Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Triangle buttoning cars
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
tehbighead
QUOTE (Cain)
How is it possible to add a Pilot without adding rigger adaptation? There's no rules for it. Even in SR3, you couldn't add a pilot without rigger-adapting.

perhaps the pilot rating reflects the vehicle's capabilities after installation of rigger adaptation? just my .02.
WearzManySkins
<<Engage Rules Weasal Gun Fu>>
Hmm if all vehicles have a pilot rating ie have rigger adaption, then why is rigger adaption included as a Separate cost?

BBB page 238

"All drones that are INCAPABLE of carrying passengers are usually automatically pre-adapted for rigger control. Passenger vehicles or larger passenger drones are NOT usually pre-adapted, but can be quickly by the manufacturer, a mechanic, or even a rigger character (see Rigger Adaptation)"

As for Rigger 3 page 130
Remote Control Interfaces

".....this modification is not needed for drones(vehicles with a drone chassis that are NOT built to accommodate pilots or passengers), as they are AUTOMATICALLY equipped with remote control gear."


WMS
Slump
QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 4 2007, 11:59 AM)
Apparently, it's standard.  Again, every car in the book has a Pilot program, and having a Pilot program automatically means it's rigger-adapted.  The name is probably a holdover from previous editions.  That isn't to say that vehicles without Politos don't exist, they're just not the norm.  For example, most cars come with auitomatic transmissions standard, but that doesn't mean every car on the road is an automatic.  That just means that every car currently legal to use in an SR4 game is rigger-ready, and that most cars in 2070 are riggable off the showroom floor.


I would also say that 'rigger adaptation' terminology is just a holdover, and pretty much every vehicle out there is already rigger adapted. Consider that to rig these days, all you really need is a sim module and a non-crap commlink -- which pretty much everyone already has. There isn't any point in making new non-riggable cars, because everyone can rig if they want to.

And the reason why I quoted the above post: Most cars these days have an automatic transmission, but what is a manual transmission commonly called? That's right, a Standard Transmission. It's not like more than 10% of the cars on the lot even have a freaking stick, if not less.
WearzManySkins
It could not be a holder over, it could the sections regarding Pilot are poorly worded and or incomplete.

So unless one of the developers steps in to clarify this ie errata etc, both views are supported by sections of the RAW.

So until such a clarification is made, to each GM to decide which view to support.

I do not believe that such a clarification will occur until some future book is published. This a well documented issue since the first ed of the 4th ed. Since it has not yet been dealt with via errata, to me that says it will be clarified/dealt with in XXX book. smile.gif

WMS
kigmatzomat
QUOTE (Cain)
How is it possible to add a Pilot without adding rigger adaptation?

Easy. All vehicles with pilot are Johnny Cab (Total Recall) or auto-drive (Demolition Man). But not all Johnny Cabs are not rigger enabled.

You can tell Johnny Cab where to go, using voice command or a touch screen, and it will drive itself there. You can drive manually using AR assisted controls (which have a bonus in the rules).

However not all vehicles include hardware to translate the machine sensory data into something that can be experienced directly in VR, nor do all vehicles include the hardware to accept commands from outside the vehicle. That particular modification (a fairly inexpensive 2,500Y) is an add-on, much like heated, leather, vibrating, fully-reclining seats.


And the "rules" argument is that you have two contrary rules on the same page:

QUOTE (SR4 BBB p.238)


The key difference that sets drones apart from ordinary vehicles is the rigger adaptation that provides drones with a Pilot program, which enables the drone to act independently of its controller to a limited degree.


QUOTE (Also SR4 BBB p.238)

All drones that are incapable of carrying passengers are
usually automatically pre-adapted for rigger control. Passenger
vehicles or larger passenger drones are not usually pre-adapted,
but can be adapted quickly by the manufacturer, a mechanic, or
even a rigger character (see Rigger Adaptation, p. 341)."


In that situation, the specific should always override the generic. In this case, the section that specifically addresses "passenger vehicles" trumps the much more generic section that discusses the definition of a drone. The generic drone discussion may not even apply to passenger vehicles, as the later section specifically differentiates between passenger vehicles and passenger drones.

And I'll forestall the "how can you have a non-rigger enabled drone?" argument by pointing out you can buy them today. At Walmart. They are called 'remote controlled vehicles.' If you want to turn one of these RC drones into a rigger enabled drone, add a Pilot system.
Sterling
QUOTE (coolgrafix)
Just to be clear, this definition is not accurate. See here: Webster's

The fob just contains a chip. It's the chip that allows access to the Prius. Same with your ID card... the ID card is not a fob, but it does contain a chip. See the difference? If your card was connected to something like a keychain then it could be considered a fob.

Anyway, didn't want anyone to walk away from this conversation thinking that the term "fob" referred to an electronic device of some sort. =)

I have a watch that's a fob, and it doesn't open anything. =)

You're incorrect. The entry you linked is not current, as the term is evolving and has a new meaning.

"The term is also used when referring to electronic security key devices."

Wikipedia had the above quote, but most don't trust Wikipedia due to the ability of anyone to edit it. So I went in search of other sources.

Answers.com had a good page on it, as well. Googling for 'key fob' (to remove references to accounting terms, etc) will show you that yes, the modern definition of 'fob' to refer to an electronic key is indeed correct. One could argue that 'watch fob' is the archaic form and 'key fob' is the modern. But my definition was indeed accurate.
Cain
QUOTE

Easy. All vehicles with pilot are Johnny Cab (Total Recall) or auto-drive (Demolition Man). But not all Johnny Cabs are not rigger enabled.

Sorry, but that's a separate topic. How, via the rules, can you add a pilot program without rigger-adapting the vehicle? Answer: You can't. The only way to add a Pilot program, under the SR4 rules, is to rigger-adapt the vehicle. I've quoted my rule multiple times already. Now, do you have a contradicting rule, from the vehicle modification section?

QUOTE

In that situation, the specific should always override the generic. In this case, the section that specifically addresses "passenger vehicles" trumps the much more generic section that discusses the definition of a drone.

And the even more specific Vehicle list on p 342 has *no* vehicles without a Pilot program. Since the specific should always override the generic, every vehicle legal to include in SR4 must be rigger-adapted fresh off the showroom floor.
cx2
I just realised there is an alternative interpretation.

Since pilot is comparable to system in a commlink or other node it is necessary for vehicles to have a pilot rating if you plan on hacking the locks say, at least in all likelihood.
DireRadiant
Pilot = Agent

Agents can move to nodes without that node requiring rigger adaptation.
kigmatzomat
QUOTE (Cain)


Sorry, but that's a separate topic.  How, via the rules, can you add a pilot program without rigger-adapting the vehicle? 


As you've stated, I can NOT add a pilot a passenger vehicle because all passenger vehicles come with pilot from the factory. I only need to rigger adapt it. Good thing there's an option for that in the book.

QUOTE

And the even more specific Vehicle list on p 342 has *no* vehicles without a Pilot program.  Since the specific should always override the generic, every vehicle legal to include in SR4 must be rigger-adapted fresh off the showroom floor.


Sure, every drone on the equipment list, like your rule states, have rigger adaption included by default. The same page differentiates between drones and vehicles. the equipment section differentiates between drones and vehicles.

I agree with the concept that if you convert a remote piloted vehicle (aka remote control) to a drone, the Pilot system includes the rigger adadption. They should. Why? So that a human being can assume control of it if the AI does something stupid.

Passenger vehicles don't need that ability to be remote controlled because there is someone in the car who can grab the steering wheel. Thus, no need for remote control, which is what rigger adaption is.
Cain
QUOTE
As you've stated, I can NOT add a pilot a passenger vehicle because all passenger vehicles come with pilot from the factory. I only need to rigger adapt it.

Except to add the pilot program, it has to be rigger-adapted in the first place. That's the rule. The second bit is fluff.

QUOTE

Passenger vehicles don't need that ability to be remote controlled because there is someone in the car who can grab the steering wheel. Thus, no need for remote control, which is what rigger adaption is.

Wrong. By the RAW, rigger adaptation is the ability to "jump into" a vehicle, which means the vehicle must have a Pilot program. You *cannot*, by the RAW, have a Pilot program without Rigger-adapting the vehicle. That is clearly stated and expressed.

So why did they include the cost of rigger-adaptation if all the vehicles come with it? For the sake of completeness. Why did they include costs for off-the-shelf commlinks, when there's a complete construction ruleset in place?

You're also ignoring Grid Guide, stated to be the norm, which is effectively remote control of the vehicle. Grid Guide would need to be able to take over if the driver was drunk, falls asleep at the wheel, gets shot by a go gang, etc, etc. Since Grid Guide is standard, and Pilot programs are standard, it follows that Rigger adaptation is standard, no matter what the fluff says.
WearzManySkins
To some what is Fluff, is RAW to others, but that again come back to the basic points of view here, ie is the glass half full or half empty? That is what is basically being discussed here.

As for Grid Guide vehicles, the pilot on board the vehicle takes the information provided by the Grid Guide system than makes driving decisions based upon where the pilot was instructed told to go.

Having a Gird "Guide" system remote controlling all those on the Grid....sorry such solutions will take the simpler route, of each vehicle required to have a Pilot, and that pilot taking the information provided by Grid Guide and then navigating the vehicle to the desired destination. That way those with a driving skill of 0, do not need to have skills in rigging their vehicle.

Note that it says Guide not remote control, in Grid Guide.

As for requiring all vehicles to have rigger adaption, no not since all who use them will have the skills to rigger the vehicle. That is like requiring all vehicles to have fifth wheel just so in case they wish to tow a trailer rig behind them. biggrin.gif

Since technically by RAW RFID chips have a pilot, ip so facto does that mean they are all rigger adapted? rotfl.gif Rigger those sensor equipped RFID chips? rotfl.gif

Again this is a pretty much moot discussion until it is addressed by a future release or by a errata or FAQ.

Using the ancient and useless argument of the "Majority" of those on this forum says it is they way, the developers have routinely gone against the wishes of of a forum's majority.

To paraphrase one game developer of long ago SR, game development/design is not a democracy.

WMS
WhiskeyMac
You can add a Pilot to a vehicle by installing the program. And unless it states so in the book, vehicles wouldn't have rigger adaptation automatically installed. They would have put a couple word sentence to let us know.
Jaid
fluff(n.): text that does not agree with my definition of the rules.
Cain
QUOTE
As for Grid Guide vehicles, the pilot on board the vehicle takes the information provided by the Grid Guide system than makes driving decisions based upon where the pilot was instructed told to go.

In which case, rigger adaptation *must* be standard, since by the RAW, you cannot have a Pilot without Rigger Adaptation.

QUOTE


Since technically by RAW RFID chips have a pilot, ip so facto does that mean they are all rigger adapted?

By RAW and reality, RFID chips don't have Pilots, they're just repeaters. RFID chips don't even have any processing power. Howstuffworks.com has a brief overview on the topic; but basically, they're just unpowered transponders containing fixed data, not a program. Sorry, but both reality and the RAW disagree with you.

QUOTE
You can add a Pilot to a vehicle by installing the program. And unless it states so in the book, vehicles wouldn't have rigger adaptation automatically installed. They would have put a couple word sentence to let us know.


They did:
QUOTE ("SR4 @ p238")
The key difference that sets drones apart from ordinary vehicles is the rigger adaptation that provides drones with a Pilot program, which enables the drone to act independently of its controller to a limited degree.


Note that *every* vehicle in the book has a Pilot; therefore, it is rigger-adapted.
WearzManySkins
BBB page 213
Device Ratings
"Instead, each device is simply given a Device rating. Unless it has been customized or changed in some way, assume that each of the Matrix attributes listed above for a particular device equals its Device rating."

That means a RFID has a device rating of 3, ip so facto a system rating 3. Pilot software can be installed on rating 3 RFID's, by your argument, by having a pilot rating it must have rigger adaption. rotfl.gif

Reality has very little to do with this, it is a game, as by RAW RFID chips they can have pilot rating, again by your statement must have rigger adaption. rotfl.gif

But since your Cybereyes have a rating,,,,,they can have pilot software installed, hey those cybereyes have rigger adaption. rotfl.gif
Cain
Except if something has a matrix rating, it cannot carry a Pilot program, by definition. Instead, it can carry IC or Agents. Sorry, but once again, reality and RAW disagree with you. P238 remains the hard rule, and everything else is just semantics and rhetoric.
Jaid
QUOTE (Cain)
Except if something has a matrix rating, it cannot carry a Pilot program, by definition. Instead, it can carry IC or Agents. Sorry, but once again, reality and RAW disagree with you. P238 remains the hard rule, and everything else is just semantics and rhetoric.

see, now you're just spouting gibberish. a pilot *must* exist on the matrix, and *has* to have a 'matrix rating' (wherever you just pulled that out of, that is) because a pilot is purely a matrix entity. it does not exist elsewhere.

now stop being unreasonable, and just take your mindless adherence to rules that were never designed to be mindlessly adhered to, and stop fueling a pointless thread, please. if you want to contribute something *useful* then i'm willing to listen, but you're just saying the same fragging thing over and over and it's really not accomplishing anything. so just leave it be and let it die, or bring something constructive to the discussion.
Spike
QUOTE (Cain)

They did:
QUOTE ("SR4 @ p238")
The key difference that sets drones apart from ordinary vehicles is the rigger adaptation that provides drones with a Pilot program, which enables the drone to act independently of its controller to a limited degree.


Note that *every* vehicle in the book has a Pilot; therefore, it is rigger-adapted.

Man, parse that sentance.

It says that rigger adaption provides a pilot program.

It doesn't say that you have to have a rigger adaption to have a pilot program.


Find another quote to prove that particular statement.





To put it another way: If I buy a can it has soda in it. I don't have to buy a can to get soda, I can buy a bottle, or even just fill the damn cup from a 'soda dispenser'.

In fact, I can buy a can with coffee in it.

But: Buying Soda =\= buying it in a can.

Thus: Pilot program =\= rigger adaption.

Yes: rigger adaption = pilot program. It don't necessarily flow both ways.
Cain
QUOTE
a pilot *must* exist on the matrix, and *has* to have a 'matrix rating' (wherever you just pulled that out of, that is) because a pilot is purely a matrix entity. it does not exist elsewhere.

Wrong. IC and Agents are purely matrix entities. If it's in a Vehicle, by definition it's a Pilot program.

QUOTE
if you want to contribute something *useful* then i'm willing to listen, but you're just saying the same fragging thing over and over and it's really not accomplishing anything.

Then quit repeating the same things someone else has said, over and over. At least what I post is my own repetitive drivel, and not someone else's.

QUOTE
It doesn't say that you have to have a rigger adaption to have a pilot program.

Then tell me, by the rules, how can you add a Pilot program without rigger-adapting it? Oh, wait, there's no rules for adding a Pilot program at all! Well, except for the one I quoted: rigger adaptation provides a Pilot program.
WearzManySkins
BBB
Page 214

"Pilot is used in the place of System for vehicles, drones, and AGENTS, but other wise has the same function as system."

Hmm seems you need better reading glasses the above contradicts, what you have said about agents.

As for the rest BRONX CHEER rotfl.gif
Jaid
QUOTE (Cain)
Then tell me, by the rules, how can you add a Pilot program without rigger-adapting it? Oh, wait, there's no rules for adding a Pilot program at all! Well, except for the one I quoted: rigger adaptation provides a Pilot program.

the same way you add any OS. you just install it.

the pilot program itself exists only on the matrix. it is attached to a device, yes, but the pilot program has no physical component. it doesn't just float around in the meatworld until it finds a vehicle to attach to, therefore it is a matrix entity.

and as far as repeating stuff over and over, this is my 3rd post on the subject.
Cain
QUOTE (WearzManySkins @ Jun 7 2007, 05:35 PM)
BBB
Page 214

"Pilot is used in the place of System for vehicles, drones, and AGENTS, but other wise has the same function as system."

Hmm seems you need better reading glasses the above contradicts, what you have said about agents.

As for the rest BRONX CHEER rotfl.gif

Nice try, but that's the Pilot *attribute* not the pilot program.

I may need glasses, but you need trifocals. As in, keep trying, someday you'll make a coherent arguemnt. nyahnyah.gif nyahnyah.gif nyahnyah.gif

And keep your bean burritos to yourself. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

QUOTE
the same way you add any OS. you just install it.

Except a Pilot program isn't the same as an OS. You still need to have system, response, signal, etc. on a drone. And you can't simply upload it, there's no rules that say: "This is how you load a Pilot onto a drone". Well, except for the line I've been quoting, but we're probably sick of that by now.
Jaid
QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 8 2007, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE
the same way you add any OS. you just install it.

Except a Pilot program isn't the same as an OS. You still need to have system, response, signal, etc. on a drone. And you can't simply upload it, there's no rules that say: "This is how you load a Pilot onto a drone". Well, except for the line I've been quoting, but we're probably sick of that by now.

no, it's the same as an OS. it *is* the OS. you don't need an OS, you don't need a system, you don't need a firewall to install a pilot. signal and response are needed, but are not part of the OS anyways. (well... i would argue only response, actually, since your signal could be 0 or even - without affecting the pilot's performance directly... it's ability to communicate would be impacted of course)

and why would there be special rules for adding a pilot to a drone? there aren't any special rules for loading ex-ex bullets into a clip, or flechette, or gel rounds, just rules for putting ammunition into clips.

similarly, there is no need to include rules for installing a pilot program, because it follows the same rules as any other OS.
kigmatzomat
In this particular instance, Cain is right. To add Pilot, you have to add hardware as well as software. The Pilot software is loaded onto a CPU, the CPU possess particular attributes (e.g. Response) which limit the Pilot software that can be loaded and its corresponding attributes (e.g. System).

My disagreement with Cain is that drone hardware is different from vehicle hardware in one important regard: vehicles do not include a SIM encoder to transmit the VR data for riggers AND it does not have the ability accept commands over WiFi.

I base this on the facts that:

a) the rule he quotes ad noseum only specifies drones
b) the same page differentiates between drones and passenger vehicles
c) the same page even states that it is not the norm for passenger vehicles to be rigger adapted from the factory but that it is a simple process
d) there is a rigger-adaption option in the gear section that is the cost for that simple process.

Cain holds a) to be universal while decrying b)-d) as bogus.
Cain
QUOTE
Cain holds a) to be universal while decrying b)-d) as bogus.

Almost. I acknowledge b),but I stand on the fact that once you add a Pilot, it become s a drone. I also argue that c) is contradicted by the vehicle list, which specifies that every vehicle has a Pilot program. The equivalent of R3 may correct this, but in the meanwhile, every vehicle has a Pilot, and is therefore rigger-adapted. D) I think is there for completeness; just like there's no need for off-the-shelf commlinks when you can have a better, cheaper one by constructing it from scratch. I belive that the rigger adaptation cost is for future supplements, where a vehicle won't come with a Pilot.

QUOTE

My disagreement with Cain is that drone hardware is different from vehicle hardware in one important regard: vehicles do not include a SIM encoder to transmit the VR data for riggers AND it does not have the ability accept commands over WiFi

as far as commands over WiFi goes, it should be mentioned that GridGuide is wifi-powered. So, most vehicles are wifi enabled. Even if rigger adaptation isn't standard, since most devices are wifi, it only stands to reason that vehicles are as well.
Sterling
I think that what they are trying to suggest is that you can subscribe any vehicle as a drone. You can issue it commands, have it act remotely, etc. All vehicles come stock equipped with a pilot that allows them to function very much like drones.

What rigger adaptation may mean now (as opposed to the old SR3 meaning) is the 'jumping into' a drone. You can't 'become' a car or other vehicle until it has the rigger adaptation. It still behaves like a drone in every other respect. So in that, I agree with kigmatzomat.

Actually, the more I think about it, a car or other personal vehicle might even be easier to command than a drone. Your average wageslave dad, Bob, has a lovely wife named Betty. They have two charming children named Ben and Brittany. In the morning, Bob gets up and gets ready to go to work. The car drives him to work, then returns home just in time to pick up the kids, and take them to school. Finally, the car returns and takes Betty out shopping (or to her job or whatever, I'm not sexist). Unfortunately, when Betty tries to leave the car, four scruffy and dangerous looking people shove her back into the car and tell her to order the car to drive home. She complies, partly out of fear and partly because a heavy pistol shoved nearly up your nose demands obedience. The Runners tie her up and makes themselves at home. At 3pm the car goes out and gets the kids, who come home to join Mom in being duct-taped to the couch. When Bob returns home after a long day at the office, he is greeted by four individuals who explain to him in very simple terms that if Bob wants his lovely suburban dream to continue, he will take them back to his office and get them past security. Unfortunately, this plan worked better in SR3 (and in SR4 the runners didn't jam his commlink) so Bob's commlink call for help resulted in several security teams descending on Bob and Betty's house.

In the ensuing gunbattle Bob, his family, all the nameless runners, and several security guards were killed. But that's okay, as they were merely a hypothetical example that got wildly out of control anyway.

The point was that on the way to work, the car (not Bob) assessed which route had the least amount of traffic so Bob could be at work on time. On the way home it picked another optimum route to ensure the kids could be picked up in time, and when approaching the school, which entrance had the least congestion. In Betty's case? If she was shopping I'm sure the car would be able to pull up a list of local sales, or if she was going to work then the same as Bob's trip. After it dropped her off, it could either go home (if the school is closer) or wait there until it needed to pick up the kids. But what if Bob wants to meet his mistress for lunch? He calls the car on his commlink, and it picks him up and takes him to meet her at a fancy restaurant. But the detective Betty hired is there too. This doesn't bode well for Bob...
FriendoftheDork
I don't understand why it seems to be mind-boggling for a vehicle to be able to recieve signals and perform them using it's dog-brain without being rigger adapted.

I mean, autopilot is something different than !"jumping into" the car through control rig and VR.

Though I do agree the book is poorly worded which can confuse. Still, someone needs an open mind instead of preaching gospel.
Sterling
Nope, I'm wrong. Continue the debate, since it's black and white in the RAW. It's been said before, you need rigger adaptation to control a vehicle wirelessly. But when you install the rigger adaptation it "provides drones with a Pilot program" which allows for typical drone behavior. Passenger vehicles don't come equipped with rigger adaptation, but they DO have a pilot rating. A pilot rating they shouldn't have unless they're rigger adapted.

That's very odd. I'll stick with my houserule above, so Bob and his family didn't die in vain.
kigmatzomat
Your logic holds if, and only if, you adhere to the notion that any vehicle with pilot is a drone. Since the RAW not only differentiates but directly contradicts this in the specific case of passenger vehicles, I don't find it valid.

I'll even give a couple of examples of why I think pilot=rigger adaption does NOT make sense and that the entirety of the RAW is valid.

Rigger adaption means a vehicle can be remote controlled. Why would the masses want their cars to be remote controlled in a world where just a few years ago every computer system just went blooey. Again.

I'll note that there are drones NOT rigger adapted in the RAW; specifically large, passenger carrying drones. Why? Because their passengers would not appreciate being turned into hostages by a hacker. The Pilot software is intentionally prevented from taking external input.

Plus, what is the gain to putting rigger adaptation on all vehicles with autopilot? By the RAW, most drive tests are automatic except in a crash and the odds of having a remote rigger driving your vehicle at that moment are low. The autopilot system gets multiple actions and is pretty much superior to 99% of the populace at driving, having 3 dice and 2 actions.

Since Comms don't come with the Control program standard users have to buy extra software and have a SIM module. Sure, it's a low cost, but it's still and add-on and not everyone has/needs it.

Wifi may contact Gridlink but I think of it as a source of traffic conditions or the equivalent of hitting mapquest. The autopilot doesn't blindly follow GridGuid as maybe the owner has some special rules ("never drive by bakeries because I'm on the South Beach diet", "the wife doesn't want me near a golf course", "I really prefer to take the long way home from work to unwind," etc).

Most drones need rigger adaptation because they need to be able to get new instructions at a range greater than voice command to do their function. If you were to get combat drones without rigger adaptation you'd be yelling at it a lot, drawing fire on yourself, and hoping that it has a clearsight autosoft so it doesn't misunderstand who you want it to shoot at.

Cain
QUOTE

Rigger adaption means a vehicle can be remote controlled. Why would the masses want their cars to be remote controlled in a world where just a few years ago every computer system just went blooey.

Grid Guide means a vehicle can be remote controlled. And Lojacked by the cops. The ability to make sure your car can't be stolen (according to the ads) and to do work while driving to the jobsite makes gridguide very attractive to the corps. And natch, what the corps want is what becomes trendy and popular.

QUOTE

I'll note that there are drones NOT rigger adapted in the RAW; specifically large, passenger carrying drones.

Large, passenger carrying drones without Pilot programs, yes.

QUOTE
Because their passengers would not appreciate being turned into hostages by a hacker.

That's what Firewalls are for. By your logic, vehicles with Pilots must not have firewalls. Since everything has firewalls, cars must be wifi enabled.

QUOTE

Plus, what is the gain to putting rigger adaptation on all vehicles with autopilot?

Why put front airbags on a car? The odds of a t-Bone are much greater.

QUOTE

Wifi may contact Gridlink but I think of it as a source of traffic conditions or the equivalent of hitting mapquest

The RAW and fluff text disagree with you. Check the GridGuide description in R3. Gridguide automatically compensates for traffic conditions, construction, and the like. You can override it, but only by shutting it off and driving manually.

kigmatzomat
R3 is not SR4 and specifically is not post Crash 2.0. The entire Grid Guide system was maimed by Crash 2.0, like the rest of the net. It was rebuilt, almost definitely not in the same fashion. It'd be like discussing the way people communicated pre- and post- telegraph.

Cain
The fluff text for Grid Guide hasn't changed from R3 to now. In absence of any information on changes, we have to assume that no changes have occurred. Sorry, but when something falls down, it's the natural inclination of people to want it back exactly as it was before.

I presume you concede on the rest of the points?
WearzManySkins
To sum it up.

We agree to disagree.

To each their own. rotfl.gif
mfb
QUOTE (kigmatzomat)
It was rebuilt, almost definitely not in the same fashion. It'd be like discussing the way people communicated pre- and post- telegraph.

the entire point of GridGuide is that it directs your car from point A to point B while you're in the city, managing you and everyone else connected to it to minimize traffic problems. if it doesn't do that, it's not GridGuide, and it can't do that without directing your car in some fashion. yes, communicating pre- and post-telegraph worked differently--but people still communicated. GridGuide may work differently, but it still does what it does, and what it does can be co-opted by a rigger because what it does is the same thing a rigger does.
WearzManySkins
In rigger 3, pilots and autonavs are two separate and distinct, features.

Autonavs work with GrideGuide not Pilots.

Under AutoNav 2 description.
"Rating 2 Autonav is capable of self-navigation and is equipped with radio transponders that can communicate with a traffic-control grid systems, such as GridGuide. After receiving traffic data from such systems, the autonav can suggest alternate routes to a destination.

Under Rigger 3 for a drone to use GrideGuide it will need a autonav system installed.

But to each their own interpretation of such. biggrin.gif
Cain
But in SR4, autonavs and Pilots have been combined into one. So, Pilot 1 is all that's required-- and there's not a vehicle without a Pilot of at least 1.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 11 2007, 12:43 AM)
But in SR4, autonavs and Pilots have been combined into one.  So, Pilot 1 is all that's required-- and there's not a vehicle without a Pilot of at least 1.

We agree to disagree.

To each their own. rotfl.gif
darthmord
Interesting arguements all around. It appears it's a bunch of...

You have two Attributes, A & B.

In order to have B, one must have A.

The problem is, a bunch of things are listed as having B but not explicitly stating they have A as well.

That about sum it up?
kigmatzomat
Close. There is a statement that things having B explictly do NOT have A.

QUOTE ( SR4 p.238)

Passenger vehicles or larger passenger drones are not usually pre-adapted, but can be adapted quickly by the manufacturer, a mechanic, or even a rigger character (see Rigger Adaptation, p. 341)."


So there are two opposing statements. "Install Pilot in a drone and it becomes Rigger Adapted" and "Passenger Vehicles are usually not Rigger Adapted" fighting it out due to "all vehicles have Pilot."
WearzManySkins
Darthmord, Yes that is it basically. Kinda like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, argument. smile.gif
FrankTrollman
It's both better and worse than that argument.

Right now there is genuine discussion amongst the devs as to which way it's "supposed" to go as the differing implications in the different wording actually correspond to the fact that different authors of the main book thought it was being done one way or the other.

Presumably it will be "settled" by the time Unwired comes out. But seriously I don't know whether you're supposed to be able to direct control an off-the-shelf nightsky through a VR interface or not. I mean, it's not terribly important to the question of triangle buttoning car, since at the very least you'd be able to give the autopilot some very explicit pathing instructions which would cause it to pretty much drive where you wanted it to - but the question as to whether you can personally toggle the accelerator with your mind is a quandary which is actually unanswerable with the text in the basic book alone.

-Frank
WearzManySkins
Frank,

From the lack of input from said developers on this topic lead me to believe they were going to address it in a future release.

So basically there were/are more than one person writing the BBB, and there is a possibility that one person wrote one A part and another wrote the B part. smile.gif

In past editions one could rigg/VR such vehicles as a Nightsky.

Now if developers in this edition, limit VR/rigging to only official drones.....oh boy that will be one Nova Hot Rant topic here in the forum.

WMS
odinson
I think Frank was referring to off the lot Nightskys. If one actually went and got the rigger adaptation then they could be rigged and you could jump in and command in mentally.
WearzManySkins
Opps, I reread what Frank wrote,

I stand corrected.

Thanks Odinson and Frank.

WMS
kigmatzomat
The RAW does use the terms "drone" and "vehicle" with wanton interchangeability in many places. Drive me nuts as an engineer and sometimes programmer let alone a player/GM.

I *want* "drone" to mean "vehicle with no accessible direct controls (e.g. steering wheel, brake pedal, etc)" so that I can differentiate between "passenger drone" and "passenger vehicle." I'm fine with some rare drones not having rigger capability, say trolley cars. They are on a fixed route and their stupid little dog brain just needs to a) not hit people and b) stop at designated places long enough for people to on/offload. They will be the exception but should be allowable by the rules.

I dunno what I'm gonna get but all I can say is there better be an errata for the BBB to bring it in line with Unwired.
Cain
QUOTE
I'm fine with some rare drones not having rigger capability, say trolley cars. They are on a fixed route and their stupid little dog brain just needs to a) not hit people and b) stop at designated places long enough for people to on/offload. They will be the exception but should be allowable by the rules.

Except by your own argument, having that igger adaptation would be a necessary safety feature, in case the trolley went haywire. A rigger could jump into it and remote-control it to a stop.
odinson
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
I'm fine with some rare drones not having rigger capability, say trolley cars. They are on a fixed route and their stupid little dog brain just needs to a) not hit people and b) stop at designated places long enough for people to on/offload. They will be the exception but should be allowable by the rules.

Except by your own argument, having that igger adaptation would be a necessary safety feature, in case the trolley went haywire. A rigger could jump into it and remote-control it to a stop.

I'd wager for the safety you would have foot controls for brakes and acceleration and you would pay some guy minimum wage to sit in the trolley and make sure nothing goes wrong. Probably an override switch that turns off the pilot. Possibly a cage around the driver to keep the punks out.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE
I *want* "drone" to mean "vehicle with no accessible direct controls (e.g. steering wheel, brake pedal, etc)" so that I can differentiate between "passenger drone" and "passenger vehicle."


The dictionary definition relies upon having remote controls. So a "vehicle" is anything that can move between point A and point B, while a "drone" is anything which can be told to go from point A to point B by someone who is at point C.

Admittedly, that's not a terribly useful definition in Shadowrun, as almost everything can be remote operated to one degree or another. The question is really what degree things can be remote operated when they are the stock models presented in the basic book. The book presents its own definition of "Drone" which is simply an unmanned vehicle directed through the matrix or previously loaded programming.

By that definition, your Westwind is a drone while you are allowing it to be run through gridguide or sending it someplace via its autopilot, and not a drone when you physically take the wheel or jack your control rig into the slot. Which is not what you're hoping for, and it may yet change. Got any pressing reasons why it should?

---

But regarless, there are two things that you can do via the interwebs to vehicles which are, I think, getting confused in this discussion.
  • Send a Vehicle a Command.
  • Pilot the Vehicle in real time.

These are distinctly different. It is completely clear that you can send commands to your vehicle through the Matrix. You can even send it commands like "autopilot yourself to the following GPS coordinates". You can use these commands to start and stop a vehicle, as well as get a vehicle to go basically where you want it to.

What is less clear is whether you can "jump in" to the stock Westwind in the basic book and use your own initiative and skills to drive it from your couch. That's not clear at all. The basic book literally says yes and no on this issue. You may or may not have to throw down a rigger adaptation on it before you can do this thing.

-Frank
kigmatzomat
We've got these things today people. There's an ultrasonic sensor in front along with a couple of IR beams and some ID markers. If it sees something in its very limited, track-bound way, it stops. If it can't see the markers (meaning it has been blinded) it stops. If the doors open while it is in motion, it stops. If the doors don't close, it doesn't move.

If SR4 can't model the pill delivery bots used in some hospitals or the auto-trams at amusement parks or airports, then the rules have a snafu.


I have argued that safety is an issue, particularly paranoia post-Crash 2.0. But in machines that a) don't steer because they are on tracks and b) cannot go fast enough to be a significant safety risk (<10kph) I think we can trust the drone brain. Let's face it, even if someone does get hit, they had to be [b]on[/i] the tracks and stand there while it came at them only slightly faster than a person running.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012