From: mperry@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SR: Ruthenium(?) Swords
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:10:29 GMT
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <BuJM3J.9yp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White) writes:
> wildcard@nevada.edu ( WildCard !!) writes:
> 
>>In article <BuFDzJ.9z8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White) writes:
> 
>>>If you think about it carefully, you would realize that camouflage
>>>has a negligible affect for moving objects, *even if* the camouflage
>>>is dynamic.  Remember the Predator?  When hiding in the bushes, he
>>>was extremely difficult to spot.  When moving around and killing people,
>>>he was only marginally more difficult to track than a normal target.
>>>Think that something better than the Predator camou is possible?
>>>Not unless you go to a full Romulan Cloakinig Device.  Fact is that, since
>>>most people have two eyes, merely altering the surface of an object
>>>to *any* degree will not hide it completely in the background,
>>>and, I repeat, especially when it moves.
> 
>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but (if memory serves) Shadowtech explicitly says
>>that the fibers can change color so quickly that there is no distortion or
>>bleeding with motion. There is one target number to spot Ruthenium and it is
>>the same still as it is moving and it is based on the numer of sensors you
>>have for the unit. "Better" than Predator cammo is possible *and* it is a full
>>suit of Ruthenium fibers with 10+ sensors on it and and extended battery pack
>>to keep the fibers blending for more than a couple of minutes. (sidenote: the
>>Predators cammo is superior in the fact that it seemed to be able to used 
>>indefinately and is not wrecked too badly by damage to the wearer).
> 
> Perhaps, I did not make my main point sufficiently clear: *no* amount of
> mere camouflaging can completely hide a three dimensional object in
> its background, and the object moving will vastly compound the problem.
> I want to first clarify the difference between camouflaging and cloaking.
> A cloaking device somehow distorts the very fabric of space such that
> radiation (of some frequency range) will bend around the "bubble"
> containing the Romulan Warbird.  Light is simply moving around the
> cloaked ship uninterupted be the hull.  However, with camouflage, the
> surface of an object is altered in its optical properties to resemble
> whatever is in its background.  This is a fundamentally different
> kind of effect.  Consider a very simple & silly example: hiding a shoebox in
> an empty polka dot room.  Presumably, the box is sitting somewhere
> on the floor (or even suspended in the air) and is painted to blend
> into what is behind it from my line of sight.  I concede that, in
> principle, it is plausible to paint this shoebox such that I will
> not see it, i.e. all those polka dots are very precisely placed to
> line up with the pattern behind it and the shading is carefully
> done to compensate for the lighting.  Already we have the problem
> that it will cast a shadow, but I will forgive that failing for a
> moment.  What happens as I casually stroll about the room?  Those
> polka dots will no longer line up with the background pattern!
> The optimal camou pattern depends on my point of observation.
> In fact, our shy shoebox may have trouble hiding simply because
> I have two eyes.  The problem is a matter of ray tracing: a surface
> emulating its background *cannot* guarantee perfect blending
> from more that a single point of view.  This has *nothing* to do with
> the speed of the color shifting.  If the shoebox is moving, it
> will make things vastly more difficult for our Gedanken experiment
> painter (and speed is not a factor here).  Now hiding motionless
> next to a wall would yield some minimal distortion of the wall
> pattern and would be highly effective.  But, IMO, a moving distortion
> will be quickly and easily noticed since our brains are quite good at
> at integrating spatial information.  I reiterate: the telltale
> distortions are inevitable.
> 
> The unavoidable problem is that even a perfect active system of camouflage
> is far too passive at hiding spatial information.  What is needed
> is some form of cloaking, say a massive local holographic override
> of all visual information.
> 
> I am not talking about rules here, merely reality.  Ignore it if
> you see fit.
Yes, camouflage has a problem. It can be seen.
But if you have an abject which is camouflaged it will be much harder to see
and much harder to avoid. As shown in the predetor movie which is being quoted.
people new it was there. It could be seen if searched for - but this took time.
time enough to die. Unless you are looking directly at the cloaked object and
looking for a cloaked object, you will probably dismiss any distortion in your
sight as some mist, blurred sight etc. Although the object is not totally
hidden, it is well enough hidden to do extra surprise damage. Even if it is
expected it still takes time to locate the camouflaged object (still giving a
surprise bonus).

Someone mentioned that a swords man could interpret the stance of the player
wielding the hidden sword, but what if the player is just as much an expert,
then they could use this to give misleading info to the other. Not all people
are experts so most people would be surprised by such a weopon. Someone who can
fight blind would be able to combat the hidden sword as they don't need to see
their opponents weopon.