[Blue_Lion]

Seriously, it lists the other two right there lion. You have sight, astral perception, and touch by RAW. That's it. It seems fairly clear that he has actually read what it says.

The radar sensor and sonar implant replace the visual senses so they are fed to the same part of the brain that processes visual senses same as you cyber eye.

A conclusion that you have jumped to with no supporting evidence at all. They can replace (or overlay) visual sense. Please provide a quote as to where the book says that these sense are visual. Since they are headware, do not require eyesight  or the ability to have eyesight, and already rely on computer processors, they can merely shut off access to the user's eyes when he commands it through DNI or let him "visualize" their data over his normal visual senses.

Neither of those require them to be visual. Now then, if Radar uses the same part of the brain as eyes do, please provide me with where the rules say it is necessary for the implantee to have ever had eyesight to begin with. You can easily implant Radar in an animal that doesn't normally have the ability to see. Cybereyes require eyes to replace. Putting eyes on something that doesn't have eyes (vision) would impose penalties for the information (see single cybereyes), Radar does not.

All evidence points to Radar having nothing in common with cybereyes or being able to see in general. If you have any sources please state them. I have yet to see anything that supports needing sight to see Radar. If you don't have to be able to see, to have vision, to use Radar, then it cannot be a visual sense.

I whould also like to point out that peoples hang up on it needing to be cyber eyes/sight is not from the rules that is merly your opion. The rules say you must be able to spot it with it. And guess what the picture that the radar/sonar makes can be used to spot. A picture is a picture once it is tranfered to the visual center it the brain lacks the abilty to process a picture generated with method A over B it simply process the input it is giving. They all use the same techonolgy to send their viusal maps to the vision center reguardless of what part of the EM spectrom it comes from. The difrence is not in how the brain whould process it but in how you think it will process it.

You may have a point, except that the rules make it clear that there is a difference between Radar and other visions. Look at the rules for Radar compared to other sights. How much information is given on how low-light, or thermal, or magnification is processed? How much is given about Radar? It's a great deal different.

Second point, your post seems to be one hundred percent based on the Radar image going to the same place that eyesight is processed, but that isn't required. It isn't required to have a visual portion of the brain to use Radar.

To me the use of Fibor optic camras and lenses to target is much more abusive as it is never paid for with essense reducing the mage, and can be fed threw things like ventalaiton shafts and around coners. It is even posible to wire a whole building with it while the mage is in a shielded room.  But I notice you do not have as big a problem with a mage doing just that.

Yes, mirrors are so high tech they make me tremble.

Well lets see other than most that beeing just your opion.

In order for it to overlay or replace a sense it has to be fed processed by the brain in the same sense.
You yourself pointed out that adding a sense the brain is not built to process inposes penlites and that the radar does not apply the penlites so it is acting as a sense the brain is wired to recive. Giving that it rovides visual information to "see" it is only logical that it is visual informaition.
It even uses visablty modifers, so it is beeing treated as a form of vision by the rules.

By the way read the requirments for targeting beeing cyber sight is not one of them. Just that you can spot with it, and you can spot on a visual overlay or replament.

[WellsIDidIt]

By the way read the requirments for targeting beeing cyber sight is not one of them. Just that you can spot with it, and you can spot on a visual overlay or replament.

The requirement is that you see the target if the spell is LoS range. See the Line of Sight rules. You still have to follow those even if you have a essence paid enhancement. You see with your eyes, not with your hands, not with tongue, not with your nose, not with your ears, not with a sixth sense, with your eyes.

So, does Radar require that you have eyes? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Is Radar part of Astral Perception?
Is Radar considered touching the target?

If none of those answers are a yes. It doesn't work. This isn't opinion, it's fact based on the rules.

In order for it to overlay or replace a sense it has to be fed processed by the brain in the same sense.

Again, this is wrong. Completely wrong. All that is required is for the user to be able to use both senses at once. It's no different that a bat being able to use echolocation and see at the same time.
The data given by Radar has nothing to do with interpreting data that has been seen.

You yourself pointed out that adding a sense the brain is not built to process inposes penlites and that the radar does not apply the penlites so it is acting as a sense the brain is wired to recive. Giving that it rovides visual information to "see" it is only logical that it is visual informaition.
It even uses visablty modifers, so it is beeing treated as a form of vision by the rules.

Wrong again, on both counts.
The cyberware in question, Radar, has a processor that tells the brain how to handle things. Hence why there is no penalty. The book goes into detail about how this works, it's the basis of the argument against Radar being sight, so if you haven't read it I can understand you not believing. I suggest giving it a glance at least before continuing.

Cybereyes, even single cybereyes, do not include a specialized processor or anything else.

As for you second point. All spatial recognition sense, visual or not, use vision modifiers for targeting and perception. Take a look at echolocation in the bioware section. Another sense that does not require sight and uses visibility modifiers (see the bit on natural ultrasound for clarification).

This isn't opinion. It's how the rules work.

I think that is your opion and is wrong. To post something on the offical sight even as FAQ it is subject to company aproval so it was aproved or it whould have been removed.

Think what you want. There is a reason for errata, there is a reason for FAQs. The industry has standards and rules for a reason, especially when a company has a living game line (such as missions). If you are too lazy to research the industry on your own, I'm not going to do it for you.

To your second point, take a gander at the old "official" FAQ that lasted quite a while. The new one is flawed, but significantly less so. Remember, the old one was official as well despite all the issues with it. They aren't going to remove this one until they have a new one, and FAQs and Errata have never been high on the priority list (welcome to catalyst).

[KarmaInferno]

Again, Radar and Sonar are not feeding sensory data directly into your brain.

They are using sensory data to generate a 3D visual representation of the data, and sending THAT into your brain.

As I said, like someone drawing a scene and you looking at the drawing rather than you looking at the scene directly.

It honestly doesn't matter analog or digital. With cybereye cameras you are seeing the direct sensory feed. With radar and sonar you are seeing something the computer drew based on data points, not the actual scene scanned by the sensor.

-k

[Blue_Lion]

Again, Radar and Sonar are not feeding sensory data directly into your brain.

They are using sensory data to generate a 3D visual representation of the data, and sending THAT into your brain.

As I said, like someone drawing a scene and you looking at the drawing rather than you looking at the scene directly.

It honestly doesn't matter analog or digital. With cybereye cameras you are seeing the direct sensory feed. With radar and sonar you are seeing something the computer drew based on data points, not the actual scene scanned by the sensor.

-k

Your cyber eyes whould be doing the accact same thing using the light to draw a image and sending that into your brain. You brain does not process light, it is the same thing with a difrent part of the spectrum. They both are processed and converted sensory feed. Do you understand how digital camras work? they map incoming light and use that to generate a image, that is what your cyber eyes are doing.

[Blue_Lion]

By the way read the requirments for targeting beeing cyber sight is not one of them. Just that you can spot with it, and you can spot on a visual overlay or replament.

The requirement is that you see the target if the spell is LoS range. See the Line of Sight rules. You still have to follow those even if you have a essence paid enhancement. You see with your eyes, not with your hands, not with tongue, not with your nose, not with your ears, not with a sixth sense, with your eyes.

So, does Radar require that you have eyes? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Is Radar part of Astral Perception?
Is Radar considered touching the target?

If none of those answers are a yes. It doesn't work. This isn't opinion, it's fact based on the rules.

In order for it to overlay or replace a sense it has to be fed processed by the brain in the same sense.

Again, this is wrong. Completely wrong. All that is required is for the user to be able to use both senses at once. It's no different that a bat being able to use echolocation and see at the same time.
The data given by Radar has nothing to do with interpreting data that has been seen.

You yourself pointed out that adding a sense the brain is not built to process inposes penlites and that the radar does not apply the penlites so it is acting as a sense the brain is wired to recive. Giving that it rovides visual information to "see" it is only logical that it is visual informaition.
It even uses visablty modifers, so it is beeing treated as a form of vision by the rules.

Wrong again, on both counts.
The cyberware in question, Radar, has a processor that tells the brain how to handle things. Hence why there is no penalty. The book goes into detail about how this works, it's the basis of the argument against Radar being sight, so if you haven't read it I can understand you not believing. I suggest giving it a glance at least before continuing.

Cybereyes, even single cybereyes, do not include a specialized processor or anything else.

As for you second point. All spatial recognition sense, visual or not, use vision modifiers for targeting and perception. Take a look at echolocation in the bioware section. Another sense that does not require sight and uses visibility modifiers (see the bit on natural ultrasound for clarification).

This isn't opinion. It's how the rules work.

I think that is your opion and is wrong. To post something on the offical sight even as FAQ it is subject to company aproval so it was aproved or it whould have been removed.

Think what you want. There is a reason for errata, there is a reason for FAQs. The industry has standards and rules for a reason, especially when a company has a living game line (such as missions). If you are too lazy to research the industry on your own, I'm not going to do it for you.

To your second point, take a gander at the old "official" FAQ that lasted quite a while. The new one is flawed, but significantly less so. Remember, the old one was official as well despite all the issues with it. They aren't going to remove this one until they have a new one, and FAQs and Errata have never been high on the priority list (welcome to catalyst).

And where accactly is the requirment for targeting say that. Targeting do not say that on page 183.
The device  does "see" and that works for see, as not special difrence is made in the rules to justify it.

your 3 part question is wrong as the out come is based on your opion it does not require eyes to be sight but for it to be processed by the part of the brain that does sight. I whould also point out the special not on vision beeing required for cyber eyes was not included with cyber eyes themself but a special kind of one. So it is a special case rule that backwords apply.

I do not see how you can overlay something in the brain and not be processed by the same part. Explain that logic, it is ovelaying or replacing viusal imput the brain so they have to be processed along the same input the brain. You cant replace something in the brains visual cortex any where but the visual cortex.

The part on the processor the cyber eyes also have a processor  to tell the brain how to handle the input as the brain does not process light, but neral input. So the cyber eye is processing the light into a format the brain can understand same as the radar.

The indrusty standard is the last offical writen form is the one used. So having a living game requires that the pertipents stay up on all rules, faq and errata as a change to any one changes the way the game has been officaly ruled. I have played RPGs a long time and do research on and into them, the stadard has been and still is latest offical writen rules claricication rulling is what you use.

No offical rule has been presented saying the device can not be used, just peoples options on saying it can't and often statments that defy logic of how technolgy works like some one claiming there are analog computers.
But it does not matter if a device is analog or digital as the rule says technolgical, meaning anything made with technolgy.

[Falconer]

Blue lion... because what you're doing is no different than a remote camera feeding an imagelink.   No difference whatsoever... the 'raw' data cannot be processed by the brain the brain *DOES* process raw visual data (unless you take the full negative quality for blindness.. in which case you were blind for life and your brain never developed this ability).

The core rulebook describes cybereyes as retinal replacements which attach to the optic nerve (actually a bundle of nerves... look it up sometime... i find the subject fascinating... even looked at and bought some of the textbooks for the bioengineering minor for pleasure reading).   The brain is processing the raw visual data from the sensor... it's not a camera looking at the world... then 'image linking' the camera feed to the optic nerve.

Most people don't realize your natural eyes are already cameras... so I don't see the fluff in augmentation as saying anything new.  What bothers me is people reading more into that than it actually says and immediately jumping to the conclusion that they must be 'digital cameras' and the data must be processed somehow before it goes into the brain.  Something the books never state.

The rules even make this 100% clear in the matrix section... to see AR/VR you need either DNI and cybereyes/ears.   Or DNI & sim module to read the raw brain waveforms.

Synner's posts in the past as the previous line developer summarized were more or less this...  As soon as it involves the expert system to process the data and visualize it.   It falls into the 3rd category the exact same as a remote image-linked camera feed and cannot be used for casting... even if essence was spent.    That's the reason I pointed out the 'but' used as a connective between the clauses... even if essence is paid there is a but condition that limits what kinds of things paid for with essence still operate.    The counter-arguments have all devolved into 'but cybereyes have an expert system and reprocess the data' so they're a visual replacement no different than the UWB/ultrasound... when nowhere in the rules is this stated.   In the case of the UWB and sonar though this is stated explicitly.


As far as the FAQ goes... the author of the FAQ himself (Ancient History was his board handle for those who care to know) stated it was not errata and should not function as errata contradicting the published rules.  The goal at the time of publication was to fix a complete and utter abortion of a FAQ which contradicted the rules more often than it clarified them... the final work though was pretty damn good despite its rough spots.   There's only a bare handful of spots where it clearly and unambiguously contradicted the published writing.

[WellsIDidIt]

The indrusty standard is the last offical writen form is the one used. So having a living game requires that the pertipents stay up on all rules, faq and errata as a change to any one changes the way the game has been officaly ruled. I have played RPGs a long time and do research on and into them, the stadard has been and still is latest offical writen rules claricication rulling is what you use.

You obviously have done a horrible job.
Errata is for rule fixes, changes, and updates including adding new rules. FAQ is for answering questions about existing rules. This is industry standard. Yes, the newest writing of a rule is the industry standard for overriding other version of that rule. FAQ's do not write rules. The newest version of a clarification works the same way. In no way do the two every cross. This is across the board, from Shadowrun to Pathfinder to D&D. Document names have a meaning just like everything else.

And where accactly is the requirment for targeting say that. Targeting do not say that on page 183.
The device  does "see" and that works for see, as not special difrence is made in the rules to justify it.

It says you must see, you see with your eyes, Radar does not require eyes, therefore Radar cannot be seeing the target. The rules make this clear by stating you can "see", using a different term than required for Line of Sight targeting. Again, see is not "see" and vice versa. They are different terms.

Look at what radar actually let's you see:

This system is excellent for detecting motion (even as slight as breathing), calculating exact distances, and allowing the char- acter to visualize floorplans, locations of people, and placement of materials like weapons.

You do not see people (or objects) with radar. You only see their location, where they are. You have to see the target for LoS spells, not just where they are. The rules here are clear. You do not spot a target, you do not see a target, you spot his movement and location, you see where he is, not him.

Note Ultrasound:

While ultrasound vision is perfect to “see” textures, calculate exact distances, and pick up things otherwise invisible to the naked eye (like people cloaked by an Invisibility spell)

The only thing it let's you "see" is textures. It lets you pick up other things, but it's careful not to say that you see them.

Again, please provide a single rules source stating that you can see a target with Ultrasound or Radar. One single source is all I'm asking for. Fifteen pages, and I have yet to see a single one.

I do not see how you can overlay something in the brain and not be processed by the same part. Explain that logic, it is ovelaying or replacing viusal imput the brain so they have to be processed along the same input the brain. You cant replace something in the brains visual cortex any where but the visual cortex.

The image is not coming from the brain. It's coming from that computer you have shoved in the brain. All that's required is to shut off access to the visual part for replacement. Otherwise, both sense overlay each other. Radar is a new sense with it's own CPU (which is effectively its part of the brain).

The part on the processor the cyber eyes also have a processor  to tell the brain how to handle the input as the brain does not process light, but neral input. So the cyber eye is processing the light into a format the brain can understand same as the radar.

Source? I see no reference to any specialized processor that aids the brain in interpreting cybereye data. In fact, the data that cybereyes can gain can all also be gathered by retinal modifications that do not mention any need for a specialized processor. Radar specifically mentions the need for the specialized expert system.

I see you crying opinion a lot, but you have shown absolutely no rules sourcing for any point you've brought up and ignored every rules source brought up.

[dreddwulf1]

Here's an Idea from a GM's perspective: When a player asks for something like this, tell him you try it sometime. Then HIT HIM WITH IT!!! Use the corper that has this very adjustment and see how the group reacts. If they gripe about 'unfair advantage', then outlaw it. If not, then allow it.

                         Sometimes your PC's tend to forget that your job as GM is not to kill them, but to challenge them. When something is considered "Game-Breaking" it may be because players faced with the same problem would be hard-pressed to deal with it (If it could even be done). It's not realistic to assume that because you have something that every enemy you ever face will now have that ability. Game balance means that the PC's and the enemy work from the (Somewhat) balanced playing field of your setting. "If you can do it, so can THEY, and the enemy usually has ALOT MORE RESOURCES to throw at getting the advantage.

                              No a flame on anybody, just keep balance in mind when you want to do things. As for my personal opinion (yes MY OPINION) is that the Radar used to cast spells is pretty unbalanced because the other guy has FEW other ways to 'return fire'. It's easy to abuse, and hard to counter. Use smart goggles and a fiber optic cable, I can just cover it opr smash it. Can I smash an entire WALL to get at someone, even if I know WHICH wall to smash???

                               Players: If you want to try some new stuff, that's AWESOME!!! When I GM, things like that tell me that a player is positively engaged in my game and paying attention to detail. At the same time, if you would not be comfortable having something used AGAINST you, chances are that what you are asking for might be unbalanced. Something to keep in mind.

                               GM's: Take it as a compliment when these things are asked and be ready to explain your answer one way or the other. This is a good sign that your player is enjoying your game enough to want to try craziness. Try not to just knee jerk toward NO unless you KNOW problems will be caused and challenge the player to be clear on EXACTLY what they are trying to accomplish.

                                                     Have fun! Thank you for your time.

 

[Blue_Lion]

The indrusty standard is the last offical writen form is the one used. So having a living game requires that the pertipents stay up on all rules, faq and errata as a change to any one changes the way the game has been officaly ruled. I have played RPGs a long time and do research on and into them, the stadard has been and still is latest offical writen rules claricication rulling is what you use.

You obviously have done a horrible job.
Errata is for rule fixes, changes, and updates including adding new rules. FAQ is for answering questions about existing rules. This is industry standard. Yes, the newest writing of a rule is the industry standard for overriding other version of that rule. FAQ's do not write rules. The newest version of a clarification works the same way. In no way do the two every cross. This is across the board, from Shadowrun to Pathfinder to D&D. Document names have a meaning just like everything else.

And where accactly is the requirment for targeting say that. Targeting do not say that on page 183.
The device  does "see" and that works for see, as not special difrence is made in the rules to justify it.

It says you must see, you see with your eyes, Radar does not require eyes, therefore Radar cannot be seeing the target. The rules make this clear by stating you can "see", using a different term than required for Line of Sight targeting. Again, see is not "see" and vice versa. They are different terms.

Look at what radar actually let's you see:

This system is excellent for detecting motion (even as slight as breathing), calculating exact distances, and allowing the char- acter to visualize floorplans, locations of people, and placement of materials like weapons.

You do not see people (or objects) with radar. You only see their location, where they are. You have to see the target for LoS spells, not just where they are. The rules here are clear. You do not spot a target, you do not see a target, you spot his movement and location, you see where he is, not him.

Note Ultrasound:

While ultrasound vision is perfect to “see” textures, calculate exact distances, and pick up things otherwise invisible to the naked eye (like people cloaked by an Invisibility spell)

The only thing it let's you "see" is textures. It lets you pick up other things, but it's careful not to say that you see them.

Again, please provide a single rules source stating that you can see a target with Ultrasound or Radar. One single source is all I'm asking for. Fifteen pages, and I have yet to see a single one.

I do not see how you can overlay something in the brain and not be processed by the same part. Explain that logic, it is ovelaying or replacing viusal imput the brain so they have to be processed along the same input the brain. You cant replace something in the brains visual cortex any where but the visual cortex.

The image is not coming from the brain. It's coming from that computer you have shoved in the brain. All that's required is to shut off access to the visual part for replacement. Otherwise, both sense overlay each other. Radar is a new sense with it's own CPU (which is effectively its part of the brain).

The part on the processor the cyber eyes also have a processor  to tell the brain how to handle the input as the brain does not process light, but neral input. So the cyber eye is processing the light into a format the brain can understand same as the radar.

Source? I see no reference to any specialized processor that aids the brain in interpreting cybereye data. In fact, the data that cybereyes can gain can all also be gathered by retinal modifications that do not mention any need for a specialized processor. Radar specifically mentions the need for the specialized expert system.

I see you crying opinion a lot, but you have shown absolutely no rules sourcing for any point you've brought up and ignored every rules source brought up.

Nope it is not across the board lets go look at one of the big names in gaming companies Palladium Books they been around over 30 years. Lets look at their offical errata oh wait they do not do errata. So it can not be across the board, pathfinder mearly coppied a company they baght rights from so basicaly it is the same patern but that does not make it indrusty wide.

FAQ and errata have as much authorty as the company gives them and their post are subject to aproval. So it is not a fact that the writer over steped his bounds just your precived. I find it funny that people want to take a guy posting his opion on a non offical board as company policy but chooce to say that the ofical posting in FAQ is unvalid.

The cyber eyes image is not coming from the brain either, as the brain does not process light. So just like the radar inplant it translates a part of the EM field to something the brain can process. It only works because the sensor doing the processing is paid for with essense and a cyber eye is a sensor.
But please keep tring to pass of your opion as what the rules say or mean.

[Blue_Lion]

Again, Radar and Sonar are not feeding sensory data directly into your brain.

They are using sensory data to generate a 3D visual representation of the data, and sending THAT into your brain.

As I said, like someone drawing a scene and you looking at the drawing rather than you looking at the scene directly.

It honestly doesn't matter analog or digital. With cybereye cameras you are seeing the direct sensory feed. With radar and sonar you are seeing something the computer drew based on data points, not the actual scene scanned by the sensor.

-k

Actuly you are wrong on the count that the brain does not process light so it is not direct feed but the eyes process part of the EM field into something the brain can see. And as electronic device that requires soft ware. So they are doing the same thing with difrent parts of the EM spectrum.

[KarmaInferno]

Missing the point.

Both cybereyes and regular eyes take a light image and convert it directly to brain-readable impulses.

Radar and Sonar take the data and use it to generate a 3D model, which is then converted to brain-readable impulses.

You're not looking at the actual image, you are looking at a recreation of the image.


-k

[JoeNapalm]

Does this look like it converts light directly into brain impulses in the same way as a meat eyeball?:




And I swore I wasn't gonna teach a grad course in digital imaging, here, but for those interested, here's the article I grabbed that image from, since I didn't feel like writing another wall-o-text.

Here's the TLDR version:

Camera manufacturers do all sorts of secret, proprietary stuff to tweak images. It’s a fact that vendors don’t like to talk about at parties, but, contrary to popular belief, even RAW files don’t contain the raw sensor data. . . .

And before someone restarts the analog/digital kerfuffle, again - Cyber eyes are, by definition, electronic.

Analog computers do exist...I own one. It's called a "slide rule". Analog electronics went out of vogue in the '60s, and I mean the 1960s, not the 2060s, because of the advent of digital electronics.

Anyone suggesting that cyber is analog needs to provide something...anything...to support a claim that is the equivalent of suggesting that drones run on leaded gasoline.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Falconer]

You're the one jumping to conclusions Joe.   Nowhere is it ever stated that they are *DIGITAL* cameras.  Just because you found one fluff source in augmentation that says a cybereye is also a camera doesn't mean it's digital or needs to process the imagery in any way.    The core rulebook says that they're retinal mods...  The core rule book is rather silent on how far the tech and on whether some of it uses optronics, or quantum, or electronics.

Your eyeball is a camera.   An old kodak instamatic is a camera.   I guarantee there is no image processing on a instamatic or other film based camera.  Similarly, you've obviously never worked with raw analog CCD cameras.  All digital does is add an ADC step to digitize the output for digital transmission into the predominately digital signal processors we have today.

Your natural eyes processing looks something more like this..
Retina rods/cones (organic CCD) -> analog edge detection/compression -> optic nerve bundle (optic nerve is actually a huge bundle of many nerves despite the singular).  All further image processing is handled by the brain...


As I commmented before... the ADC step and everything thereafter is simply to mimic in digital what your brain already does with massively parallel analog.  Your entire argument rests on that it must function that way in your diagram so that you can call the 3rd requirement that it not be a processed image dead letter for cybereyes... so you can attempt to slip radars into the same category.

[KarmaInferno]

My point has nothing really to do with the step that turns an image into brain impulses.

Visual Data > Brain-readable data

My point is that Radar and Sonar have an additional step BEFORE then, where the system generates a 3D representation of the image in question. You are not viewing the original scene at all, you are viewing a drawing a computer made that looks like the original scene.

Sonar or Radar Data > Visual Data > Brain-readable data


-k

[JoeNapalm]

You're the one jumping to conclusions Joe.   Nowhere is it ever stated that they are *DIGITAL* cameras.  Just because you found one fluff source in augmentation that says a cybereye is also a camera doesn't mean it's digital or needs to process the imagery in any way.    The core rulebook says that they're retinal mods...  The core rule book is rather silent on how far the tech and on whether some of it uses optronics, or quantum, or electronics.

AUG is still canon.

Your eyeball is a camera.   An old kodak instamatic is a camera.   I guarantee there is no image processing on a instamatic or other film based camera. 

So now cyber eyes use film?

Similarly, you've obviously never worked with raw analog CCD cameras.  All digital does is add an ADC step to digitize the output for digital transmission into the predominately digital signal processors we have today.

Actually, I have. Analog cameras are old tech. The would also be incompatible with AR, Thermographic vision, Image Enhancement, and all the other digital tech in SR. There is no reason to think that cyber eyes are using tech that is equivalent to a VCR, especially since it simply *would not work* with any of the applications cyber eyes are used for.

Are Smartguns, then, using WWII-era analog bombsight computers?

Your natural eyes processing looks something more like this..
Retina rods/cones (organic CCD) -> analog edge detection/compression -> optic nerve bundle (optic nerve is actually a huge bundle of many nerves despite the singular).  All further image processing is handled by the brain...

Yes. And your brain can't process Thermal, AR, Smartlinks, etc, etc, etc.  The cyber part of the cyber eye does that.

As I commmented before... the ADC step and everything thereafter is simply to mimic in digital what your brain already does with massively parallel analog.  Your entire argument rests on that it must function that way in your diagram so that you can call the 3rd requirement that it not be a processed image dead letter for cybereyes... so you can attempt to slip radars into the same category.

My argument is based on Occam's Razor. Your argument is that SR cybereyes are using technology that was old 100 years before the time the game is set in, and is totally incompatible with any of the other tech that is also applied to cyber eyes.

I am not attempting to slip anything into any category. I have not formed a conclusion and then tried to shoehorn the facts into that conclusion by any sort of convoluted reasoning. Nor does it require that cyber eyes function using tech that went out of use when Eisenhower was President.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist