basic error in Jeager design concept - Pacific Rim (2013) Discussion

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

Delay in the signal? Or what if it has to buffer?

Straightedge means I'm better than you.

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure if they have the technology to make building sized robots that are controlled by dual humans with their minds and nervous systems melded together (a fantasical idea nowhere near current capabilities), they could figure out how to use radio remote control - a technolgy that was invented in the 1800's. Radio waves travel at the speed of light by the way. On mars this could be a problem but within several miles or even several hundred miles the response would be near instantaneous. There would be a greater delay in the the mechanical linkages in the robot than the reception of the radio waves.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure if they have the technology to make building sized robots that are controlled by dual humans with their minds and nervous systems melded together (a fantasical idea nowhere near current capabilities), they could figure out how to use radio remote control - a technolgy that was invented in the 1800's.

Can you produce enough bandwidth to carry the entire neurological output of two human brains melded together?

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

I'm hardly an authority on melding human brains or on colossal robots, but it seems obvious to me that there are much more difficult problems to solve in designing and constructing such a device than the bandwidth problem. Even now they are attacking that problem vigorously in terms of higher and higher speeds on the internet and greater and greater computing capacity of CPUs, memory storage, speeds, etc.
Besides, you would not need the entire neurological output of two human brains. You only have to actuate the servos, hydraulic cylinders, motors and other electro mechanical devices within the robot - only the components capable of motion or change of state of some kind.
Some expert on colossal robots is invited to chime in here, but this is what I imagine. Again, they have squadrons of planes, land vehicles, and even spaceships under remote or even automatic control. Why not a colossal, monster fighting robot?

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

I'm hardly an authority on melding human brains or on colossal robots, but it seems obvious to me that there are much more difficult problems to solve in designing and constructing such a device than the bandwidth problem. Even now they are attacking that problem vigorously in terms of higher and higher speeds on the internet and greater and greater computing capacity of CPUs, memory storage, speeds, etc.

The Internet runs on wires, which allow bandwidth to be increased simply by running another wire. You do not have that luxury with wireless communications. "greater computing capacity of CPUs, memory storage, speeds" doesn't do squat for RF bandwidth.

Besides, you would not need the entire neurological output of two human brains. You only have to actuate the servos, hydraulic cylinders, motors and other electro mechanical devices within the robot - only the components capable of motion or change of state of some kind.

So what, exactly, is it about these things that you believe requires not one but two wired-in human brains if it is not actuating the servos, hydraulic cylinders, motors, and other electro mechanical devices within the robot?

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

So what, exactly, is it about these things that you believe requires not one but two wired-in human brains if it is not actuating the servos, hydraulic cylinders, motors, and other electro mechanical devices within the robot?

When you get right down to it, you don't need any human brain involved at all, much less two, and MUCH less, two humans actually inside the thing.
With current technology they've successfully demostrated driverless cars that react instantly to changing conditions and unanticipated events. That's to keep the wheels of these cars from rolling over the heads of the bike messengers that suddenly dart in front of them, and an infinity of other events. AND they have proved far less error prone, and far more precise than human reactions. And again, that's all with CURRENT technology. Band width? Gimme a break. That's like telling me the problem with building a time machine is the upholstery.

Of course the Jeager itself is entirely ridiculous. Smart missles can be launched from space, jets, or submarines. I have trouble with the whole idea of a giant robot as your main line of defense - or a coastal wall for that matter. These monsters would be like cockroaches against modern ordnance. But that gets back to the critisism of not using the military effectively. I'm going beyond that and questioning the design of the robot, once you accept that you need one. Putting 1 or 2 humans inside is insane.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

When you get right down to it, you don't need any human brain involved at all, much less two, and MUCH less, two humans actually inside the thing.

So, professor, how many successful giant monster-fighting robots have you constructed that you are an authority on their design and construction? It was stated in the movie that two human brains were required. One presumes that there is some in-universe reason for this.

With current technology they've successfully demostrated driverless cars that react instantly to changing conditions and unanticipated events.

Which cars are not trusted to drive across the street without a human aboard to take over when their AI fails. They have not successfully engaged in armed combat against giant monsters, therefore there is no reason to believe that their design is sufficient to that task.

AND they have proved far less error prone, and far more precise than human reactions.

Source?

And again, that's all with CURRENT technology.

However we are not dealing with "CURRENT" technology, we are dealing with technology in a universe in which giant robots fight giant monsters.

Band width? Gimme a break. That's like telling me the problem with building a time machine is the upholstery.

And yet nothing in your post addresses the bandwidth issue other than to assert that some technology that in-universe was not workable will solve the problem.

Of course the Jeager itself is entirely ridiculous. Smart missles can be launched from space, jets, or submarines.

And in-story they were and they were not adequate to the task. "missles" are not particularly effective at attacking things that are under water anyway.

I have trouble with the whole idea of a giant robot as your main line of defense - or a coastal wall for that matter.

So show us a defense that was not tried in-story that is better.

These monsters would be like cockroaches against modern ordnance.

And yet in-story "modern ordnance" failed.

But that gets back to the critisism of not using the military effectively. I'm going beyond that and questioning the design of the robot, once you accept that you need one. Putting 1 or 2 humans inside is insane.

Which gets back to your track record in the successful design of kaiju-fighting robots.

reply

[–] Saiga 10 years ago

I'm sorry, can you provide an example of the cars that you say react instantly to changing conditions? I find that difficult to believe, other than perhaps the most rudimentary actions.

I could understand some of your points about how remote control would work if you were simply talking about normal ordinance being effective. But Not when you're talking about an actual physical combat, even of a robot. How would a drone pilot be able to adequately adjust to, say, the robot getting hit and falling over? I'm sure the "pilot" of the drone would know something is wrong and even perhaps know that the robot is falling and in what direction, but I very much doubt they would be able to react in a timely manner if they were just operating a remote control, rather than actually being hooked up to the sensory equipment of the robots. Piloting a drone is pretty much akin to playing in a flight simulator, piloting a giant robot would be far more complex and I rather doubt one could successfully fight another intelligent being from a remote the way you suggest.

And you obviously know very little about bandwidth if you don't think that would come into play in trying to control something so complex remotely. You cannot possibly expect it would be so simple as "move the robot in this direction, hit the punch button, activate the weapon, kill the monster." That monster is fighting back; it hits your robot and your robot suddenly isn't facing the same direction it was a second ago. Nor is the monster sitting there allowing you to just readjust to resume your attack. Even assuming one was capable of fighting of fighting remotely like this, the information that would constantly be going back and forth for the remote controller to adjust to would be massive. Bandwidth could certainly be an issue here.

And then there's your statement about how the monsters would be like cockroaches against modern ordinance. We both know you can't really say that convincingly, since we don't know enough about the monsters' anatomy, but more importantly than that, the point was to take out the monsters without destroying the entire city. Maybe you weren't paying attention to the movie, but they stated several times that rate of the kaiju appearing was increasing exponentially. If they had kept using missiles and bombs, they would have actually ended up accomplishing what the kaiju were being sent over for anyway. The jaeger seemed like a good idea at the time because the initial kaiju they faced were smaller and far more easily defeated. And even the first kaiju destroyed entire cities before the first jaeger were constructed. So obviously normal ordinance was not getting the job done, and of course they aren't going to nuke the monsters once they became aware of the fact that more would keep coming.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

I agree with most of your points and don't want you to think I'm picking on you, but . . .

ordinance

There's no "i" in the word you intended. It's "ordnance". An "ordinance" is a regulation or law, "ordnance" is military weapons and related equipment.

reply

[–] Saiga 10 years ago

Fair enough. I tend to type by habit, and don't stop to proof read anything unless I see the spell check alert, especially not for (relatively) unimportant things like message boards on the internet. But obviously, I cannot argue your point, and I don't feel picked on that you made a very legitimate correction.

reply

[–] Grothendieck_s_Pocket_Healer 10 years ago

It's not a plot hole when you have to use an even more far-fetched assumption to make the idea sound wrong, designing giant fighting robots working on a mechanical level and transfering massive inputs to them are two uncorrelated problems. Why would you assume when one thing is possible then the other thing must also be possible ?

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

Somebody wanted a source to support my example of successful driverless car demos. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing driverless cars.
Just google driverless cars. Becoming more common - technical and legal barriers are being overcome.
Somebody wants to know how many Jeagers I've designed that were used against Kaiju. 17.
Somebody said it's not a plot hole because you can't use a far-fetched idea to discredit another far-fetched idea. Robots under remote control is not a far-fetched idea, it was first demonstrated by Tesla in the late 1800's. It's withing current technolgy and getting more and more common, whereas the technology in the movie seems well beyond anything on the horizon, so their technology is far beyond ours, therefore remote controlled robots should be nothing for them.
Someone said the remote controlled robots could not react to being off balance. I think that gyro's would serve adaquately for that purpose. Remote aircraft have to stay in balance or they could not fly. Computers and accelerometers - again, current technology and not that exotic - would keep them in balance or allow them to recover balance. Take a look at the robots made by Boston Dynamics. You can't kick these things over.

http://www.bostondynamics.com/

And you're right - I don't understand the bandwidth issue. If there are billions of people on smart phones and other devices consuming bandwidth today, maybe they could put down their phones for a minute to save some for the giant remote controlled robots.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

Somebody wanted a source to support my example of successful driverless car demos. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing driverless cars.Just google driverless cars. Becoming more common - technical and legal barriers are being overcome.

Nope. Nobody wanted such a source. What was requested was evidence of "the cars that you say react instantly to changing conditions?". Driverless cars don't have to react "instantly" to be functional and evidence of tests of driverless cars, without measurements of control lag, do not support your contention.

Somebody wants to know how many Jeagers I've designed that were used against Kaiju. 17.

Who paid for them and where are they now and how were these battles kept out of the news media, youtube, and the blogosphere?

And you're right - I don't understand the bandwidth issue. If there are billions of people on smart phones and other devices consuming bandwidth today, maybe they could put down their phones for a minute to save some for the giant remote controlled robots.

Nope. Those billions of people are not all being served by a single cell tower. Cellular works because cell service is line-of-sight, so each cell tower has a major chunk of the frequency spectrum all to itself and the towers themselves are linked into land-lines that by virtue of being able to run multiple cables allow virtually unlimited bandwidth.

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

Nope. Nobody wanted such a source. What was requested was evidence of "the cars that you say react instantly to changing conditions?". Driverless cars don't have to react "instantly" to be functional and evidence of tests of driverless cars, without measurements of control lag, do not support your contention.

The substance of my position is not that a driverless car (plane, train, etc) reacts "INSTANTLY" (although I did use the word) but that it outperforms a human. We can quibble about the exact meaning of the word instant, but for all practical purposes, a computer that can process billions of instructions per second will outperform a human in reaction time tests. I can't locate the ideal study to support this (as though it needed support) but chew on this one for awhile.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-c ars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/
the

I'm surprised that a source was even requested because it's been my perception for dozens of years that it was generally accepted that computer controled devices outperformed human controled ones - with faster (although not instant) reaction time, more precise handling, less errors of judgement.

Who paid for them and where are they now and how were these battles kept out of the news media, youtube, and the blogosphere?

All very hush-hush, as you might understand.

As we continue in this exploration into the fantastic, please don't lose sight of the fact that it is fantasy indeed, and we are delving into topics quite removed from the actual, and the here-and-now. So if you want me to count how many purple sheep are grazing on the far side of the moon, it will be hard for you to dispute my answer.

Nope. Those billions of people are not all being served by a single cell tower. Cellular works because cell service is line-of-sight, so each cell tower has a major chunk of the frequency spectrum all to itself and the towers themselves are linked into land-lines that by virtue of being able to run multiple cables allow virtually unlimited bandwidth.

The inevitable straw-man arguement. Who said that the robot would have to be served by a single cell tower?

And if they can get "virtually unlimited bandwidth" for phones they can do it for giant robots.

And where is a link to YOUR source please?

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

The substance of my position is not that a driverless car (plane, train, etc) reacts "INSTANTLY" (although I did use the word) but that it outperforms a human.

Please provide evidence of this. There is evidence that under some circumstances they can perform adequately on the road, however I am aware of no evidence that they consistently outperform human drivers.

We can quibble about the exact meaning of the word instant, but for all practical purposes, a computer that can process billions of instructions per second will outperform a human in reaction time tests.

And if it takes a trillion instructions to calculate a task that a human can do with a neural network, then what? The human nervous system is massively parallel you know.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-c ars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/the

Which doesn't show anything about safety, only that google cars maintain more conservative following distances and accelerate and brake more gently than humans.

I'm surprised that a source was even requested because it's been my perception for dozens of years that it was generally accepted that computer controled devices outperformed human controled ones - with faster (although not instant) reaction time, more precise handling, less errors of judgement.

You're obviously not a programmer if you believe this. Simple repetitive things computers can do well. Complex tasks requiring judgment, not so much.

All very hush-hush, as you might understand.

Nope. Seventeen cities destroyed by giant monsters is a bit difficult to make "hush hush". If you're to tell tall tales about yourself, at least learn how to maintain a degree of plausibility.

The inevitable straw-man arguement. Who said that the robot would have to be served by a single cell tower?

Nobody said it would be served by any kind of cell tower? You asserted that there was vast bandwidth available for cell phone use based in abysmal ignorance of how the cell system operates. I explained it to you and rather than recognizing that you failed to grasp the explanation and asking for clarification you became dismissive.Grok the concept. The bandwidth of one, ten, a hundred, or a billion cell towers, all serving the same point on earth, is the same. You only get more bandwidth out of cell towers if there is something blocking the signal between them so that they do not interfere with each other. That something can be terrain or structures but if it is not present they will interfere with each other.

And if they can get "virtually unlimited bandwidth" for phones they can do it for giant robots.

So you're saying that your giant robots trail vast numbers of cables? Because that's the only way you get "virtually unlimited bandwidth".Do yourself a favor--find a university and take the introductory electrical engineering class and you'll learn about bandwidth and what limits it.

reply

[–] salemshaikh 10 years ago

Because Driverless cars are less simple a concept that a giant robot fighting an alien monster than we hardly know anything about.

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/us-tests-f-16-fighter-jet-withou t-pilot/4981852

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-11/us-drone-lands-on-carrier-deck-i n-historic-first/4813052

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-few-become-none-raf -tests-pilotless-fighter-9110331.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2552361/Britains-deadly -superdrone-makes-test-flight-Taranis-unmanned-military-vehicle-surpas sed-expectations-air.html

The above links demonstrate the feasibility of my suggestion.

Any other questions?

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

The above links demonstrate the feasibility of my suggestion.Any other questions?

The do? I only see links to drone aircraft landing and taking off. I see nothing there about them achieving combat victories against opponents that can fight back. Further, those are airplanes, not robots engaging in hand-to-hand combat.

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

So am I to understand that it's not relevant to supply real world examples of CURRENT technology, at the hairy edge of achieving near what I am proposing in this wildly improbable movie set in the future, with technologies we can barely dream of, and without that much of a stretch show that what would seem to be a small problem - that of remote control of machines, which again I point out, was first demonstrated by N. Tesla in the late 1800's, that this small ingredient of a colossal robot (but by no means an unimportant one, as human lives would be protected from the monstrous creatures) that this current technology could not be improved sufficiently, while constructing 250' Robots and all the technology that would be required - and just to POWER it alone, much less have it be combat ready, adequately armed and shielded, maneuverable, fantastically strong, controlled by two brains "merged" into one; all that has been perfected, but my examples of a current technology (which again is almost (if not quite) up to the task of remote controlling these impossible robots) are not accepted because they are plans and not robots; that such real examples of unmanned vehicles exploring other planets, and able to fly fighter jets and land on an aircraft carrier at sea, driverless cars that can accurately navigate busy city streets - these examples are dismissed as not exactly replicating the robots enough, yet nobody minds all the other impossible stuff at all, just eats it right up, and I'm called a nitpicker.
Better to be a nitpicker than to be blind to obvious possibilities.

reply

[–] [email protected] 10 years ago

So am I to understand that it's not relevant to supply real world examples of CURRENT technology, at the hairy edge of achieving near what I am proposing

Radio controlled airplanes have existed since the 1930s and have so far never been able to defeat piloted airplanes in combat. No robot has ever been able to walk around independently at more than a shuffle, let alone dance gracefully or engage in martial arts. So, no, your examples of drone airplanes landing is not relevant. By your logic giant walking robots should have been available in World War II.

reply

[–] Tvayumat 10 years ago

Are you proposing that modern drones require the *exact same* sheer quantity of data that would be required to manipulate, balance, and execute complex combat movements with a bi-pedal humanoid frame that's 250 feet tall? Shoulders, elbows, wrists, knuckles, torso, core, hips, thighs, knees, ankles? Do you have any idea how complex human motion *is*?

Can you confidently say that a data transmission system which doesn't exist should be able to transfer an unknown quantity and type of data?

Why don't you take a minute, think about that, then come back and tell me why that's wrong.

While you're at it, look up the words "metaphor" and "symbolism".

reply

[–] Tvayumat 10 years ago

So, the "basic error in concept" consists of you deciding that their pseudo-science isn't *realistic* enough?

The basic design flaw is that a 250-foot human frame made of steel couldn't possibly support its own weight, let alone move like that, LONG before you get to the piloting issue.

My biggest issue with people that criticize this movie is that they consistently sail past the biggest flaws while managing to zero in on some of the most insignificant as if they were some sort of nitpicking genius.

reply

[–] Hyperboievr 10 years ago

OP, you do realize you contradicted yourself in your first post right?

All science and technology aside, if the pilots didn't drive the robots personally, the audience would have an even harder time relating and connecting to the spectacle that's shown on screen. Simple.

It's not a plot hole, it's just you thinking you're cool by nitpicking a sci-fi action film that contains giant robots fighting giant monsters. One that contains silly mind-melding subplots and cartoonish cardboard cutout characters nontheless. To be frank, you should just stay away from these kinds of movies. Either that or point out more rational flaws in the film that make you look like less of a desperate nitpicker.

JURASSIC WORLD.
6.12.15.

reply

[–] marfrie56 10 years ago

I don't see where I contradicted myself from my first post. I haven't changed my attitude so if I contradicted myself, then I made some mistake in language and poorly represented my opinion, and since American English is my first and only language, I have no excuse.
In my first post, I did write (quoting myself now)

I realize the human element is important to develop the empathy for the characters that make the movie somewhat compelling

and if you want to characterize me as a "desperate nitpicker" so be it. I did say in my OP that I was going beyond some of the more obvious difficulties in the plot and getting into some finer detail. But it's amazing how some people react if you voice an opinion that they might not agree with, or even if they do, they feel that they have to defend the subject of the criticism like it was their motherland.

reply

[–] oindree-sengupta 10 years ago

Anyone remember the blast that completely shut down the Digital Systems? If the jaegers were remote controlled, such a blast would render them useless. So, even though your idea of the jaegers being remote-controlled may sound logical to you, it doesn't work against the powers of the kaiju. They had to send in the analogue robot after all.

reply

[–] Tvayumat 10 years ago

and if you want to characterize me as a "desperate nitpicker" so be it.

We do.

Thanks for the permission, you desperate nitpicker.

reply

[–] CyberRax 10 years ago

I'd still go with the 'ping' argument. Like they explained in "Gamer", even if the delay between the controller and controlled one is minimal it's still there and in a fight can mean the defeat.
Also, I think the human-inside-machine was more foolproof. Mechanics can fail, if the whole robot would've been radio controlled failure of the radio would render the Jaeger unusable (read: at the mercy of the attacking Kaiju). But human controlled... as long as the pilots were alive the robot might still fight. Not to mention that things like manual override (and maybe even miniature local repairs?) would be possible.

Also - I don't think the survival of the pilots was that important in the first place. The survival of the Jaegers was. They were insanely expensive ("the world pooled it's sources") and took a lot of time to construct ("they're being destroyed faster than we can build them"). Look at the pilots on the other hand - half a dozen of candidates just waiting to pair up with Raleigh.

reply

[–] Tvayumat 10 years ago

I'd still go with the 'ping' argument. Like they explained in "Gamer"

How about the "ping" argument like simply exists in real life?

Sitting in your living room, in front of your Xbox, you can measure the lag difference between a wireless controller and a wired. It's not much, but it's there.

Extrapolate that into a controller that needs orders several orders of magnitude more complex than your Xbox, and the lag would get exponentially worse until your machines were throwing punches seconds after they needed to.

reply

[–] luchod-819-75242 10 years ago

anyone who has played a competitive fps (like counterstrike) knows that even a minimum ammount of lag between two equaled matched opponets means instant death (and respawn of course).

reply

[–] salemshaikh 10 years ago

It is really as simple as this: This movie wouldn't be as much fun if it wasn't for the humans piloting the robot from inside it like in the japanese animes of the 80s. It is after all inspired from it.

For a more scientific explanation, refer to the making of Pacific Rim where the director explains why it couldn't be remote controlled.

reply