Aiming Weapon Systems

[A_M_Swallow]

In another newsgroup the chick aiming and firing the weapon system by kickboxing has been described as comical.

Do you agree with this view?

Can you think of a method of aiming the weapons that make the actor/actress look good?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Comical... well, just dumb to me.

I would think that they would use a system that aimed by aiming at the point the weapons officer's eyes were focused on (on a display screen), using sensors and automatic tracking devices, to produce a lock. The weapons officer would select which weapon(s), what strength, and exactly when it fired with finger buttons. That might be difficult to depict in a flashy, cinematic, way.

 

[vacantlook]

I don't have a problem with her hanging in the virtual reality system or using her hands and feet to fire the weapons. I do have a problem with that extended scream though; it just too much.

 

[sleepy_shadow]

Besides above mentioned concerns... I have a problem with the person rotating. Why rotate the person, when you can rotate the view?

Moreover, why float the person in AG... where a failiure in AG would smash him/her into the closest wall/floor/ceiling? Far better for the person to sit (and have the double assurance of a seatbelt -- or some other crude 20th century tech).

Last but not least... why first perspective? A human being only has a limited field of view. Why not employ second perspective, pointing at targets on a miniature holographic model of the ship's surroundings, where everything within the computer's sensors can be somehow represented in view?

The actual shooting will be done by a computer anyway. So having a human kick and scream... does not seem to make much difference.

----

In an immersive environment... fairly calm walking around, and indicating targets/locations with eyes or fingers (so computers know where to shoot/move/relay orders)... would make sense from the viewpoint of someone supervising battle (someone unlikely to lose artificial gravity).

Even that would only make sense if enough people can observe the scene, removing the shortcoming of a single person's field of view (cannot see what is behind, below or above you).

 

[Vonbloodbath]

Well, I haven't seen this (as they showed it on the Movie channel over here, not Sci Fi), but as a concept it kinda makes sense to me for the warrior caste to develop a method of firing/targetting which is based on their traditional methods of H2H fighting.

Just seems to fit, thematically, with the Minbari.

Of course, that doesn't mean it wont look silly...

VB

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Why rotate the person, when you can rotate the view?

Given the subjective angles of the shots, how can you tell it wasn't the room rotating? (Someone once told an astronomer how ignorant the people of the past must have been not to see that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The astronomer agreed, then asked, "I wonder what the sky would look like if it had been the other way around?" )

As JMS said repeatedly at the time, the weapon system was supposed to work just the way you describe.

Sarah's chair (on a support arm) would have dropped into a spherical aiming chamber which would rotate around her to bring possible threats into view. She would then chose weapons and engage the target before the ship's sensors brought the next one up, or she rotated the view herself to look for threats. The "human kickboxer" system was worked out on-set when it was discovered that building the system JMS intended was going to cost a lot more than they had planned or budgeted, and that neither Warner Bros. nor Sci-Fi was willing to come up with the extra cash.

Since JMS really wanted to do something more interesting than people sitting at a console pushing buttons, he came up with a compromise that would get him the holographic sphere, and probably figured he could get the money to "upgrade" the system, both in the story and in real life, if Rangers went to series.

Regards,

Joe

 

[grumbler]

Last but not least... why first perspective? A human being only has a limited field of view. Why not employ second perspective, pointing at targets on a miniature holographic model of the ship's surroundings, where everything within the computer's sensors can be somehow represented in view?

Exactly. Having been a ship's weapons officer, I know the dangers of fixating on one target, even when all targets can be seen. Restricting what can be seen to what is within the viewpoint of the WO is asking for that in spades.

First-person perspective is a poor idea, especially when the WO is solo and not operating as part of a team. With technology that advanced, having a "godlike" perspective makes far more sense, even if it lacks drama.

 

[KoshN]

In another newsgroup the chick aiming and firing the weapon system by kickboxing has been described as comical.

Do you agree with this view?

No, just embarrassingly over-the-top. It wasn't comical, but rather cringe inducing.

Can you think of a method of aiming the weapons that make the actor/actress look good?

Yes, Lennier and Marcus waving their hands over crystals in the Whitestar with cool sound effects, getting the job done in a professional manner.

 

[KoshN]

Besides above mentioned concerns... I have a problem with the person rotating. Why rotate the person, when you can rotate the view?

So there's more inertia to have to overcome? :devil: Without being able to push off of anything, it's pretty difficult to turn your body, hence Sarah's effort in positioning her body. The originally planned system need not have had the problem, but if seated in a chair and rotating the view, it might have looked like a 21st century videogame or flight simulator (not sufficiently advanced for the movie, given today's jaded audience).

Moreover, why float the person in AG... where a failiure in AG would smash him/her into the closest wall/floor/ceiling? Far better for the person to sit (and have the double assurance of a seatbelt -- or some other crude 20th century tech).

Well, in the seat that had been originally planned, she probably would have had some kind of safety restraints.

Last but not least... why first perspective? A human being only has a limited field of view. Why not employ second perspective, pointing at targets on a miniature holographic model of the ship's surroundings, where everything within the computer's sensors can be somehow represented in view?

Might have looked too easy, and/or more advanced that we've seen on newer ships in the B5 universe (e.g. the Whitestar, the Excalibur, etc.).

The actual shooting will be done by a computer anyway. So having a human kick and scream... does not seem to make much difference.

Except to look silly.

----

In an immersive environment... fairly calm walking around, and indicating targets/locations with eyes or fingers (so computers know where to shoot/move/relay orders)... would make sense from the viewpoint of someone supervising battle (someone unlikely to lose artificial gravity).

I guess it was supposed to look like she was having a hard time, keeping up with all those targets on a 20 year old ship. It's a similar problem that the Trek people had when going from ST:TOS to Enterprise. Here they had to make the Liandra look older, but they still tried to show some things that looked more advanced than the systems on Whitestars (which are a 20 year newer class of ship). Now, it could be that the Liandra was kept up to date with newer systems (upgraded like the B-52 has been from the original to the most current model), but no hint of that was given in the movie.

 

[Recoil]

In another newsgroup the chick aiming and firing the weapon system by kickboxing has been described as comical.

Yea I thought it was pretty craptacular.

If you are gonna go VR for weapons systems why not just have the POV be as if you are the ship and you use vision and controls to lock on targets. This kicking and punching stuff has a high level of error...and looks comical.

 

[sleepy_shadow]

Given the subjective angles of the shots, how can you tell it wasn't the room rotating?

Now that you mention, my memory does *not* contain trustable details to explain this opinion. To verify, I must consult my recordings.

Edit:

Having now consulted recordings, I have also pinpointed the source of said impression. Movement. Choreography. Something in that department... leaves me an impression of the person rotating.

This impression is, however, only partial. On several other occasions, rotation is achieved with such speed... that a person couldn't easily rotate that fast. View could.

So I withdraw (or at least write off into uncertain issues) the complaint about rotating the person.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

If the gunner is sitting down the actual firing could be performed using a foot pedal. Someone who can play the piano may be able to fire two weapons at the same time.

When selecting a target the gunner may wish to zoom in on it so as to miss a friendly ship near by. Two displays would allow a zoomed in "gun sight" and an all round surveillance display.

 

[grumbler]

True, but the other important point lost in this representation is that symbology is much more info-dense than actual visual sightings. The method used by the show left the WO unable to determine except by visual clues such vital things as range, range related to weapons range, probability of hit at current or future position, speed, threat priority, etc etc.

The system is clumsy and, I believe, inferior in several vital respects to what is used by modern militaries today. Properly done, it COULD have looked visually interesting, but we pretty much saw everything visually interesting that could be done with that type of display when we saw the Grey Council at war.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Yes it is useful to plot friends and enemies in different colours, a line rather than a dot so you can see the direction and speed the target is flying and something to show what sort of target it is.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

The other thing that could be done is for several targets to be lined up. When one target has been destroyed the computer automatically selects the next. This is more appropriate to missiles than lasers, unless the laser has a recharge time.