Skip to main content

Why don't Terminators have perfect aim?


In the movies Terminators are shown to have extremely advanced image processing. They can do facial recognition from far distances and calculate a lot of environmental data. In Terminator 2, it shows what Arnold himself would be seeing and it was a red screen with a targeting system that was easily able to identify things like this:


enter image description here


So with the Terminator's advanced machinery and computational ability, why could they not have perfect aim? Wouldn't it be trivial to detect stuff such as humidity, gravity, trajectory, distance, angle, etc required for a perfect shot each time? Of course there is the unpredictability and reaction time of the target to move, but for shots of at least <50 yards I would expect >95% accuracy. I do remember one scene where Arnold showed off his accuracy by shooting a guard perfectly in the leg, and he certainly was skilled with a shotgun, but that's it.



Given the technology they possessed, is it really just to make the movie more realistic? Could it be limitations on the weapons themselves?



Answer



There are three things that would interfere with "perfect aim".



  1. Damage. I forget how bad Arnie-800 was injured at this point in the movie, but he had taken some hits. Probably nothing that would damage the endoskeleton, but the external flesh would have big ragged holes in it and would compress differently (and in an impossible-to-calculate-compensation way) than it would when he was whole. Later, parts of him are crushed in heavy machinery, or banged up when he rolls away from crashing vehicles at 80mph. That's going to ruin any precision calibration that his servos underwent during manufacture.

  2. We're taught in physics/calculus about ideal bullets taking parabolic paths through the air. But it's very idealized. You don't get perfect bullets, some come from the factory ever so slightly heavier than others. Ever slightly so more powder in the shell. The barrels have slight imperfections, and even slight amounts of dirt. Most of all, the very air itself isn't still. Good marksmen can compensate for wind (and no doubt terminators are even better at this), but this can change even after you've pulled the trigger. Not enough to make the terminator miss, but he'll hit a quarter of an inch off when firing from a distance.

  3. He's not aiming at a stationary target. This means he has to "get a lead" on the target, you aim slightly ahead of where he is now, so that when the bullet gets there it hits in the right place. This is incredibly difficult, and (other than at point blank range) even humans can manage some unexpected and unpredictable velocity change after the trigger is pulled. Then think about how in his fight with the T-1000, it's an incredibly intelligent machine itself, randomly moving with inhumanly fast reflexes.


So perfect aim is essentially impossible. At least in warfare. On the other hand if he participated in the shooting events at the Olympics, it's safe to say he'd walk away with every gold medal they give out.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF

Which Doctor Who works are canon?

I have been watching a Doctor Who documentary and they mentioned that Paul McGann did audio stories so he wasn't just a one-hit Doctor (and that there are novels featuring his Doctor as well). My question is: is Doctor Who canon just the show, or is it like Star Wars where some books and audios are canon and some are not? The documentary also shows that before 2005 they did audio stories where the Doctor is female and obviously that cannot be — not the female part, but the show doesn't count any female Doctors in episodes like The Day of the Doctor . Answer Nothing, and also everything The definitive piece of writing on Doctor Who canon is this blog post by writer Paul Cornell . I'm essentially going to be summarizing his post here, much less eloquently, but one section I want to quote directly is this: Nobody at the BBC has ever uttered a pronouncement about what is and isn't canonical. (As I'm sure they'd put it, being such enthusiasts for good grammar.) Be...