Phaser auto-target capabilities?

Silver · Post by **Silver** » 2003-01-30 01:50am

Assuming that phasers do indeed have some auto-target abilities, how does the auto-targeter know which target to go for? Say you have a hostage situation with an enemy holding one of your own in front of him. What if the auto-target decides to aim for the friendly instead of the enemy? Of if you have two enemies in a tight angle... say one if 10 feet away from you, and the other is about 30 feet, but the one farther is standing just a bit offset from the one close to you. How does this auto-target know which one you want to hit?

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-01-30 06:24am

Presumably, this would be one function of an automated IF/F system.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-01-30 12:18pm

Commbadge?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-01-30 04:00pm

NecronLord wrote:Commbadge?

Great now if the Hostage taker has taken the bagde away and put it in his pocket so you can't beam away his hostage you will end up having the Phaser have a 50-50 chance the Phaser will kill your own man!

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-30 05:12pm

The weapon's sensor capabilities could easily be comparable to those of a tricorder. Tricorders can distinguish one Trek race from another easily, so this would be a likely method of identifying targets.

Whether the weapon could be as discriminating in a fight of humans vs humans (or other racially homogenous combat) is different question. I don't know that tricorders are all that good at recognizing individuals.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-01-30 05:32pm

Well tricorders are capable of DNA analyzis, so I would assume that they could regognize individuals through DNA comparison (a bit extreme, but could be done).

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-01-30 05:37pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Well tricorders are capable of DNA analyzis, so I would assume that they could regognize individuals through DNA comparison (a bit extreme, but could be done).

and this takes how long? This can't be a viable alternative while in the middle of combat when you need the weapon to work now, you don't have minutes to analyse your enemies before you can pop him one as they rush your position! Even having to wait seconds before you can safely fire is cripling in combat.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-01-30 05:49pm

I'd think that in this case the auto targeting is screwed, and that you'd have to manually aim the phaser. The only auto targeting possibility I can think of is to have some kind of advanced image recognition where the user can designate the hostile target. That however, would take time, and it would likely be easier to manually aim the phaser provided it has decent sights on it.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-30 05:57pm

Isolder74 wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:Well tricorders are capable of DNA analyzis, so I would assume that they could regognize individuals through DNA comparison (a bit extreme, but could be done).
and this takes how long? This can't be a viable alternative while in the middle of combat when you need the weapon to work now, you don't have minutes to analyse your enemies before you can pop him one as they rush your position! Even having to wait seconds before you can safely fire is cripling in combat.

Commbadges are actually an option for IFF, depending on the situation. You and your friends set your badges to transmit a low-power signal that your phasers recognize.

There are disadvantages, of course. Even a low-power signal can give away your position (a potentially deadly problem), and an adversary that feels comfortable with manual targeting might be able to duplicate your signal and foil your targeting sensor.

I can foresee a lot of situations in which auto-targeting capability would be useless for such a weapon.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-30 06:00pm

The DS9 TM states that the Bajoran Phaser rifle are technologically similar to Starfleet units. Given that for the majority of DS9 the Type-3s were used and Bajoran weapons never fired pulses, the comparison seems clear. As stated by the DS9 TM: “The Rifle also contains a seeker/tracker, which operates primarily on IR and amplified biogenic fields. During the occupation, some early rifle units were outfitted with target discriminators: Bajoran fighters using coded biogenic transponders, in theory, would not be hit by friendly fire.” The implication of this statement is quite clear. Bajoran weapons used Friend/Foe systems as well as varying targeting programs. These rifles are stated similar to the Type-3s.

As to how the operator choose his target. Not a damned clue.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-30 06:07pm

Alyeska wrote:As stated by the DS9 TM: “The Rifle also contains a seeker/tracker, which operates primarily on IR and amplified biogenic fields. During the occupation, some early rifle units were outfitted with target discriminators: Bajoran fighters using coded biogenic transponders, in theory, would not be hit by friendly fire.”

The implication of this statement is quite clear. Bajoran weapons used Friend/Foe systems as well as varying targeting programs. These rifles are stated similar to the Type-3s.

That works fine if your friends are all Bajoran and your enemies are all Cardassian (or in any other situation where forces are racially distinct). It's useless if the opposing forces are racially mixed or similar, but that doesn't actually seem to be a terribly common situation in Trek.

Alyeska wrote:As to how the operator choose his target. Not a damned clue.

A soldier who wants to personally choose targets with such a weapon would probably have to turn the automatic system off and aim manually.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-01-30 10:52pm

I don't buy the auto targeting of phasers BS. There is absolutely no evidence of this in any cannon trek.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 12:10am

Admiral_K wrote:I don't buy the auto targeting of phasers BS. There is absolutely no evidence of this in any cannon trek.

Other then the fact that they can score high success rates against targets at medium distance while not using any sights. It is quite impossible for them to have the accuracy rate they do if they are firing with no sights and no targeting capabilities.

And you want a canon source that very implicitly implies auto targeting?

Major Kira wrote:Now this is an entirely different animal. It's Federation standard issue. A little less powerful, but with more options... sixteen beam settings... fully autonomous recharge... multiple target acquisition... gyrostablized... the works..”

We have visuals showing high levels of accuracy without the use of sights. We have weapons firing off axis. And we have this quote. The statements from the DS9 TM support the canon evidence nicely.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-01-31 12:38am

The alternative, of course, is that virtually every person in Starfleet is an extra-ordinarily good marskman, and has phenomenally good luck.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 12:42am

Publius wrote:The alternative, of course, is that virtually every person in Starfleet is an extra-ordinarily good marskman, and has phenomenally good luck.

Not bloody likely all things considered IMO.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-01-31 12:48am

This auto-targeting capability my explain why we never see phasers on full auto since it takes a split second to target someone to effectivily hit something.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-01-31 02:45am

Alyeska wrote:
Publius wrote:The alternative, of course, is that virtually every person in Starfleet is an extra-ordinarily good marskman, and has phenomenally good luck.
Not bloody likely all things considered IMO.

Of course it's not very likely. Strictly speaking, the likelihood of this being the case is so negligible as to be effectively nil.

Which, of course, is why the existence of limited automatic targetting on phasers is highly probable -- and indeed, preferable -- , the lack of clear canonical evidence supporting it notwithstanding.

Publius

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-31 09:39am

Let's not forget, however, that Federation sensors tend to fail at the drop of a hat. Yes, yes -- I know -- that's an exaggeration, but numerous phenomena, both natural and artificial, interfere with sensor function. The automatic target acquisition is probably a very nice feature when it's working, but I can't imagine it being very reliable. That might explain the move to rifles with more conventional sighting mechanisms in ST:FC and later.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-31 04:46pm

Well, demands that they must have autotargetting because they hit the target often aside(Do we demand the gunman in Lupin The Third has autotargetting?), I still have trouble with this concept because there are so many times they don't hit the target. One nice example is Nor The Battle For The Strong, where, as I recall, a Feddie misses, multiple times, inside of five meters(We'll ignore his choice of cover because it's embarassing...). Or on TNG, when a Ferrengi can simply duck out of the way of Worf's shots. Autoaiming will put everyone on equal grounds for accuracy.. The fact main characters have good accuracy is just because the main characters have lots of training with phasers.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-31 04:51pm

SirNitram wrote:Well, demands that they must have autotargetting because they hit the target often aside(Do we demand the gunman in Lupin The Third has autotargetting?), I still have trouble with this concept because there are so many times they don't hit the target. One nice example is Nor The Battle For The Strong, where, as I recall, a Feddie misses, multiple times, inside of five meters(We'll ignore his choice of cover because it's embarassing...). Or on TNG, when a Ferrengi can simply duck out of the way of Worf's shots. Autoaiming will put everyone on equal grounds for accuracy.. The fact main characters have good accuracy is just because the main characters have lots of training with phasers.

Make sure you know which weapon you're talking about in each incident, SirNitram. Unless I'm mistaken, the shots from Worf that missed Ferengi boarders came from one of the little dust-buster pistols, and I don't think anyone's claiming that those have auto-aim (are they?).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-31 04:56pm

Ted C wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Well, demands that they must have autotargetting because they hit the target often aside(Do we demand the gunman in Lupin The Third has autotargetting?), I still have trouble with this concept because there are so many times they don't hit the target. One nice example is Nor The Battle For The Strong, where, as I recall, a Feddie misses, multiple times, inside of five meters(We'll ignore his choice of cover because it's embarassing...). Or on TNG, when a Ferrengi can simply duck out of the way of Worf's shots. Autoaiming will put everyone on equal grounds for accuracy.. The fact main characters have good accuracy is just because the main characters have lots of training with phasers.
Make sure you know which weapon you're talking about in each incident, SirNitram. Unless I'm mistaken, the shots from Worf that missed Ferengi boarders came from one of the little dust-buster pistols, and I don't think anyone's claiming that those have auto-aim (are they?).

I've seen it claimed in places.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-01-31 05:07pm

SirNitram wrote: I've seen it claimed in places.

Well, just so it's crystal clear, I'm not making any such claim.

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-01-31 05:18pm

Other then the fact that they can score high success rates against targets at medium distance while not using any sights. It is quite impossible for them to have the accuracy rate they do if they are firing with no sights and no targeting capabilities.

You cant account for that accuracy? Um Maybe they've practiced? Furthermore, what do you consider medium range? I don't ever recall seeing any trek groundcombat at even what we would consider standard engagement range today with assualt riffles. And how do you account for there MISSES at short range? Not to mention it is much easier to aim a beam weapon that isn't affected by wind and effectively has a tracer to the target that you can easily see. That is why we put laser sights on guns. Hell, stupid punk kids with laser pointers can line the things up fairly easy in auditoriums.

Besides all that, I would dare say the accuracy of standard U.S. troops today would be at least comparable to the accuracy of trek troops.

Sorry but your explanation just isn't gonna fly. And your non cannon TM isn't gonna do it either.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-31 05:43pm

Admiral_K wrote:

Other then the fact that they can score high success rates against targets at medium distance while not using any sights. It is quite impossible for them to have the accuracy rate they do if they are firing with no sights and no targeting capabilities.
You cant account for that accuracy? Um Maybe they've practiced? Furthermore, what do you consider medium range? I don't ever recall seeing any trek groundcombat at even what we would consider standard engagement range today with assualt riffles. And how do you account for there MISSES at short range? Not to mention it is much easier to aim a beam weapon that isn't affected by wind and effectively has a tracer to the target that you can easily see. That is why we put laser sights on guns. Hell, stupid punk kids with laser pointers can line the things up fairly easy in auditoriums.

Besides all that, I would dare say the accuracy of standard U.S. troops today would be at least comparable to the accuracy of trek troops.

Sorry but your explanation just isn't gonna fly. And your non cannon TM isn't gonna do it either.

You are making several mistakes with your assumptions. First you are assuming that they are skilled at firing their weapons without sights. This takes years of practice and is not very good for combat situations in which you hold the weapon in various angles. Second, you compare a weapon with no sights to a weapon that has sights. Third, you do no realize how insanely difficult it is to achieve a 77% accuracy out to 50 meters with absolutely no sights on a weapon.

And my explination fits the facts, unlike your opinion. Fact is we see off axis shots. Fact is we see high levels of accuracy without use of sights. Fact is we have dialogue that clearly indicates auto target capabilities. Those are all canon facts and nothing you have said can over ride them. And my non-canon TM quote SUPPORTS these facts which further gives them standing.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-01-31 08:01pm

I wouldnt doubt that The Feds use some kind of auto targeting, they are very proficient at sometime applying and even overapplying technology to perform certain tasks. However, despite the accuracy, does it make the Feds efficient at ground combat? If they could apply the tech that makes their phasers so accurate to powerful and more practical ground weaponry then maybe we could take them seriously.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Phaser auto-target capabilities?

Phaser auto-target capabilities?

Combadge