Batman wrote:The Silence and I wrote:I think the visual evidence we are presented with indicates there is some kind of hand-independent aiming. "Rascals" is not the end all be all for available proof, but I urge you look at the scribbles I drew.
Phasers firing off-axis is a given. Nobody contests that.
That is not what I referred to. I believe in "assisted aiming," but that belief
is contested.
There are a few ways to explain known issues with this "assisted aiming."
I propose the idea that phasers, being widely mutable, can be custom tailored to an individual's firing style. We have seen them opened up in moments, and two buttons are all that are needed to write simple programs and/or execute commands.
Probelm being that brianeyci brought up examples of the
same phaser firing
differently off-axis in the same episode in the hands of the same shooter. Either the Fed's have
really weird ideas about handling weapons, they are variably inaccurate to the point where it's a wonder they ever hit anything at all (which might actually be the explanation for their lousy marksmanship
), or there actually is something to Brian's assisted aiming theory. Which is why I originally accepted it (especially as it made no difference WRT Fed stupidity).
I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here; you seem to be listing the very reasons I believe in "assisted aiming" as if I was unawares of them. Or something, I'm not really sure.
Are you trying to say that differences in off-access shots in the same episode disallow the use of programs or custom tailored settings? If so that is, with all respect, stupid. By programs I mean telling the phaser to default to a certain fire angle, or to automatically track within a certain cone, etc. I do not mean loading and running Phaser Default Angle 3, now run Default Angle 7 and so on within a battle.
Someone like Worf, being a proud Klingon warrior, may favor a phaser set up that requires greater skill to use--he may well favor a faily narrow cone for his auto aiming set up. Just enough to correct minor errors, but requiring his aim be spot on (or more so than most) most of the time.
Stupid but believable.
I thought so. Although in fairness, I see where I would want to make such a claim as well.
Considering Team X's problem; target differentiation may be very easy using Federation technology. A broach sized communicator can house a universal translator (and subspace transmitter and an apparently powerful battery)--a device that reads brainwaves to determine intent behind words, and builds a vocabulary from that. AFAIK there is no direct evidence for such technology used in phaser side arms, but there is room aplenty (Data's phaser has enough room to add one of his subprocessors to, and there was still more open space) and such a device can surely tell if the user wants to shoot something or not, thus allieviating Team X's problem.
Small problem-there's no evidence for the phaser firing anywhere else except where the emitter happens to be 'facing' (given the way both hand and especially shipborne strip phasers behave I consider the something along the lines of modern active phassed array radars in operation).
Ah, a misunderstanding I think. I was not trying to claim the phaser would figure out who you want to hit and simply hit them--like gaining a phaser lock on starships--I meant only within the cone of assisted aiming would this come into play. For example Team X's dilemma is that there are potentially two targets within their cone of assisted fire; and one happens to be on their side. This would allow the phaser to realize the team member wants to hit target A, not target B. But the computer would not track anything outside the cone, something like an extra safety feature; not only do you have to want to hit it, you have to point in that direction as well (I can see times where this could come in handy).
Adding to the mutability, lets say you don't like holding your wrist at the angle needed to fire the early TNG phasers. You can tell the emitter to automatically fire at a downward angle specified by you. The auto aiming feature can work from there, and it too may be modified.
Works, and explains the variations in beam angle. Doesn't explain how the phaser knows what you're firing at, though.
IMHO this explains why different people hold phasers at different angles for a level shot, but it does not explain why the angle on one phaser varies within an episode (I suspect you know this, I am attempting to avoid miscommunication). For the latter, my interpritation requires "assisted aiming." For target differentiation, see above.
The muse of writing is not with me today, so I will try to summarize with my proposed interpritation of why the Ferengi ducked successfully:
Worf, a proud warrior who dislikes soft, user friendly devices on weapons, has set his phaser to correct for less than (just some number I'm pulling out of my hat) 3 degrees in any direction. He would turn it off like he does in the shooting range, except he realizes the damn thing is very difficult to aim without--he's not that proud.
The Ferengi beams in and he takes a hasty aim which is off by too much for the auto correct. He misses, but tries to ease the beam into the Ferengi, who begins ducking away from the beam now moving toward him.* He manages to sweep the beam into its required cone, and it starts auto correcting, but before it can reach the Ferengi the beam cuts off, and Worf is stunned.
Works for me, which is why I originally accepted Brian's assisted aiming theory. Leaves the question how the phaser knows what in blazes Whorf intends to hit.
Hm. You seem to be asking more than simple A or B target differentiation, yes? I will theorize, and see what you think.
Forward sensors on the phaser (very obvious on the Nemesis model, though not all agree it is infact a sensor. Also plenty of room for one within the bulky forward emitter area on TNG models) generate a picture centered on the specified cone, and object recognition programs map outlines of all available targets within the cone. The brainwave reader forms a picture of what Worf is looking at and compares objects. Worf concentrates on his target, and the brainwave reader assigns this emphasis to one target on its mapped image. There you go.
I just cooked this up, but I already like it
If the image recognition system (hey, all this has to fit in one small weapon) has difficulty with some objects, it may not be able to track effectively, resulting in misses around areas of cover or during high speed movements (swinging the phaser onto target very quickly may confuse it for those precious fractions of a second).
*For some reason, possible related to the stabilizing system referred to in the description of a phaser rifle, phaser beams are AFAIK (and I only know TOS and TNG, DS9 is sadly something I read about only) never used to rapidly sweep to and fro on normal settings.
A stabilization system that means you can't swing the rifle? That's stupid even for the Feds...
I am beginning to favor assigning this property to the beam itself. Stabilization of the actual gun may exist, but only to nullify small twitches. It may also only be on the rifle.
Worf may not be able to twitch his hand and sweep the beam into the boarder like I would with a laser pointer. Whatever property that causes this may be inherent to the beam too, thus the "assisted aiming" cannot rapidly sweep into the guy either.
So sweep from the elbow. Phasers are freaking
beam weapons. We have repeatedly seen phasers fire for more than a second. Easily enough to to at least a limited-angle sweep. Even if it only results in stuns even on kill levels, who cares? At least the target is incapacitated. Hell, the tender-hearted Federation would propably prefer that.
This is why I am favoring the beam as the source of this handicapping "stabilization." How many time have you watched a phaser fight and thought, "man, give me a phaser and I'll hit everyone within a second flat!" ? I know I've done it, if someone shows anything I can hit it with a laser pointer--simply because it is a beam, it's not like I can aim the tiny thing that well. Well, I now think it takes some considerable force to actually do that, and the beam is the cause.
For starters, the beam always moves smoothly; no human hand I know of is that steady for that long.
. I want better resolution damnit 
