Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on September 28, 2008, 03:53:05 am
-
Mobius, the creator names the created. When you make a model, you can call it whatever you want.
Got it...afterall, Jackal is pretty much like Scarab so it should work :nod:
I know...Anubis is one of the coolest Egyptian Gods...the problem is that the name "Jackal" itself doesn't fit well for a Vasudan ship.
Well, there's Scarab....the scarab was a very important animal back then...but it's a support ship...I don't know if a fighter could have a name that is just connected to ancient Egypt and nothing more.
Scarab gives precedence for non-diety names. Whether it's a support ship or not is irrelevant. Jackal has significance in Ancient Egypt too, not really good significance, since the one website I found the Jackals ravaged graves of the deceased. He could always name it "Domesticated Cat" but that would be goofy.
Back on topic. Only thing with the Jackal concept though, is if the Vasudans have a drone fighter, why do they carry out suicide attacks with the Anubis instead of the Jackal? Or is the assumption that all Jackals were converted to the Anubis?
The importance of a ship is somewhat connected to its name. The Watchdog is nothing but a sentry gun...nobody would have liked a GTF Watchdog(or Hound, for that matter).
Maybe the Vasudans found out that drones are easy to hijack and light subsystem damage inflicted to a drone can turn a kamikaze run into a failure...
-
The Vasudans easily reprogrammed a few sentry guns in Tenderizer which can sometimes take out a few of your wingmen if they're too close.
(though the explosion from an exploding fighter takes out all the other sentry guns)
-
The Terrans could have been able to reprogram the drones...imagine a capship battle...a Typhon launches several wings of Jackal drones programmed to perform a kamikaze run on an Orion...the Terrans reprogram the Jackals...they change their target and point to the Typhon...
Such an accident should be enough to justify the presence of kamikaze pilots...
-
I believe this is the reason that upgraded Amazons aren't used in real battles.
-
By generalizing we can say that this is the reason why no one in FreeSpace relies on drones...
-
The Terrans could have been able to reprogram the drones...imagine a capship battle...a Typhon launches several wings of Jackal drones programmed to perform a kamikaze run on an Orion...the Terrans reprogram the Jackals...they change their target and point to the Typhon...
Such an accident should be enough to justify the presence of kamikaze pilots...
How exactly would a terran destroyer during combat manage to reprogram several wings of fighter craft that are likely protected from hacking by some means?
-
The Terrans could have been able to reprogram the drones...imagine a capship battle...a Typhon launches several wings of Jackal drones programmed to perform a kamikaze run on an Orion...the Terrans reprogram the Jackals...they change their target and point to the Typhon...
Such an accident should be enough to justify the presence of kamikaze pilots...
How exactly would a terran destroyer during combat manage to reprogram several wings of fighter craft that are likely protected from hacking by some means?
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be that easy... but if the Terrans had been working on it for several months, they might be able to come up with a working signal or whatever to override the security stuffs remotely... it might be a good move in a surprise situation, especially if you could somehow get the Vasudans to devote more resources to building them beforehand ;7
-
Expert crew aboard the ship using the multiple relay to send a tranmission able to compromise the drones' effectiveness in combat by turning the Jackals against the Typhon? And what if the drones can be hacked all at once since their orders can be changed all on the same frequency?
There are 10,000 people aboard an Orion. 5-10 of them should have enough spare time to do that.
-
10,000 people is a lot of crew. Considering the Star Trek creators could get away with having 5 people maintaining an entire ship, I don't see why 10,000 people being able to reprogram a few drones or sentry guns such a hard thing to believe.
-
...especially if the Vasudans had the misfortune of facing a GTI Orion...
-
Well, I doubt they'd be hacked the firts time, but eventually, especially if one were captured, hacking them would be quite possible.
-
Maybe not the first time...and you know, a trap doesn't work two times with a wolf...
-
Second time you just pull out the nukes.
-
Well, I doubt they'd be hacked the firts time, but eventually, especially if one were captured, hacking them would be quite possible.
If they get captured, then I doubt that the zods would be stupid enough leave the same security features on the ships that weren't captured. And I doubt any would be captured ever, because the zods would probably just self destruct them when they got into the hanger bay, or there would probably be some fallback security routine for it to self destruct when the drone is crippled enough to be captured.
Reprogramming stuff isn't as simple as people would like to make it seem. If a Typhon jumps in and starts launching Jackals at an Orion, I'd guess that the people on the Orion have about 5 minutes tops before fighters start impacting their hull. Why do you think they don't reprogram bomb's guidance systems? Why would the zods need to put a difference in between a bomb's guidance system and a kamikaze drone's guidance system?
-
Since they're being used specifically for kamikaze, why not just have no external communications?
-
If they get captured, then I doubt that the zods would be stupid enough leave the same security features on the ships that weren't captured. And I doubt any would be captured ever, because the zods would probably just self destruct them when they got into the hanger bay, or there would probably be some fallback security routine for it to self destruct when the drone is crippled enough to be captured.
Three letters: E.M.P. An EMP hit would overload and knock out all systems, preventing any communications to trigger a self destruct. You could however, say "well they could just shield them from EMP", but ships even in the FS2 era are still susceptible to EMP, so that idea's gone. I could perhaps see there being a firmware reboot system in place, but there'd be a window of opportunity to capture one and interrupt the reboot system.
-
How would you interrupt the reboot?
I expect it wouldn't be too hard to implement a sort of dead man's switch if avoiding capture is that important.
Of course, the no communication method doesn't really have any problems with captured drones.
-
Uh... isn't an EMP burst akin to getting struck by lightening for circuits? In freespace these circuits are repaired over time (presumably by nanomachinery) but a "firmware reboot" doesn't work if the hardware itself has been effectively fried.
-
If they get captured, then I doubt that the zods would be stupid enough leave the same security features on the ships that weren't captured. And I doubt any would be captured ever, because the zods would probably just self destruct them when they got into the hanger bay, or there would probably be some fallback security routine for it to self destruct when the drone is crippled enough to be captured.
Three letters: E.M.P. An EMP hit would overload and knock out all systems, preventing any communications to trigger a self destruct. You could however, say "well they could just shield them from EMP", but ships even in the FS2 era are still susceptible to EMP, so that idea's gone. I could perhaps see there being a firmware reboot system in place, but there'd be a window of opportunity to capture one and interrupt the reboot system.
Any EMP that is powerful enough to knock out the functional capabilities of a ship is liable to corrupt and destroy any useful information. And any nanomachinery that would possibly repair the equipment would be destroyed as well. The ship would still be intact, but it wouldn't be able to operate.
If this isn't the case, then given what happens in game: The disable time isn't long enough to disable the self-destruct saftey, and it would just self destruct when it reboots if physically attempted to be hauled away via a freighter or something.
-
How are drones any different from manned fighters when it comes to vulnerability to hacking or EMP?
They're both controlled completely electronically.
-
How are drones any different from manned fighters when it comes to vulnerability to hacking or EMP?
They're both controlled completely electronically.
In a manned craft, the thing that decides what to shoot is a person, not a program. (assuming we're not talking about remotely operated craft)
-
How can you hack a system without a hard line? If the drone is autonomous, it's not receiving target data from it's mothership. There's no link to disrupt. If the drone's target is preprogrammed prior to launch, and heads out to do it's thing. And has no sort of data recieving method other than its sensors, how can it be interfered with, aside from direct attacks??
People probably point to the BSG episode, Separate or whatever it was called, season 2 ep 1 where the BSG loses the fleet and gets hacked by the Cylons while they're doing their calculations. but I've heard more than a few people say that's a pile of BS.
-
People probably point to the BSG episode, Separate or whatever it was called, season 2 ep 1 where the BSG loses the fleet and gets hacked by the Cylons while they're doing their calculations. but I've heard more than a few people say that's a pile of BS.
It's not only a pile of BS but it's got AIDS, too. AFAIK all they did was hook one computer up to another physically, with wires and stuff. Hacking that like the cylons is like using a wifi packet sniffer to hack into a USB cable.
-
How are drones any different from manned fighters when it comes to vulnerability to hacking or EMP?
They're both controlled completely electronically.
In a manned craft, the thing that decides what to shoot is a person, not a program. (assuming we're not talking about remotely operated craft)
But the flight controls are totally electronic. If you can get in to the system deep enough to reprogram a drone AI, surely you can send false commands into the flight systems.
-
But what they're saying is that the drones don't have any input that could be used to reprogram it in flight...
-
And he's saying that if a drone could be reprogrammed, then why not just reprogram fighters with pilots. There's no reason to assume that there would be major differences in terms of effort or skill required between the two.
-
Well you could reprogram a fighter maybe, but the pilot would probably have manual overrides, and it takes completely different stuff to reprogram a person than to reprogram a machine.
-
What could this manual override do?
-
Disable any autopilot/weapons lockdown/something, idunno.
-
Despite all that being controlled electronically?
-
But what they're saying is that the drones don't have any input that could be used to reprogram it in flight...
I agree with that, but...
And he's saying that if a drone could be reprogrammed, then why not just reprogram fighters with pilots. There's no reason to assume that there would be major differences in terms of effort or skill required between the two.
This.
Well you could reprogram a fighter maybe, but the pilot would probably have manual overrides, and it takes completely different stuff to reprogram a person than to reprogram a machine.
And again, as Spicious said, the pilot can only interact with his fighter via electronic controls -- unless the manual overrides are somehow analog, like a big guillotine that chops some important connection. If the fighters of FS2 are anything like today's fighters, they can't be flown without computer assistance.
-
What could this manual override do?
Axe in the control panel.
-
Yeah, but then you can't fly your ship.
-
But at least then, your ship can't fly to death.
-
Not to restart this debate, but it's very unlikely either side can reprogram drones in-flight. If such a technique was available it could just as easily be used on the fly-by-wire commands of manned fighters.
Reprogramming sentry guns could be done via disruption and hard contact with the drone systems.
-
How are drones any different from manned fighters when it comes to vulnerability to hacking or EMP?
They're both controlled completely electronically.
In a manned craft, the thing that decides what to shoot is a person, not a program. (assuming we're not talking about remotely operated craft)
But the flight controls are totally electronic. If you can get in to the system deep enough to reprogram a drone AI, surely you can send false commands into the flight systems.
I am afraid this is a whole "hack the manned fighters" is based on a fallacious assumption: that because they're both electronic they operate in the same manner.
Nothing could be further from the truth:
-A manned fighter is controlled by the pilot and the pilot alone. All control systems are slaved to him, and the fighter doesn't react to any external input/transmission by default. You can have some rudimentary stuff like a self-destruct code, but since those codes are rarely ever transmitted and can be kept very complex the enemy is really unlikely to decrypt and use those.
-A drone on the other hand has to be remote controlled all the time. It is *by design* only acting on external commands. There is lots of communication toward the drones, so the enemy has a lot of data to analyze and this makes cracking the control codes easier. To circumvent this you'd need drones with a good enough AI to fight on their own...
...and at one point they'll say: You can't do that Dave.
-
That is a good point.
In the modern sense, yes, a drone is remote-operated. But Freespace drones could go either way. We don't know if they're run by a remote pilot on some sort of subspace link, or if they have autonomous AI.
-
Read the Amazon's Tech Description. Drones are definitely autonomous.
-
Yep. Which is why they'd be no easier to reprogram (probably) than manned fighters. Perhaps a slight edge.
-
Uhm, moving this split thread to General FreeSpace Discussion would be more appropriate.
On a side note, it's kind of strange that in the future(according to the FS Universe) AIs will not be good enough to be effectively used to create drones.
-
On a side note, it's kind of strange that in the future(according to the FS Universe) AIs will not be good enough to be effectively used to create drones.
Yeah I agree.
-
Someone knows what happen when the Russians used Dogs with AT mines to destroy German tanks in WW2?
Well this is the same problem, if you going to do a kamikaze attack you better do it yourselft. Try a "cheap" mean and you may get a surprise.
-
Why use missiles instead of Drones to destroy a target.
-
Why use missiles instead of Drones to destroy a target.
A drone can carry a bigger warhead.
-
Programmed drones aren't exactly the same thing, though...
And aren't torpedoes a form of programmed, mobile weapons tasked to "go kamikaze" on a target? The point is that, one way or another, you will always have to rely on technology to win an interstellar war. You can't take down ships with fists.
-
Programmed drones aren't exactly the same thing, though...
And aren't torpedoes a form of programmed, mobile weapons tasked to "go kamikaze" on a target? The point is that, one way or another, you will always have to rely on technology to win an interstellar war. You can't take down ships with fists.
Technology is a big part of it but it's not all of the equation.
-
It's the most important thing. You may have good leaders, soldiers and pilots but unless you have good technology as well you won't achieve anything. As I said, you can't take out ships with fists.
*unless your nick is Mobius :p*
-
It's the most important thing. You may have good leaders, soldiers and pilots but unless you have good technology as well you won't achieve anything. As I said, you can't take out ships with fists.
Not true (in FS terms).
In FS1, the Terrans and Vasudans were completely outclassed. They couldn't touch the Shivans - They couldn't even see them. The Shivans were so far ahead in terms of technology, and yet the GTA and PVN were able to fight back and turn their own stuff against them.
Ok, sure, they had to steal their technology in the end to win, but you get me point.
-
My thoughts:
Missiles would use the same complicated AI that Drones would. They use the same sensors to find their target.
So there are those 30 drones attacking the GTD Orion. The Orion launches a dozen countermeasures the size of cargo containers, heavily armored, and dumbfired in the direction of the Typhon. One of them hits it's target, docks with it, and gets sprayed by bombs, missiles, 'lazers' and finally the Vasudan drones themselves. Once the CM container gets destroyed, every projectile will hit the Typhon.
Now the GTA, who are attacking with some GTF Angels and GTB Apollos (flame me for using ships that have never been seen as .pof's :p), will not have the problem of their strike craft returning to base, shooting each and every weapon they have when a cargo container described "PVD Typhon" on the sensors flies by...
(I actually hope to see something like this in the next JAD ;7)
And if the Vasudans wanted to hack into the GTA fighters, I'll bet there is a switch somewhere that physically blocks writing in the strike craft's memory. And if that fails, there's this switch that turns the autopilot off which should work too.
-
GTF Angels and GTB Apollos (flame me for using ships that have never been seen as .pof's :p)
Wat.
-
(I actually hope to see something like this in the next JAD ;7)
I just want to SEE a next JAD. :P
-
GTF Angels and GTB Apollos (flame me for using ships that have never been seen as .pof's :p)
Wat.
Right, there was a GTF Angel modeled... but I never heard of the 2 seater Apollo from the FS 1 intro being made.
-
Um, the BSG analogy is a pile of BS...
1.) They had infiltrators in the Colonies working with the latest Colonial tech for months.
2.) No doubt rebuilt mock ups at their home base systems for testing.
3.) Had Trojan program in place thanks to Adar and Baltar.
Thus once in range just sending the Trojan command opened the back door to any command they wanted.
primarily the "SHUT DOWN", or critical fail type command was used.
That took 1 year+ of planning and implementation.
Not to mention they themselves were the pinnacle of AI and electronic tech at the time and had plenty of old Colonial tech salvaged to experiment on.
I highly doubt any competently designed system will be hacked by an unknown tech base in the duration of a dogfight. (barring debris salvaged and then the amount of time it takes for said salvagers to break down , analyze, and then devise new strategies to exploit any weaknesses in said tech...)
I'm not saying you start running on a clock once you use such a strategy, but you do have a window where as long as you win you don't have to worry about the tech being compromised...
Nuff said.
I'm gonna have to bone up on drone knowledge especially since the MacII forces use several drones on board their fighters as well as the other factions have "Ghost" variants so while not FS2, it is STILL related enough to mention (Drone combat). Drones are used as a FORCE MULTIPLIER.
GTVA either doesn't believe the effort would be worth the cost, or that maybe it's too vulnerable at this point aside from training purposes.
OR it's entirely possible it simply hasn't occired to them yet... :drevil:
-
I dont know... i think the Athena was already in service along with the Angel and the Apollo... its just, the Athena description suggest is not a new development...
I mean there is no trace, ANYWHERE, about a GTB Apollo, just the intro vid, and even so, that pilot was alone, and in a patrol mission when attacked... so i think all of this about the GTB Apollo its just a myth, and just a mistake in the video... (one more of the 132982134).
Lets call the mythbusters ¿?
-
There is actually a GTB Apollo somewhere on HLP. Made by GalEmp, IIRC.
-
Not true (in FS terms).
In FS1, the Terrans and Vasudans were completely outclassed. They couldn't touch the Shivans - They couldn't even see them. The Shivans were so far ahead in terms of technology, and yet the GTA and PVN were able to fight back and turn their own stuff against them.
Ok, sure, they had to steal their technology in the end to win, but you get me point.
My point was different.
I was saying that technology is important and is the key to fight an interstellar war - without it you can't even damage ships in the first place. Technological superiority is another matter.
-
Hey is it not the TAG A and TAG B missiles that you use to target paint your enemy an so provide actual targeting coord's for the AAAF weaponty of the friendly ship ?
If terran tech was so easy to hack into by the shivans then the least they could do is hack into the computer that control's targeting for the AAAF weaponry and turn them against the GTVA???
I believe ppl have watched too much BSG and are using the same logic here. However there is a huge difference here. The Shivan's were not created by man and are not some super computer nerds/toasters!
-
Maybe the Shivans don't care? Or maybe don;t even recognise that level of tech (too low).
We just don't know enough about the Shivans as a culture or mindset.
personally I liek to believe they are a extermination unit for containing something else goen out fo control, or just doing "collateral damage" on a scale that the makers deem as "minimal". :)
-
If you want remote controll of a dron with minimal hacking suceptability, just use a line-of-sight lazer link, the controll ship would have to have a multitude of these, and if the drone was passing out of sight from it's transmitter, it would recive a swich code, then the transmitters would switch and would give a verification code. If the beam is broken without the switch code it activates a self-destruct.
-
You have as much of a chance to reprogram a drone in combat before it kills you as you have a chance to reprogram a cruise missile to turn around and kill whatever launched it.
-
I will interject that if the weapon in question does have a selt destruct (abort) feature, providing you can hack it in minuest, seconds or less, you could in theory neutralize it...
-
Hacking would become a problem if they tried to create drones capable of replacing manned fighters/bombers.
Such things would need to be remote controllable. And they could be (more) easily captured and studied by shivans.
-
Very true, but it's all in the DESIGN.
If I may add one of my own ideas:
I have a fighter with 6-8 "drones" I can detach, These drones are updated with MY targeting info so if I shoot at something THEY shoot at it also. If I am destroyed they either lock on and kamikaze the closest enemy unit, or self-destruct.
The key in drone security is access and capability. The more your features are HARD CODED and changeable only on site and NOT via remote, the less you are able to penetrate it and hack it.
At best, if an enemy ever discovers the unique identifier for any ONE fighter and it's drones then if there is any "confusion" a drone can be programmed to self abort until the confusion is abated, or just self destruct.
Ideally this means the enemy can start neutralizing drone sets ONE at a time, but you will neer get them to turn on you. Now if you have an enemy unit broadcasting the EXACT base control IFF signal and destroy the actual controlling fighter THEn you might in theory take over that drone as it's new MASTER...
But in mass combat (and no real focused planning) do you think it would actually happen outside of a bad "sci-fi Channel" movie plot???
I seriously doubt it... :nervous:
The WORSE thing you could ever do is have a base use mass remotes and have them all ont eh SAME FREQ. You are only begging someone with jamming or hacking knowledge to spank your arse with them...
:)
No strategy, however brilliant, survives piss poor incompetent implementation (be it by actual or arm chair generals)...
-
If I may add one of my own ideas:
I have a fighter with 6-8 "drones" I can detach, These drones are updated with MY targeting info so if I shoot at something THEY shoot at it also. If I am destroyed they either lock on and kamikaze the closest enemy unit, or self-destruct.
I believe that could be FREDable...
-
The last bit is FREDdable, but everything before that is moot.
-
Well...you could make them 'attack my target' whenever you hit 'h'.
Or perhaps it could be done through scripting...
However, that would be pretty awesome.
-
Well...you could make them 'attack my target' whenever you hit 'h'.
That would work fine for me.
-
Well...you could make them 'attack my target' whenever you hit 'h'.
You'll need a repeat-count factor right? Last time I checked the max was 5 . . .
-
every-time-argument
-<list of hostile ships>
-is-targeted (or something like that)
----<argument>
-clear-goals
----Drones (make them a wing)
-ai-add-goal
----Drones
----ai-chase
-----<argument>
-----50
Something like that...
You could also rig something together with fire-beam if the said drones use beams, using is-target and key-pressed.
They'd only fire on your target if its in their fire cone, and just have their default order be to guard you.
Crap, I kinda wanna rig together a DRAGOON system now.
-
every-time-argument
-<list of hostile ships>
-is-targeted (or something like that)
----<argument>
-clear-goals
----Drones (make them a wing)
-ai-add-goal
----Drones
----ai-chase
-----<argument>
-----50
Hmm, I didn't think of that. By all rights, it should work fine - although it might not be too practical in anything other than a specialized mission revolving around the drones.