[FT] Sensor range question

G'day guys,

        OK all you techno-wizzes out there what's your opinion on the
sensor range issue in FT? Derek tried doing some stuff up based on other rule
sets he's
got, but the ranges ended up miniscule - especially when you consider
how well we can watch our own solar system right now.

Thanks

Beth

> OK all you techno-wizzes out there what's your opinion on the sensor

I make the assumption that everyone is stealthed to a greater or lesser
degree.

Hi Beth -

> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Beth Fulton wrote:

> OK all you techno-wizzes out there what's your opinion on the

I don't have an answer for you as this is something I've just been starting to
look into myself, but here's one thing to keep in mind: we
really -can't- watch our solar system, not for anything ship size,
unless it comes very close to us. For example, we know there have to be
multitudes of small (< 1 km or so) asteroids out there, but most of what we
detect is on the km to hundreds of km scales. Also for example, lot of the
moons of the outer planets have never been seen at all from Earth. So while my
answer to your question has to be "I don't know (yet)", the numbers Derek is
getting may not be all that unreasonable.

Of course, it also depends upon how bright your engines are too...

Just food for thought..

> Sensor range may not be as short as it sounds, if we think that the

Apropos which, has anyone thought of using extra thrust to "evade"?

Let's say you're on Vector movement and you have a Thrust 6 ship. You get
three thruster points. You can use those for a sideways burn if you're trying
to duck away from missiles, but that doesn't help against beam weapons.
Surely, however, a more maneuverable ship should be better able than a
lumbering hulk to jink around and dodge beams. Therefore, I propose that one
thruster point may be applied to increase the effective range for energy beam
(and similar weapons, PTs, needles, etc) by 3". Missiles aren't affected by
this, and neither are area effect weapons such as wave guns.

This isn't totally satisfactory, because the effect would be less important
at close range than at long range.  Maybe instead of +3", make it +10%
of actual range? Suggestions?

G'day,

> This isn't totally satisfactory, because the effect would be less

Hey I like this idea! But then I play FSE, so I may be biased;)

As to the range added by the "jink", 3" just sounds easier to me, but I'm not
absolutely married to that (I guess I'm just feeling a little too lazy to
contemplate the 10% idea today).

Cheers

Beth

> On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Laserlight wrote:

> Apropos which, has anyone thought of using extra thrust to "evade"?

i rather like this idea. i think the physics behind it is a little dodgy,
though, at least from the hard-sf perspective of lightsecond ranges.
from the space opera perspective, though, i like it. i like it a lot.

in hard sf, high-thrust ships would be harder to hit anyway, as the
shooter has to aim at a wider envelope due to the fact that the target *could*
be doing a wide range of maneuvers, even if he's actually just ploughing a
straight line. i think.

> Therefore, I propose

sounds good.

> This isn't totally satisfactory, because the effect would be less

i take it you mean: "This isn't totally satisfactory, because physics suggests
that the effect would be less important at close range than at long range.". i
misunderstood the first time i read that.

> Maybe instead of +3", make it +10% of

that's a bit too complicated. why not +1 mu at 0-12, +2 mu at 12-24, +3
at
24-36, etc? that range refers to the real, physical range.

Tom

> Maybe instead of +3", make it +10% of

Jeez, moving a decimal over one place is too complex?

> Laserlight wrote:

Yeah, but, depending on how the engines 'work', it's a lot harder to hide a
huge engine heat bloom versus the relative 'coldness' of space. (Depending on
how close you are to the sun and a host of other factors.)

Sensor range may not be as short as it sounds, if we think that the MT sensors
are meant to generate solutions good enough to shoot something. It's (usually)
much easier to build a sensor that can detect something to within several
thousand km, then within one.

Of course, this all gets caught up in FT physics; what makes the ships move,
what are they using to sense things with, etc. etc. etc.,
and I don't want to start THAT discussion again.  (8-)

J.

> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Laserlight wrote:

> > > Maybe instead of +3", make it +10% of

moving a decimal place and then adding to the number you first thought of,
ie 28" -> 2.8" -> 30.8". it's not that hard, but doing it every single
time i measure range? i suppose i'd get used to it. i'm just not keen on all
those extra digits.

Tom