What scanning devise would you use?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-17 02:16am

Isolder74 wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:None of the above

FLIR goggles with a laser range finder. I also want a helmet mounted LASAR and millimeter radar.
So you want Baba Fett's helmet

Hopefully he'll take the severed head out of it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-17 03:43am

Isolder74 wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:None of the above

FLIR goggles with a laser range finder. I also want a helmet mounted LASAR and millimeter radar.
So you want Baba Fett's helmet

If it has those, yes. I'm not aware of any details of Fett's equipment.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-17 11:26am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:None of the above

FLIR goggles with a laser range finder. I also want a helmet mounted LASAR and millimeter radar.
So you want Baba Fett's helmet
If it has those, yes. I'm not aware of any details of Fett's equipment.

It has a built in macrobinocular veiwplate, a mini-sensor array(the antenna thing), a motion detector, and proximity warning sensor(AKA a allarm that warns if someone is sneaking up on him)

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-10-17 01:22pm

EmperorMing wrote:Those NVG's have no depth preception. Personal experience with a humvee and a ditch...

Yeah I guessed that just by looking at them (they don't have stereoscopic thingies, just a single scope in the middle)

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-17 01:25pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
EmperorMing wrote:Those NVG's have no depth preception. Personal experience with a humvee and a ditch...
Yeah I guessed that just by looking at them (they don't have stereoscopic thingies, just a single scope in the middle)

Naaaa, even the older AN PVS 4 (I believe thats the right number) had horrible depth perception and they have a biocular system.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-10-17 07:14pm

Knife wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
EmperorMing wrote:Those NVG's have no depth preception. Personal experience with a humvee and a ditch...
Yeah I guessed that just by looking at them (they don't have stereoscopic thingies, just a single scope in the middle)
Naaaa, even the older AN PVS 4 (I believe thats the right number) had horrible depth perception and they have a biocular system.

Horrible != none

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2002-10-17 08:48pm

Macro...and errrrr it seems my reasons had been stated already.

Cyaround,
Jason

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-10-17 09:49pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:Macro...and errrrr it seems my reasons had been stated already.

Please reiterate for us.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2002-10-17 09:58pm

Isolder74 wrote:personally i'd stick with the Macrobinoculars

They have built in night vision
They have built in IR imaging
They have zoom capable of seeing a space battle in obit of a planet(and that was only a civi model!)
Gives me range and bearing too

There

Cyaround,
Jason

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-19 01:40am

Soontir C'boath wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:personally i'd stick with the Macrobinoculars

They have built in night vision
They have built in IR imaging
They have zoom capable of seeing a space battle in orbit of a planet(and that was only a civi model!)
Gives me range and bearing too
There

Cyaround,
Jason

Thanks, I thought I'd covered everything on that post. If I missed anything feel free to fill it into the list above

Frank LLoyd Wright · Post by **Frank LLoyd Wright** » 2002-10-20 05:59pm

the universal use of the Macrobinoculars in the SW movies has me conviced they are the standard equiptment used to view stuff at a distance with. And if they truely have sub orbital viewing range then there is nothing that I cannot see if it is above the horizon. The destroyers searching for U-boats would have wanted one of these macrobinoculars to hunt with.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-22 12:37pm

Frank LLoyd Wright wrote:the universal use of the Macrobinoculars in the SW movies has me conviced they are the standard equiptment used to view stuff at a distance with. And if they truely have sub orbital viewing range then there is nothing that I cannot see if it is above the horizon. The destroyers searching for U-boats would have wanted one of these macrobinoculars to hunt with.

Actually they would have killed for a pair of Star Wars Macrobinoculars. A pair of binocs that can zoom and electrically engance the image too. those U-boats wouldn't have stood a chance.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-23 05:52pm

plus they could hunt the subs without needing to power up their radars which gives away your approach

Frank LLoyd Wright · Post by **Frank LLoyd Wright** » 2002-10-27 11:57am

Isolder74 wrote:plus they could hunt the subs without needing to power up their radars which gives away your approach

Whatever commander or soldier with the ability to see the enemy and not be seen by your enemy has the advantage.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-29 06:51pm

Frank LLoyd Wright wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:plus they could hunt the subs without needing to power up their radars which gives away your approach
Whatever commander or soldier with the ability to see the enemy and not be seen by your enemy has the advantage.

You mean like Stealth fighters during Desert Storm?

oberon · Post by **oberon** » 2002-10-29 07:56pm

What's with all this "catch-all scanner" shit. I'd use a CT scanner if I had a patient who needed CT. MRI, or an x-ray machine if it was orthopedic or a barium enema. An ultrasound if the patient was a fetus. I'd use an explosimeter if I were mopping up a fire. Binoculars if I needed to see far off. A microscope if I needed to see close up. A geiger counter if playing with nukes. a chemical weapons detector if I were in chem warfare. any of those other toys for combat if I were in combat. Etc, etc.

But if I had to choose just one, a rifle scope. On a rifle.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-29 11:36pm

oberon wrote:What's with all this "catch-all scanner" shit. I'd use a CT scanner if I had a patient who needed CT. MRI, or an x-ray machine if it was orthopedic or a barium enema. An ultrasound if the patient was a fetus. I'd use an explosimeter if I were mopping up a fire. Binoculars if I needed to see far off. A microscope if I needed to see close up. A geiger counter if playing with nukes. a chemical weapons detector if I were in chem warfare. any of those other toys for combat if I were in combat. Etc, etc.

But if I had to choose just one, a rifle scope. On a rifle.

A macrobinocular isn't a do everything device. It's a optical veiwing device. The Tricoder is the do anything device.

oberon · Post by **oberon** » 2002-10-30 03:58pm

You know what I mean. They're in the list together.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2002-10-30 04:23pm

Ender wrote:None of the above, I'd want one of those Sony video cameras that let you see through people's clothes, and then go the a britney spears concert.

Couldn't the tricorder be configured to do this? Can't they recreate images from tricorder scannings?

-------------

Given the information at hand, I'd take the Star Trek tricorder. Although the inability to scan near magnesite is a drawback (I live near magnesite deposites). Don't know enough about the functionality of the Star Wars scanner to want one.

Binoculars and night vision goggles are cool, but not exotic enough.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-10-30 04:25pm

oberon wrote:You know what I mean. They're in the list together.

Yes I do but I was trying to make sure that everyone else understood

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-10-30 05:55pm

I'll take a Culture effector over anything on the list.

Can scan, and linked to a visual device can be used to zoom, can see through hyperspace(I think), can mind control both organics and machines, and can fry anything energy-based.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-11-01 04:12pm

Shinova wrote:I'll take a Culture effector over anything on the list.

Can scan, and linked to a visual device can be used to zoom, can see through hyperspace(I think), can mind control both organics and machines, and can fry anything energy-based.

That has more built in gizmos that a Star Trek Tricorder!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-01 11:28pm

I'd take the night vision goggles. The macrobinoculars aren't clear enough, and only God knows what technobabble stuff comes out of a tricoder.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2002-11-06 01:20pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'd take the night vision goggles. The macrobinoculars aren't clear enough, and only God knows what technobabble stuff comes out of a tricoder.

Have to agree with you on the tricorder part.