Thread 23587604

From a taxtical standpoint thermal imaging would invalidate it but before anyone else brings that up minovsky particles disrupt the IR frequencies and they would absolutely have made other counters to thermal optics in the UC

Robots wearing your moms shaggy 1970s pussy don't sell as good.

>>23587604 (OP)
I mean at strong enough concentrations even visible light gets screwed up by Minovsky Particles, there's a reason Dummy Balloons work after all

When you climb into a 60 foot tall mobile suit, stealth isn't your goal. If a mobile suit did have cameo it would have to be some sort of cloaking system, that makes it invisible. Or maybe a non reflective paint that makes it blend into the blackness of space. But then without radar, things might run into it.

>>23587604 (OP)
You can't camouflage robots, they're too big.

>>23587877
I thought that was more the MS' sensors detecting a silhouette and marking it as the target

Mobile Suits are toys. So the answer is no.

>>23587955
This

From a tactical standpoint, they shouldn't even be designed with aesthetics.

>>23587604 (OP)
I could see the benefit of disguising a mech when it's idle outside of the hangar, but in combat they're either in open space or the biggest thing around. Even kneeling the mech is gonna have it's glowing eye head poking up out of most treelines

>>23587959
The eyes don't actually glow, it just looks cool for the audience. Cameras don't glow.

>>23587964
They're giant lens. It's gonna reflect the sun at least. Like a massive sniper scope.

>>23587903
>>23587926
Bright colors will reflect more sunlight and GMs will stand out a mile away
Line of sight is a thing, you clown

>>23587964
Gxuuux seems to disagree at least, the Zakus eye glow changing from blue to red is commented on as an indicator it's armed.

>>23587877
It is certain that such a thing was not taken into consideration back in 1979, but dummy balloons would function as a means to disrupt AI-based image recognition systems.

>>23592412
That is the reason they work, yes. Not sure it was in as far back as 1979, but them being misidentified by the computers' visual systems has been part of the setting for a long time.

>>23592392
gquacks isn't canon to uc.
>>23592412
>>23592439
It's the opposite, the whole "cameras aren't the real feeds, it's actually showing a computer image based on the camera feed" is from the novel. I don't recall if dummy balloons are in that as well or if it's just an explanation the fanbase has come up with from the two concepts.
Never liked that though. If the image was just clarified, sure, like a de-noise pass. But actively making up imagery with "it looks like it, so it must be" is insane to me. If it was strong enough of a fake that it's actually completely inventing information, like seeing a balloon and saying "yup, that looks like a mobile suit, so I'll create an image of a mobile suit to show you", what would it do for new designs it hasn't encountered before? Would it literally display a blue zaku the first time they saw a gouf and hadn't programmed in the difference? Could you paint zakus on the side of buildings and it'd just fake a bunch of zakus with "don't worry pilot, I've identified and clarified sixteen zakus for you!"? Either way, you can see the balloons from the cockpits perspectives and they do just look like balloons, so probably the explanation that it's about very briefly causing a distraction with something vaguely the right size and shape to confuse the pilot himself fits better.

>>23592478
I see it working in the low-data phase, i.e. it's just been picked up on a rapid sweep before proper image data has been gathered or it's far enough that Minovsky fogging's bad enough that it's barely recognizable anyway (or some combination thereof). Not something that would stand up to any sort of real scrutiny.
>But actively making up imagery with "it looks like it, so it must be" is insane to me.
To be fair, actual radar misidentifications happened (mostly prior to modern systems) and extant "AI" makes some pretty insane statements, so it may not be that much of a stretch. I don't know if there's any conditions that work similarly to how Minovsky interference is supposed to for a comparison. Maybe ATC in a hailstorm or something.

>>23592478
it can be turned on or off at will. in the case it can be done, it is done, but it is not always done

>>23592530
and when it can't be done, you can just have it do digitized approximations

if close enough, sensors should be able to tell something is a dummy, e.g., asteroid and MS balloons wouldn't have much mass

>>23592534
and we already also know that the panoramic cockpit has to be a composite of multiple digital feeds since it's not like MS have 360 degree camera arrays, rather they're spread out through the body and differences in angle/coverage and accounting for blind spots and movement

e.g., there was no visual difference on the screen when riddhe received data on the sinanju, so it was not simulating the sinanju on riddhe's screen as if it were a video game

>>23592530
>>23592533
The part that makes me feel like this doesn't apply to balloons in their uses is that these are very distant shots that they're taking time to try and grasp usable visuals out of, and not the "throw a balloon in their face and the computer shows it as real" which is the fan-lore I've seen around. I think a distant feed makes reasonable enough sense to run through a computer.
And it's definitely a far cry from "absolutely everything the screen displays is a reconstruction", which I've seen from japanese commenters. I feel like I'd prefer a blurry screen to one that's just making shit up in front of me, moment by moment.
>>23592505
>Not something that would stand up to any sort of real scrutiny
Pretty much.
>"AI" makes some pretty insane statements
I think it'd be more believable in a world without AI. I've seen what AI generation does and I wouldn't want it anywhere near target recognition lol

also the zeon monoeye appears to be able to take 3D scans of a town so it has SOME way to figure out depth and other technical data about an object, so flat images don't really work as a trick and it might be why balloons seem to be the bare minimum for a decoy at least from non-point-blank range

>>23592538
>I think a distant feed makes reasonable enough sense to run through a computer.
yes, that's basically it. the possibility is there, so assume it's possible but don't trust that it's always turned on. I've seen idiots try to argue both ends (it doesn't exist at all VS the monitors are always a simulation) as if there's no room for something else

>which is the fan-lore I've seen around
>which I've seen from japanese commenters
herein lies the problem, you're going to get a hundred million opinions from a hundred million fans, and bandai doesn't care enough to clarify such background technical details,

>>23587604 (OP)
"No".