Schoon's Simpler Sensors

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1"

> Mime-Version: 1.0

Sorry Tim,

I even tried mailing that to myself and then copying and remailing to the list
to avoid that. I'm not sure what else can be done. I never see it. I use
Eudora for mail, and MS for word processing, and I've checked all the
settings on Eudora that I know how :-(

> Sorry Tim,

Yep its tricky and it catches *us all out*. One tedious workaround is to save
the file as ASCII text from the word processor and then import that file into
the email client.

This text formatting stuff is sticky in MS environments in that my outlook
client wanted to reply in the same MIME encoding as the original message and I
had to start a new reply to stop it and keep it in plain text.

enriched text doesn't seem to be all that bad as the netscape mail client can
read it OK. Did anyone just see a page of MIME crud?

Hmmm... why not just copy-and-paste the text from the word processor
into the mail client?

-- Rick Rutherford

[quoted original message omitted]

> Rick Rutherford wrote:

> Hmmm... why not just copy-and-paste the text from the word processor

Use the Note Pad. It does plain ascii text nicely. (I use a DOS word
processor. It doen't understand mine, word 6 macros, ect.)

> ----Original Message-----

Use the Note Pad. It does plain ascii text nicely.

(I have messed around with it enough. For my main work, I use a DOS word
processor. It doen't understand mime, word 6 macros, ect. It was written
before win95 existed, and the compainy went out of business just after.)

In a message dated 6/4/99 10:15:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
> schoon@aimnet.com writes:

<<
        </bold>In passive mode, the class of the electronics suite gives
the additional number of range bands for each level of information, but only
for information levels equal to or less than their class.
> [quoted text omitted]

Hiya Schoon and gang!

I have a couple questions for ya Schoon about the sensor suites. I am trying
to build a table for easy reference, and (with your permission) I'd like to
post your electronics rules to a Full Thrust page that I plan to put up soon.
The table would look similar to the one below. First, I'd like to know if I
extrapolated the Class 4 Suite's passive properties correctly. And secondly, I
was not sure how to determine the ranges for the active modes.

Thanks muchly!

Bill Shatswell

Range Band:! 24" 48" 72" 96" 120" 144" 168" 192"
============!================================================
Sensor Suite! Level of

Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
------------------------------------------
Class 0 Passive! 3 2 1 0
        0               0               0               0
Class 1 Passive! 3 2 1 1
        0               0               0               0
Class 2 Passive! 3 2 2 2
        1               0               0               0
Class 3 Passive! 3 3 3 3
        2               1               0               0
Class 4 Passive! 3 3 3 3
        3               2               1               0
============!================================================
Class 0 Active! 3 3 2 1
        0               0               0               0
Class 1 Active! 3??
?
	?		?		?		?
Class 2 Active! 3??
?
	?		?		?		?
Class 3 Active! 3??
?
	?		?		?		?
Class 4 Active! 3??
?
	?		?		?		?

(snip all the good stuff) Rather than have a table like that, I'd suggest just
extending the capability linearly. Passive:
    Basic: 0-24=SSD, 24-48=Mass & Firing Solution, 48-72=Bogey,
72+=Nothing
    Enhanced: 0-24=Damage Reports 24-48=SSD, 48-72=M&FS, 72-96=Bogey,
96+=Nothing
    Superior: 0-48=Damage Reports, 48-72=SSD, 72-96=M&FS, 96-120"=Bogey,
120+=Nothing
Active acts as if one level better Passive but automatically gives the other
side Mass & Firing Solution. That way it is simple and easy to remember. Some
of us need all the help we can get....

To make this thing really work, we need some kind of operational maneuvering.
Maybe 100 MU per space, and turns to represent 1.25 hours
(or--for those of you who stubbornly and mistakenly cling to the 15
minute turn instead of the right, the proper, the natural 7.5 minute
turn--2.5 hours).

> Laserlight wrote:
...Good stuff...
> Schoon wrote:
...Good stuff...

The only suggestion I will make:

Passive sensors should be able to detect an active scan at longer ranges the
the active scan can detect a passive ship.

Bye for now,

> At 11:46 AM -0700 6/6/99, John Leary wrote:

that should probbaly read as "twice the range of the active scanner"

> Laserlight wrote:

Using the 7.5 minute turn, what acceleration is each thrust point, and how far
is each movement point?

> Laserlight wrote:

Andrew Martin wondered:
> Using the 7.5 minute turn, what acceleration is each thrust point, and

You can set your acceleration to whatever you like, of course, but if you have
a 7.5 minute turn, however many G's you thrust at is how many thousands
of kilometers you travel.  That's not quite exact, but 1G=10m/sec^2 errs
on
the high side, and 1G=9.8m/sec^2 errs on the low side, so it's close
enough for me.

Try it yourself. The formula is d= 0.5 a t^2 where d = distance traveled, a =
acceleration, t= time. This assumes a continuous thrust over the course of the
turn.

> Passive sensors should be able to detect an active scan at

Veru true, and I had originally had rules to that effect, but they were cut in
one of my simplifications. Any suggestions on fitting them into the current
framework?

> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

Schoon, The 2 X detection range is simple and workable, Laserlight had it
right.

Bye for now,

[quoted original message omitted]