Re: Lag....

Alan Brain writes:

@:) The unacceptable error is 100 metres in 100 million metres, ie 1
@:) in 1 million.  Assume a 10 metre long weapon, this means a
@:) deflection of 1/100,000 of a millimetre.  Not impossible, but not
@:) easy.

  Seems like it'd be easier with energy weapons like lasers.

@:) Then add tracking errors. The ship itself is not infinitely rigid,
@:) and will flex somewhat as the thrust changes.  Basically, you need
@:) a lot of computation, a lot of sensors within the ship to measure
@:) distortions between sensors and weapons, and a mirror/lens that
@:) reacts at light speed or close to it.

  Most of these things are fairly doable.  I'm curious as to whether
modern warships use stuff like this?  Isn't it possible to measure the
deflection of a fiber-optic cable?  I imagine you could run the stuff
from a sensor to a gun mount and figure how the ship is twisting.
Actually ships might flex less in space.

@:) The next problem is scanning using EM sensors. Probability of
@:) counter-detection is approximately proportional to Peak Pulse
@:) Energy.  Probability of detection is proportional to average
@:) energy.

  I just have to mention again that there is at least a small reason
to believe that sensors could be developed that almost completely
eliminate the possibility of counter detection because they don't emit
any radiation that actually hits the target.  Quantum stuff, you
know.  Kinda creepy but I guess they've actually done it in the lab.

@:) In space, you don't have sea returns, seagulls etc. But you do
@:) have dust particles, large EM sources (stars), etc etc. Now add
@:) decoys - a light balloon with a small rocket motor, and it becomes
@:) tricky.

  And it might be interesting to have a game in which players could
place bogey markers on the table that would be indistinguishable
(except with effort) from real spacecraft.  Solar flares can do
interesting stuff too and a good simulation of them might work well in
an FT game.

-joachim