A
Anonymous
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=or ... in_feather
Just something I put together. A simple futuristic UAV drone.
Just something I put together. A simple futuristic UAV drone.
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
A
Anonymous
I don't think they know how to do that. Nonetheless, Could someone actually review this?
This review is for: OI-O1-1A Kirin Feather
The submitted article is/has…
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[x] Artwork (illustrations are strongly encouraged for all spacecraft and handheld items)
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[-] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[-] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[x] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[x] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[x] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[x] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[x] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[x] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[x] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[-] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[-] Lacking Detail
[x] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[x] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[x] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[x] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[x] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Summary
Note here if any serious issues are present. These are the issues that will hold up approval.
** Short description of the issue. If a longer explanation is needed, put it in Notes.
Status: Pending
Notes
This field is for any extra description needed for the issues stated above or (as the name suggests) and additional notes you wish to state in the record regarding the item.
Spelling error: conjuction, purpleish
Grammar error: the the Pawn system
enough to to create
Missing Details:
Need a text description of the appearance
Copypasta
No need to repeat the data on the Compact Electronic Countermeasure Suite
Also as a former radar technician, radar energy does not cause quick damage, it basically microwaves you, and range greatly reduces the risk. So you can not use the radar of the drone as a 4PDR weapon.
Plausibility
The Omni-Directional Vectored Thrusting
they allow the drone to travel up to .40c in any direction
There is no way given the size of this drone that you are going to be able to vector the majority of the thrust in any other direction. Your entire drone would be pretty much nothing but conduits for vectoring the thrust.
Also trying to use this as you described would pretty much destroy the drone. Since you are using thrust, and not a CFS type system that nullifies the rules of inertia. Any major thrust vector of the magnitude you are trying for would pretty much stress the frame to the point of failure and your drone with shatter into debris.
Spearpoint Blade
The damage rating on this is too high it should probably more like a 2 and 3 if the drone rams full speed.
You need to include some kind of shock absorbing method otherwise each time the drone hits with it, you are subjecting the frame to the same force and causing it to take damage.
Final approval will be held until the OI-M1-2A is Reviewed and Approved since this was supposed to be developed at the same time.
The submitted article is/has…
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[x] Artwork (illustrations are strongly encouraged for all spacecraft and handheld items)
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[-] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[-] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view
The submitted article is/does not…
[x] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[x] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[x] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[x] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[x] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[x] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[x] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[-] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[-] Lacking Detail
[x] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)
The article has…
[x] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[x] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[x] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[x] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.
Summary
Note here if any serious issues are present. These are the issues that will hold up approval.
** Short description of the issue. If a longer explanation is needed, put it in Notes.
Status: Pending
Notes
This field is for any extra description needed for the issues stated above or (as the name suggests) and additional notes you wish to state in the record regarding the item.
Spelling error: conjuction, purpleish
Grammar error: the the Pawn system
enough to to create
Missing Details:
Need a text description of the appearance
Copypasta
No need to repeat the data on the Compact Electronic Countermeasure Suite
Also as a former radar technician, radar energy does not cause quick damage, it basically microwaves you, and range greatly reduces the risk. So you can not use the radar of the drone as a 4PDR weapon.
Plausibility
The Omni-Directional Vectored Thrusting
they allow the drone to travel up to .40c in any direction
There is no way given the size of this drone that you are going to be able to vector the majority of the thrust in any other direction. Your entire drone would be pretty much nothing but conduits for vectoring the thrust.
Also trying to use this as you described would pretty much destroy the drone. Since you are using thrust, and not a CFS type system that nullifies the rules of inertia. Any major thrust vector of the magnitude you are trying for would pretty much stress the frame to the point of failure and your drone with shatter into debris.
Spearpoint Blade
The damage rating on this is too high it should probably more like a 2 and 3 if the drone rams full speed.
You need to include some kind of shock absorbing method otherwise each time the drone hits with it, you are subjecting the frame to the same force and causing it to take damage.
Final approval will be held until the OI-M1-2A is Reviewed and Approved since this was supposed to be developed at the same time.
For what its worth, it looks like it'd make a better starship (visually) than some drone unit.
You took the dart concept and made it wonderful with some subversion along the body of the build and by keeping the dart itself simple but other things.... Less simple.
From behind, it looks like some sort of sports-car starship.
It looks brilliant.
You took the dart concept and made it wonderful with some subversion along the body of the build and by keeping the dart itself simple but other things.... Less simple.
From behind, it looks like some sort of sports-car starship.
It looks brilliant.
A
Anonymous
Oh come on Nash, that is crap and you know it.
I can't submit the Kirin until this is approved, and you know that the submission rules say that I can' submit anything that uses unapproved tech.
By saying that you won't approve this until the Kirin is approved, You are, I neffect, saying that you will approve neither!
Also, No-one else puts in a visual description if they have a picture. Why should I?
Also, a highly focused Radar Beam WILL make someone feel like they're in a microwave. If it can make a missile go KABOOOM and FWWWSH in real life, then I don't see why SARP is no different, especially if the plausability rules apply superhard to me and no-one else.
I can't submit the Kirin until this is approved, and you know that the submission rules say that I can' submit anything that uses unapproved tech.
By saying that you won't approve this until the Kirin is approved, You are, I neffect, saying that you will approve neither!
Also, No-one else puts in a visual description if they have a picture. Why should I?
Also, a highly focused Radar Beam WILL make someone feel like they're in a microwave. If it can make a missile go KABOOOM and FWWWSH in real life, then I don't see why SARP is no different, especially if the plausability rules apply superhard to me and no-one else.
mizunoyoroko
Inactive Member
Five. I understand you seem to be upset. Cool down man. You don't need to get upset with Nashoba. He's doing his job, if there are problems or misunderstandings you can voice them politely instead of using inappropriate language.
As for a description: if you have parts that aren't in your model (which is supposed to be of the ship/drone in question) then you will need a description so that people know and understand that.
As for a description: if you have parts that aren't in your model (which is supposed to be of the ship/drone in question) then you will need a description so that people know and understand that.
A
Anonymous
Fine, I made sufficient changes to it.
I will not put shock absorbers on a Kinetic Kill Vehicle, nor will I make a written description, because no-one else does it. Ever.
And i'm keeping the ECM suite's description in the article so people don't have to keep clicking on it from the drone's page to know what it does.
I kept the PDR4 damage from the AESA Radar, because, honestly. Highly Focused Radio waves WILL fry a living being.
I will not put shock absorbers on a Kinetic Kill Vehicle, nor will I make a written description, because no-one else does it. Ever.
And i'm keeping the ECM suite's description in the article so people don't have to keep clicking on it from the drone's page to know what it does.
I kept the PDR4 damage from the AESA Radar, because, honestly. Highly Focused Radio waves WILL fry a living being.
mizunoyoroko
Inactive Member
I'm just saying hostility is not going to help your case. That's all.
On radar: I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it is prolonged exposure (i.e. actively using it as an attack by pointing the radar dish at something for a significant matter of time (30 seconds to minutes depending on the radar). If this craft is of significant speed...well, let's just say it's not a practical weapon. Then again, I'm not one to say you can't have your cool toy.
I can't comment too much on descriptions, I can second that in the past they were only required for things that did not have artwork. Wes has submitted many tech articles that consist solely of statistics and pictures with little else, as have many other people. Of course Wes also owns the site and all content within it, so the rules don't necessarily apply to him. I have seen articles with descriptions and artwork there buddy.
In short dude: step away from the computer for a little bit, cool down and don't get angry at Nashoba for doing his job (I'm pretty sure description is on the checklist). I know you're angry that folks are trollin' your thread, that's not Nashoba's fault. Don't take it out on him.
On radar: I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it is prolonged exposure (i.e. actively using it as an attack by pointing the radar dish at something for a significant matter of time (30 seconds to minutes depending on the radar). If this craft is of significant speed...well, let's just say it's not a practical weapon. Then again, I'm not one to say you can't have your cool toy.
I can't comment too much on descriptions, I can second that in the past they were only required for things that did not have artwork. Wes has submitted many tech articles that consist solely of statistics and pictures with little else, as have many other people. Of course Wes also owns the site and all content within it, so the rules don't necessarily apply to him. I have seen articles with descriptions and artwork there buddy.
In short dude: step away from the computer for a little bit, cool down and don't get angry at Nashoba for doing his job (I'm pretty sure description is on the checklist). I know you're angry that folks are trollin' your thread, that's not Nashoba's fault. Don't take it out on him.
Soresu
Well-Known Member
Alright. I didn't think I'd have to do this but.
First and foremost. Chris, please exit the thread. Anything further from you, and I'll see to it that your privileges of posting here are revoked for a few days.
Uso has been stating things that should be taken into consideration and given thought on in here for once. So lay off the guy. He isn't trolling. He's stating the obvious.
Nashoba is an Administrator, and helps in this forum. Heed his advice as well as the other Tech Mods. Arguments reflect poorly on you as a submitter, human being and in the eyes of your colleagues and peers. SO in short, chill out. It'll be done when it's done, and stop trying to argue a point with a guy who has infinitely more experience with radar then you do. And biting his head off for doing his job makes things harder on you not us.
A link to the ECM works just as well as a description. It's also cleaner.
Submit them back to back, or make a splash page, and submit it all at one time if necessary. That way things get done on an even keel and you avoid this from happening again.
And to all in here. Thank you to those who have kept your cool, and shown civility. However, if I see trolling, foul language, or anything else negatively being projected at someone in here again, I will start deleting posts, and sending PM's out which I do not want to do, but will.
So in short, keep it clean, keep it calm, and keep it civil in here.
First and foremost. Chris, please exit the thread. Anything further from you, and I'll see to it that your privileges of posting here are revoked for a few days.
Uso has been stating things that should be taken into consideration and given thought on in here for once. So lay off the guy. He isn't trolling. He's stating the obvious.
Nashoba is an Administrator, and helps in this forum. Heed his advice as well as the other Tech Mods. Arguments reflect poorly on you as a submitter, human being and in the eyes of your colleagues and peers. SO in short, chill out. It'll be done when it's done, and stop trying to argue a point with a guy who has infinitely more experience with radar then you do. And biting his head off for doing his job makes things harder on you not us.
A link to the ECM works just as well as a description. It's also cleaner.
Submit them back to back, or make a splash page, and submit it all at one time if necessary. That way things get done on an even keel and you avoid this from happening again.
And to all in here. Thank you to those who have kept your cool, and shown civility. However, if I see trolling, foul language, or anything else negatively being projected at someone in here again, I will start deleting posts, and sending PM's out which I do not want to do, but will.
So in short, keep it clean, keep it calm, and keep it civil in here.
First, read what I said.
Final approval will be held until the OI-M1-2A is Reviewed and Approved since this was supposed to be developed at the same time.
I said, the Final Approval would be held, that implicitly states that this will be approved when the Kirin is submitted.
As for appearance text it is a requirement for vehicles,
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=origin:versa
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=st ... itan_class
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=st ... le_shuttle
A simple sentence or two about the appearance is not going to hurt you.
RADAR beams are RF and yes, if you keep the beam on a person you will eventually cook them from the inside out. However, that takes considerable time. Using RADAR to damage a missile or other piece of electronics is fairly easy. Electronics like guidance, and computers etc, have a low threshold for voltage spikes which is what the radar would be causing.
To cook a human being you must heat them up and that takes time. Radar however does not fire a continuous beam of RF, it actually is a pulsed signal that happens many times a second. The beam is rather narrow, and the energy diminishes rapidly. On most aircraft the RADAR at point blank is enough to cause cataracts with a relatively short exposure right in front of the radar dish. But 300 feet away there is no risk.
For the drone to cook someone it would have to keep that narrow beam locked onto the person, and follow their movements, and be at a fairly close range. The laser onbard would be more logical to use than have the drone sitting around cooking the person.
Final approval will be held until the OI-M1-2A is Reviewed and Approved since this was supposed to be developed at the same time.
I said, the Final Approval would be held, that implicitly states that this will be approved when the Kirin is submitted.
As for appearance text it is a requirement for vehicles,
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=origin:versa
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=st ... itan_class
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=st ... le_shuttle
A simple sentence or two about the appearance is not going to hurt you.
Fiver said:
RADAR beams are RF and yes, if you keep the beam on a person you will eventually cook them from the inside out. However, that takes considerable time. Using RADAR to damage a missile or other piece of electronics is fairly easy. Electronics like guidance, and computers etc, have a low threshold for voltage spikes which is what the radar would be causing.
To cook a human being you must heat them up and that takes time. Radar however does not fire a continuous beam of RF, it actually is a pulsed signal that happens many times a second. The beam is rather narrow, and the energy diminishes rapidly. On most aircraft the RADAR at point blank is enough to cause cataracts with a relatively short exposure right in front of the radar dish. But 300 feet away there is no risk.
For the drone to cook someone it would have to keep that narrow beam locked onto the person, and follow their movements, and be at a fairly close range. The laser onbard would be more logical to use than have the drone sitting around cooking the person.
A
Anonymous
Edited the article to standards.
