2046 wrote:The canon status of props is less relevant given that we see the 'sighting window' in use on-screen, just not the display. Wah Chang actually built it as a working little window that allowed sighting down the barrel, 'cause he was a badass.
Mike DiCenso wrote:
The shooting props or the Art Asylum reproductions? The Art Asylum reproductions were so good that some were used in the ST:ENT episodes "In a Mirror, Darkly, 1 & 2" within only slight modification. But as RSA pointed out, the actual "hero" props were shown using those features on a few occasions.
Cool. I can appreciate the props, and certainly the replicas wouldn't actually have "canon" status, but even if you can't normally see it during normal viewing, if the originals actually worked or are identified at some point as a targeting sight, it's easier to dismiss the "well that could be a status screen" or other potential write-offs.
2046 wrote:Hell, if it were me, I would open up the beam width just a wee tiny bit and hose the hillside until something screamed.
Heheh. I don't wanna have a shoot out with you, you don't fight "sportingly" like the script! But, like I said in one of the video comments, it's hard to draw a balance between what the equipment should be able to do and what the show inevitably has the cast actually do. Heck, as an intelligent viewer, not bound by the power of plot, I would/could do a
lot of things differently with the equipment available, as would most anybody, as you just noted.
2046 wrote:As for phaser range, sure you can't aim precisely at a target you can scarcely even see. But they aren't trying to do surgical strikes against the Gorn.
Mike DiCenso wrote:
But what I found interesting and Brian seemed to brush off, was the dialog of Kirk telling Lang and Kelowitz to lay down the cover fire on the coordinates that Spock gave earlier. So phaser pistols can be accurate enough for that purpose up to that distance, if nothing else, other wise it is once again a waste sending those two crewmen out there like that.
Mike DiCenso wrote:You forgot gyro stabilization and probably little to no recoil, all of which are big factors here in favor of the phaser that a modern real life combat rifle user has to contend with.
Definitely the phaser pistol can emit a deadly beam to coordinates 1500 yards away, I think Brian has acknowledged that as well, its the idea that the "pistol" can't be "aimed" that far that seems to be the big focus. Phaser rifles like seen in Rocks and Shoals can do it, I'd guess the range there to be well over 100 meters even, and they are "rifles" with "multiple-target acquisition," Sisko even said they had phasers "locked on" before the Jem'Hadar charge. But that seems to be the big fall back, the idea that the Fed's will be stuck with pistols 9 times out of 10. I don't buy that, but that focus has made the pistol's targeting mechanism a major issue. Even with the benefits of a recoilless, stabilized beam weapon, without stronger evidence of the type II having either some kind of discrete zoom function or assisted targeting, it's a hard sell to suggest effective targeting on a man sized object that's getting pretty small by the time he's 200 or 300 meters out.
That's a sidetrack though. For the immediate topic at hand, an armored vehicle like a Sherman tank is easily 6 times as big, and just as easy to hit at 6 times the range. On top of that, the phaser wielder shouldn't be engaged in the same "raise from cover and take a quick shot" style of combat, raising the accuracy bar even further. Like you said though 2046, you need to be able to see you target. Judging by my laser pointer experiment, and assuming the laser dot serves as a comparable sighting mechanism to whatever is employed by the phaser, a tank should be pretty easy to tag even at 600 meters, but even assuming gyro-stabilization, at that range I'd think hitting it at all is about all I could hope to accomplish. Past 1000 meters even a honking big tank is getting pretty small, and again, unless there is some sort of target-assist, I may even miss the big beast.
I guess that's where I'm getting stuck, I'm not sold on the idea that the type II can pick off targets at such range, after all, if the "pistol" already has enough gadgetry to perform as a sniper's implement, why do they even make the type III? But definitely I agree, even limiting things to a manually targeted type II, I think Brian is severely underestimating it's effective "dangerous" range, especially against such a large target, even if accuracy does begin to trail off.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Well, yes, FX and other production issues have made this hobby more...interesting... But they have also lead to the "off-axis" firing phenomena that can only be explained away with auto targeting.
-Mike
Interesting, yes. A production limitation turning into a huge technological feature makes me nervous. Although in a case such as that, the effect is so
prevalent, and auto targeting so beautifully explains the weird effect, it's too perfect to write off. But it has to stop somewhere, or we end up with things like psychic doors. (Yes, I've read the Nitpickers Guide too.) From there, your in a position of explaining why particle beams travel more slowly than bullets and end up needing auto targeting to compensate for discharges that mere mortals can can dodge Neo style, à la Picard in TNG Conspiracy. Whew. Enough rant. You see may hesitation though. Hand phasers are way too accurate to be dumb fired vacuum cleaners, but miss often enough that I'm not sold on either the existence, or overall effectiveness of any auto targeting system.