Re: Further thoughts on hitting with lasers

Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> > Good point. I don't think they'd thought about that. And whatever
> > reading you have, the quality increases as the target grows closer
> > (less likelihood the target has changed course in the lag time).  At
> > close ranges, this target to ship to target time might not be long
> > indeed, but it will (I assume) effectively double the misalignment
> > you calculate using the method the other folks were using.
> >
> Assuming active sensors for targeting, make that triple!
>   1) Time for sensor to reach target
>   2) Time for reflection of sensor to reach firing ship
>   3) Time for fire to reach target ship

Albeit that a passive solution doesn't reveal you, but it takes more 
time to build, resulting in greater delays and more likelihood of a 
miss. Good for ambushes with stealthed ships (anyone from SFB say 
"Passive Fire Control"?). The active solution, I'm assuming, is the 
default in FT. Special rules for passive solutions and running 
'silent' could be invented if they don't exist. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2034
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Our Web Page: http://www.sofkin.ca
**************************************************/