Observations on the TR-116

[The Silence and I]

I just love how you didn't even read my essay on phaser rifles. I talked about Nemesis. Nemesis contradicts all previous examples of phaser rifles.

I love how you can completely blot out the point. We see a clear demonstration of the auto-aim's capabilities, and it's clearly pathetic beyond measure. Of course, if we do not insist on an incredibly questionable existance of these aims, we can chalk it up to shitty firing.

O_o
Are you being dense? Alyeska claims the rifles used in Nemesis have NO autocorrection abilities, evidenced both by the optical sight on the top and the lack of apparent off axis firing.

Address his claim if you want. What you did was attack his claim with evidence that has no bearing on his claim.

On a discussion of the merits of rubber tires vs wooden tires one person claimed rubber tires have superior traction. The other person (you) countered by reminding everyone how little traction wooden tires have in the rain.

[Alyeska]

So the Federation is so mind bogglingly stupid that they ripped out auto-aim... I thought you were against this sort of reasoning?

The same Federation that fucked over the Galaxy program and created the Maquis situation.

Burden Of Proof Fallacy. I am not claiming Trek phasers have auto-aim.

And yet the ONLY counter claim that can be made against auto-aiming is that people in Trek are acomplished trick shooters yet make incredibly stupid misses at the very same time.

I have already proved that the Type-3 has auto aiming. I have already provided proof the Type-3b has auto aiming. I specificaly stated the Type-3c does not have the same capabilities as the previous weapons. The burden of proof falls on you to show the Type-3c has auto aiming.

I'll give you a hint, you can't.

[brianeyci]

There are three possible explanations for this. The first is that the auto targeting feature was removed to allow for greater refire. This explains why the red sight was installed. The second is that auto targeting can not be used with the high refire rate, which again is why the red sight was installed. The third option is that the Type-3c is a shipboard model of the phaser rifle. Accurate fire is very important for longer range combat whereas close combat uses higher rates of fire.

It makes sense... if there is proof that Nemesis rifles have a higher refire rate than Type-IIIa or Type-IIIb rifles. I assume that it is hard to prove this, or you would flat out have stated "Nemesis rifles have a higher refire rate" somewhere.

The problem is that Type-III TNG rifles have the highest "refire" rate... consuming 1.05 MJ per second. What that translates to in terms of effectiveness who knows. But it is a continuous beam and has the highest refire rate. Yet the autoaiming system is in place in the Type-III TNG/DS9?

What I don't understand is why they didn't make a continuous beam weapon into a Type-IIIx version.

Brian

[Alyeska]

Here is where it gets really fun.

Lets take Nitram's logic and use it elsewhere.

TDiC shows examples of significant firepower in Trek. Even though the majority of examples disagree with TDiC, we can safely ignore them and only pay attention to TDiC and try to use it to over right all other firepower examples in Trek.

Don't you get it Nitram? Your attempting to use a SINGLE EXAMPLE as precedent to invalidate all other examples. Your using the very same incorrect reasoning that you scream at rabid Trekkies for using on the firepower debates.

[Alyeska]

It makes sense... if there is proof that Nemesis rifles have a higher refire rate than Type-IIIa or Type-IIIb rifles. I assume that it is hard to prove this, or you would flat out have stated "Nemesis rifles have a higher refire rate" somewhere.

I already stated the Nemesis rifles have a refire rate of greater then 3 rounds a second. That far surpasses what we have seen for the Type-3 and Type-3b rifles.

[Alyeska]

Nitram, let me make my position very clear for you.

Auto Aiming exists ONLY ON THE FOLLOWING WEAPONS

Type-3 (TNG/DS9 rifle)
Type-3b (phallic shapped barreled rifle shown in First Contact, Insurrection, DS9, and Voyager)

Weapons that I the DO NOT HAVE AUTO AIMING

Type-3c (Nemesis rifle)

I would be quite happy to show you the various differences between the Type-3b and the Type-3c.

[The Silence and I]

That includes the Type IIs as well I would think; they show the most extreme need and the most extreme firing angle deviations.

[Striderteen]

While there's definitely strong evidence that phasers have significant off-axis fire capability, I would suggest that a semiautomatic off-axis firing system in which the weapon auto-stabilizes against user wobble and can also be optically slaved to fire wherever the user looks) is more likely than a fully automatic one in which the weapon autonomously tracks and fires off-axis.

[Stark]

As much as I find the idea of autoaiming phasers abhorrent, without watching Star Trek I can't refute it. However, since the QUALITY of this autoaim is laughable at best, it doesn't matter. Replace dustbuster phasers with a modern handgun, and see if people miss at 5-10 meters firing a shot every few seconds. Phaser propagation speed probably has an effect here, since targets can dodge the incoming fire.

[brianeyci]

and can also be optically slaved to fire wherever the user looks...

We know what Federation "eyepieces" look like from TR-116. So its probably not that.

Replace dustbuster phasers...

I think the best thing is to replicate older TOS phaser pistols. Or even stop issuing Type-II's entirely and give them the small "holdout" Type-I phasers. If you've lost your phaser rifle, you're fucked anyway, and there shouldn't be any concievable situation where you lose your phaser rifle.

Nemesis incident with Type-IIIc's (ones without autoaiming) should be a wakeup call for the Fed. Higher refire rate, but you pay the price for not training.

Brian

[The Silence and I]

I think of it as a limited correctional aid. Through some system the phaser computer knows what you wish to hit, and if you are not quite pointing the weapon where you should be when you fire it will adjust.

The problems I am guessing stem from the difficulty in determining what the user wants to hit--I disregarded it at first but tracking eye movement may be the best idea I've seen, and this would be very difficult to make reliable. The phaser has to see one or both of your eyes, determine which way they are directed relative to its (possible moving) position, and then extrapolate what you are looking at based on its own sensor readings and image identification software. If it cannot figure out what you want to hit it defaults to center aim, and this usually means a miss.

In a sense it is directed by eye motion, but not autonomous by any means. The ability to track multiple targets mentioned by Kira may simply mean it can identify and remember several images (targets) and more quickly aquire "lock" during a fight with multiple assailents.

I.e., the weapon's sensors see there are four armed Romulans, assigns them as possible targets and when our user points her weapon near Romulan #1 and looks at him the weapon cuts corners and aims for that image rather than attempting to figure out what our user is trying to hit from scratch.

Make sense? I hope so

[Striderteen]

and can also be optically slaved to fire wherever the user looks...

We know what Federation "eyepieces" look like from TR-116. So its probably not that.

The phaser rifles are newer than the TR-116, so they may not need a separate eyepiece to enable eyetrack functionality.

[Striderteen]

The problems I am guessing stem from the difficulty in determining what the user wants to hit--I disregarded it at first but tracking eye movement may be the best idea I've seen, and this would be very difficult to make reliable.

Not so difficult as you think; Canon already has an eye-tracking focus system on its high-end SLR cameras, and various defense firms are working on eyetrack weapons aiming systems as a next generation follow-on to current helmet-track systems (the AH-64 Apache has one, the F-22 Raptor has one and the F-15 Eagle is being retrofitted with one).

[Alyeska]

The Eye Tracking bit can work much easier if you consider the flip-up holographic site to have that feature built in. I am most interested in knowing how eye tracking can work with the site down and the person not holding the weapon remotely like a traditional rifle.

[Alyeska]

However, since the QUALITY of this autoaim is laughable at best

Incorrect. The quality of the autoaim is exceptional given the circumstances. With auto aim it is allowing people to fire their weapon without even holding it like a rifle and to allow people to make shots that otherwise would be impossible.

[Alyeska]

The phaser rifles are newer than the TR-116, so they may not need a separate eyepiece to enable eyetrack functionality.

You have no proof to back this claim up. The TR-116 was stated to be a prototype weapon, never full production. It shares design similarities with the Type-3a, 3b, and 3c. I think they are all about the same age.

[Striderteen]

The phaser rifles are newer than the TR-116, so they may not need a separate eyepiece to enable eyetrack functionality.

You have no proof to back this claim up. The TR-116 was stated to be a prototype weapon, never full production. It shares design similarities with the Type-3a, 3b, and 3c. I think they are all about the same age.

It was stated that the development of the TR-116 was cancelled because improved advanced phaser technology obviated the need for if. This strongly implies that it predates current-generation phasers, although only just so.

[Striderteen]

The Eye Tracking bit can work much easier if you consider the flip-up holographic site to have that feature built in. I am most interested in knowing how eye tracking can work with the site down and the person not holding the weapon remotely like a traditional rifle.

Random technobabble, probably.

It might or might not be optical tracking (which in any case is *not* the same functionality as the eyepiece of the TR-116 rifle); I simply wished to point out that there are viable options in between "fully automatic off-axis firing" and "strictly manual adjustment of off-axis firing".

Hence, assuming the weapon has full auto-aiming just because it fires off-axis too accurately to be manually preset is a false dilemna.

[AdmiralKanos]

And yet the ONLY counter claim that can be made against auto-aiming is that people in Trek are acomplished trick shooters yet make incredibly stupid misses at the very same time.

Wow, there's such a thing as random chance in the Star Trek universe? How shocking! How amazing! How much less reasonable that is than arguing that they have some fantastic system which allows shitty shooters to unerringly hit targets sometimes, expert shooters to miss easy shots other times, and then gets completely ripped out for no discernible reason.

I have already proved that the Type-3 has auto aiming. I have already provided proof the Type-3b has auto aiming.

No, you haven't. You think you have provided proof; it is hardly conclusive.

I specificaly stated the Type-3c does not have the same capabilities as the previous weapons.

I was unaware that the Word of Alyeska was now canon.

[Alyeska]

I've yet to see a reasonable explination from you Mike.

Fact, if the Type-3 is fired from a pre-set axis prior to engagement, any movement will cause a sweeping motion of the beam.

Observed fact. We have seen movement of the weapon and the sweeping action did not occur. Instead the beam constantly maintained on a single target.

Conclussion, the weapon was aiming itself at a set target.

This all comes from DS9 602, Rocks and Shoals.

This is conclussive evidence that auto aiming exists. When you also consider the previous statements of multi-target acquisition and the insane accurace rates of the weapon when not fired with use of iron sites, there can only be one answer.

[Alyeska]

The phaser rifles are newer than the TR-116, so they may not need a separate eyepiece to enable eyetrack functionality.

You have no proof to back this claim up. The TR-116 was stated to be a prototype weapon, never full production. It shares design similarities with the Type-3a, 3b, and 3c. I think they are all about the same age.

It was stated that the development of the TR-116 was cancelled because improved advanced phaser technology obviated the need for if. This strongly implies that it predates current-generation phasers, although only just so.

I just watched the episode. No such statements were made. The TR-116 was stated to be a prototype weapon for use in enviroments where dampening fields prevent use of phasers. That is all.

[brianeyci]

I just watched the episode. No such statements were made. The TR-116 was stated to be a prototype weapon for use in enviroments where dampening fields prevent use of phasers. That is all.

Are you absolutely sure? I think he is referring to this,

O'BRIEN
No, Starfleet abandoned the TR-
one-one-six in favor of
regenerative phasers.

The weapon was also never mass produced. So if TR-116 is as old as say Federation Type-II phasers of TNG, they are not really that old, assuming TNG Type-I is the oldest type of regenerative phaser.

Brian

[Alyeska]

Wow, there's such a thing as random chance in the Star Trek universe?

In order to be skilled to make trick shots in combat situations, you have to be extremely skilled. And yet by your own reasoning these same highly acompished people make incredibly stupid misses somewhat frequently. Random chance explains someone who is skilled at shooting missing ocassionaly with complex shots, not missing a shockingly easy shot if they already showed incredible skill.

How much less reasonable that is than arguing that they have some fantastic system

Yes, its totaly unreasonable after I provided irrefutable evidence which proves such a system exists.

which allows shitty shooters to unerringly hit targets sometimes, expert shooters to miss easy shots other times

I would like to see proof shooter skill level that you use to make this assertation.

and then gets completely ripped out for no discernible reason.

Dustbuster anyone? Galaxy class design history anyone? Maquis problem anyone? Cardassian war anyone? And my personal favorite. The Stryker. Governments and beuracracies can make mistakes.

I was unaware that the Word of Alyeska was now canon.

My statements and conclussions are derived from canon and use the TMs as supporting evidence. Your conclussions rely on un-supported assumptions.

I say that auto aiming exists and give examples. You say they are skilled trick shooters and provide absolutely no supporting evidence.

Who is tricking who here?

[The Silence and I]

The problems I am guessing stem from the difficulty in determining what the user wants to hit--I disregarded it at first but tracking eye movement may be the best idea I've seen, and this would be very difficult to make reliable.

Not so difficult as you think; Canon already has an eye-tracking focus system on its high-end SLR cameras, and various defense firms are working on eyetrack weapons aiming systems as a next generation follow-on to current helmet-track systems (the AH-64 Apache has one, the F-22 Raptor has one and the F-15 Eagle is being retrofitted with one).

Cool. Does this system work if you move the camera around in odd directions like you might with a side arm? Perhaps this is not so far fetched as I assumed, even if today's system cannot compensate for that it goes without saying 200 years of advancement can fix that

[Striderteen]

The problems I am guessing stem from the difficulty in determining what the user wants to hit--I disregarded it at first but tracking eye movement may be the best idea I've seen, and this would be very difficult to make reliable.

Not so difficult as you think; Canon already has an eye-tracking focus system on its high-end SLR cameras, and various defense firms are working on eyetrack weapons aiming systems as a next generation follow-on to current helmet-track systems (the AH-64 Apache has one, the F-22 Raptor has one and the F-15 Eagle is being retrofitted with one).

Cool. Does this system work if you move the camera around in odd directions like you might with a side arm? Perhaps this is not so far fetched as I assumed, even if today's system cannot compensate for that it goes without saying 200 years of advancement can fix that

Not sure how well it works on the move...but I'll test it out if you send me a few hundred dollars to buy a Canon camera. (Yes, I have to be out and out bribed to use Canon, I'm a Nikon fan all the way)