion. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 18 2004, 09:30 AM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The conventional wisdom is that a still vehicle is much harder to spot by visual clues than a moving one. I don't know exactly how a radar fares with a still target vs a moving target, but you've more likely got an improvement in thermal, aural and visual vs a possible decrease in radar. If you already consider intermittent loss of LoS as part of the Signature rating, then that will slightly shift as visual doesn't get that much better and radar gets somewhat worse. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 18 2004, 02:18 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I remember that real Army camouflage nets had little pieces of lightweight metal (tin? aluminum?) sewn into the netting, supposedly with the intent of breaking up the radar image. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 18 2004, 05:11 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
stainless steel fibers, and that's exactly what they're for. i didn't know they came in non-radar-scattering varieties, though. learn something every day!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 19 2004, 01:08 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 160 Joined: 16-August 03 Member No.: 5,501 |
cool that was the sort of thing that i was looking for, what do you think it would do to the signature? i didn't know that they acctualy got used tough.. i wonder if they are being used in iraq and afganistan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st September 2024 - 12:39 AM |
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.