Talk:Raider (RDM)/Archive 1

New Article Structure

I have edited this page only to include the information about the raider in the new series, moved all data from TOS raider to its own article and moved the video game raider to its own article under the video game ships category. I have put the main raider as the article and moved the "piloted" raider to the bottom as note, as it is not canon information.--Lgamser 20:22, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

And can we get a new image of the raider, with it being in space, for the ship portal, and we can then put that picture as the main picture of the article, and move the one that is currently the main one now, in the article somewhere.--Lgamser 20:25, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Piloted Raiders

Is there anything at all from the re-imagined series about a early piloted raider, or is this just speculation? --Glenmcbeth

Well, in the Mini-series before they engage the NEW Cylon Raiders for the first time, the pilots are chattering over their radios and say that no one has seen the Cylons in 40 years, so they don't know how their ships will look different now--->one guy points out (accurately) that the basic design should be that of a 'flying wing'; so it's implied they were thinking of the old ones. That, and I think a model of one of the old ones was seen in the Galactica-musuem; anyway, when they see the NEW Raiders for the first time, a pilot reacts in shock that "no one's flying it!"; the "head" part was too small to have a Cylon Centurion sitting inside of it flying it; this would seem to imply that the OLD Raiders were exactly like TOS ones: with a Cylon flying them. ---Ricimer, 22, Sept, 2005

I don't know that that's enough to warrant mentioning that they were piloted by three Centurians and all the details that we have. I think it would be best to make "Cylong Raider (RDM)" nearly entirely about the autonomous Raiders we see so frequently in the series with perhaps a note in the Notes section mentioning that pilots expressed surprise that no one was piloting them and what their comments were, exactly, about the flying wing deal. Let the reader decide. I don't like displaying a picture at all. The museum was a nod to TOS, and I don't think it counts as precisely canon. Obviously, in the early stages of the first Cylon War, the Cylons were the same as built by the Colonials and were flying Colonial craft, but by the time it got to where they were working out of Basestars, I imagine they were manufacturing their own craft, too, so there's no reason to think that the craft the pilots were thinking of was Colonial in origin at all. I also dislike the mention of common tactics... That's never been mentioned on-screen in RDM at all, I don't think. --Day 06:20, 19 January 2006 (EST)

Split?

This needs to be split into three articles - one for TOS, and one each for the piloted and autonomous RDM models. Anybody have ideas for article titles?

Additionally, should this be "Cylon Raider" or just "Raider"? We don't call them Colonial Vipers, after all. --Peter Farago 13:49, 2 January 2006 (EST)

I agree that "Raider" should suffice. "Cylon Raider" might be necessary if we needed to distinguish it from a Colonial model. --Steelviper 14:06, 2 January 2006 (EST)

Definately split into (TOS) and (RDM) name spaces. I think we could stick with the name Cylon Raider. I think they've called them that several times in the series and I take it to be the more "official" name (from the Colonial POV. Maybe the Cylons call them Daggits. Who knows?) --Day 06:20, 19 January 2006 (EST)

i ahve deleted the tos cylon raider information off page and directed users to the main tos raider article. we should continue with this, and do the same with the video game raider.--Lgamser 19:27, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Is Cylon Raider to become a disambation page? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:36, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

No i have just moved it to a new name space to rdm, so we are still retaining it, but just moved it to a new name space--Lgamser 19:43, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

k. Tons of edits on pages that link to Cylon Raider. That's why I ask before I start going through the pages that have them. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:46, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I think we need to fix this split: now there's no piloted Raider info at all. Yes, we know from the Miniseries that old Piloted Raiders look like TOS Raiders, and Ripper in the Miniseries seemed surprised that they were not piloted, positing that the old ones were. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 21:42, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Virus

Kahran wrote:

The new Raider is also succeptable to the same type of system-crashing virus which it has been known to transmit itself. ("Flight of the Pheonix")

Not correct. First of all, we've never actually seen a raider transmit a virus. In the miniseries, they exploited a back door in the CNP to shut down the fleet directly; in "Valley of Darkness" we saw a virus but for logical reasons, it could not possibly have originated from outside the ship; and in "Flight of the Phoenix" we again saw a backdoor being exploited, this time in the other direction. Secondly, it is completely unsurprising that a Cylon agent such as Caprica-Valerii would have knowledge of how to access such a backdoor in her own people's technology. --Peter Farago 05:37, 4 January 2006 (EST)

I'm questioning a part of the reasoning here. In the miniseries, the raiders exploit the CNP backdoors and command shutdown of Colonial systems. Yes; no "virus" is transmitted there. But in "Scattered" we hear Gaeta specifically discussing an infiltration attempt--

Gaeta: "Here they come. Cylons are hacking our network. Attempting to access our gateway."

Later, Galactica contracts a virus. Since Galactica's systems were never networked prior and never have used the CNP (which, combined with Gaeta's information, confirms CNP is still not installed), a virus is most likely to have come from the outside, that some ship in the Cylon attack body was at work in cracking Galactica's computer network and infecting it a'la the tactics used in Cylon War I. This does NOT necessarily mean that the fighters did it (although screen shots show Gaeta's firewall fail moments before he disconnects it). The Centurions that board could have installed it, but we have no information to confirm this, nor does this make sense. Such an infection would only affect maybe one subsystem since the Centurions could not gain access to all primary, now-again isolated subsystems. They likely could infect only one, and that infection could not spread. Same would be true if a Cylon agent were to install a virus; the isolated subsystems would make it too impossible to infect all at once without attracting attention (Gaeta's and the rest of CIC, that is). The Cylon attack body is the likely cause of the virus, since it affects many subsystems that are normally isolated and they had the means to infect through their hacking. A virus isn't "transmitted," but installed once infiltration is successful. Kahran's wording is incorrect. The sentence should say: The new Raider is subceptible to system-crashing viruses if the fighter's subsystems themselves are infiltrated (Flight of the Phoenix)"--Spencerian 14:07, 4 January 2006 (EST)

I'll reply backwards, since your last point was the most relevant one - "The new Raider is subceptible to system-crashing viruses if the fighter's subsystems themselves are infiltrated" is true, but it's also obvious, and therefore not worth stating. In fact, there is no computer system for which that statement is not true.

Second, as regarding the events of "Valley of Darkness": Having two computers networked is not sufficient to make them vulnerable to attack. In order to receive a "virus" or any other sort of malware from off-ship, one of the components must have had a connection to the outside world via some sort of RF ("wireless") frequency. Thus, of the four computers Gaeta networked, at least one must already have been vulnerable.

However, Galactica's entire design ethos was explicitly meant to separate vulnerable functions. There is no conceivable reason that any of the four systems Gaeta connected (FTL, Navigation, Fire control, Damage control) would need access to a wireless tranceiver. Therefore, the only plausible source for the virus was from within the ship itself. This does not present much of a contradiction - the simple fact of networking those four systems together would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect. --Peter Farago 14:58, 4 January 2006 (EST)

That's a good point, and one I purposefully addressed indirectly in the Computers article. We have to strike it up to one of three issues: (1) A retcon issue; (2) the mainframe computer (which may handle communications) is the most resistant to infiltration since it must ALWAYS have wireless up and running for fighter chat (DRADIS is managed through the Nav computer), or (3) the comm system is NOT computer-based or operated, but a hardwire system that transmits its data in a manner which cannot infect the mainframe in some manner. When other computers are connected to it via Gaeta's gateway (which also exposes the computers to the hardwired comm system network), the Cylons infiltrate by hacking the exposed gateway Gaeta created, not the computers. Yes, normally the other computers DON'T need or have access to the each other. But the gateway created was vulnerable because it's the comm system that's likely used to create one for the networking of the computers. Once the gateway was up, all but the comm system was vulnerable for reasons below.

In fact, a part of "Flight of the Phoenix" bears this speculation out: Gaeta has wiped the hard drives of ALL computers while Valerii is working on her unique virus in her head for the Cylon fleet. She transmits it out, but on what? All computers are down. This suggests that the comm systems (connected through her arm from the mainframe, which suggests it and the comm system also have a connection), while monitored through the mainframe, are not entirely computer-based since no computer was up to aid Valerii in hacking the enemy network AND transmitting the virus directly. Gaeta notes the transmission, indicating that comm was still up although the computers are still under restoration. In short, Cylons have never been able to hack Galactica's mainframe or comm systems, but once that ad hoc gateway was up, the other computers were exposed and the enemy had what they needed to hack in and infect. This doesn't explain the logic bomb, which I think is bad writing: how would it spread over a non-networked series of computers? It would mean that each computer had a copy of the bomb. But then, how would it activate? The comm/mainframe cannot be hacked and so cannot send the "execute" command to the logic bombs on the other computers, right? I smell contrivance, but its the best sense I can make of it. --Spencerian 15:23, 4 January 2006 (EST)

I like the "Gateway attack" scenario (limited window created by Gaeta's jury-rigging), but it seems like all of these scenarios are running under the assumption that the virus/logic bomb infected the system from the outside. That may be the case (and Flight of the Phoenix seemed to prove that it could be transmitted that way, at least to the Raiders), but isn't it possible for Galactica's systems to have been infected from the inside? With several potential humano-cylons on the loose inside the fleet, it may turn out that some of the computer problems have been done as part of an "inside job". I have NOTHING to support that, but I just wanted to raise the possibility (if it hadn't already been mentioned). --Steelviper 16:06, 4 January 2006 (EST)

This is what I've been saying all along. Am I not speaking english? --Peter Farago 16:29, 4 January 2006 (EST)

Didn't see that little bit right there at the end... "would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect" or perhaps I read it as an external attacker. I'm guessing that possibility is generally being overlooked in favor of the more straightforward external network attack. I hope that this angle is explored more and not left to speculation, as I don't think that it can be definitely proven how the system was compromised. (Which is what you've been saying this whole time. At least the message has spread one person further.) --Steelviper 16:46, 4 January 2006 (EST)

I noted the possibility of Cylon agent infiltration, but again this requires the agent to individually infect ALL computers, or place an infection that won't replicate / install itself until/unless computers were networked. That's a whole lot of "if's". It's not that an agent infected the computers isn't possible, but based on what we've seen, it's not probable. We don't know if Biers is off Galactica, but she likely is. We don't know what the remaining agents look like. We do know that that Valerii said what would happen with the infection that did occur. It's even possible that her Galactica counterpart infected systems before she shot Adama. But that conflicts with what Gaeta watched during the jump calcs in Scattered. I just want some source that gives credibility to the internal hypothesis. (See, SV--we sysops are all having a nice, friendly discussion... :) --Spencerian 17:33, 4 January 2006 (EST)

A virus could have been planted (through a hardline, onboard the ship) into one of the four networked systems during Scattered, and then spread to the other three in short order. I think it's actually fairly likely that there's an unknown cylon agent on Galactica - probably somebody of the lower ranks who we haven't seen, or else C-Valerii would have identified him.

For my sake, could you please try and restate the points in your second post, the one immediately after my reply? I have the feeling you're trying to say something interesting, but your wording is too confusing for me to untangle. --Peter Farago 19:56, 4 January 2006 (EST)

Sure.

• Since something has to be able to send out or match up command recognition codes, the mainframe and comm system work together, although comm (likely not a computer per se) can work independently of any computer system (note Valerii transmitting the virus code to the Cylon fleet in "Phoenix" although Galactica's computers are down).
• I suspect the mainframe is inherently resistant to infection, or isolated from infection despite its role with the comm system. However, the mainframe's gateway, which forms a network if other computers are connected, is not resistant. This is what the Cylons will hack into since the comm system is always up and routes data from it to the mainframe and the gateway. From the gateway a virus enters the most vulnerable computer and copies itself into others. Once situated, it begins its work.
• The mainframe (which, as Doral said, may barely deserve the name of "computer") is highly resistant to infection or infiltration. It can also create firewalls to protect itself (Gaeta did this). It's analogous to the Mac OS X computers versus Windows computers today--both do the same, but one is designed well enough not to have infiltration issues as severely as the other. But even the mainframe can be rooted if given time; the Cylon virus adapts and learns.
• An internal attack by a Cylon agent is possible but not probable. For what we know, all computers are centrally located in CIC. An agent would have to sit and hack or insert code into each system manually. This would require physical access that only a few have (this adds fire to the Gaeta-is-a-Cylon argument).
• Barring plot complication we haven't seen, we are led (and only have evidence aired so far) that the virus attack was external. Otherwise, despite the point that humano-Cylons like to play with their prey, we'd think that the Cylons would have hacked Galactica's computers and killed the ship by now. Centurions never visited the CIC, so they're out as infectors, unless there was a fiber optic conduit for one of the closed computers they could've used to do so as they marauded the ship.
• The "logic bomb" concept was specious; it couldn't travel through to the other computers (no network), and the system failures throughout the ship suggest that the computers fully control Galactica's subsystems like life support. Of course, the computers probably never fully cleaned, which makes more sense for system failures. Isn't that a network? Doesn't work. By the same token, for Cylons to activate the bomb from their fighter armada implies that Gaeta's ad-hoc network is up again and allowing hack commands to enter Galactica. BIG, freight-train sized science gaffe for the sake of plot. --Spencerian 23:01, 4 January 2006 (EST)

For the sake of speculation, I'm going to state it as a given that the systems are not networked in any traditional sense and that the FTL, Navigation, Fire control, and Damage control computers are infected, and the Nav computer actually does manage DRADIS. Isn't it possible for the Cylons to have taken into account the fact that the ad-hoc network would be disabled before the virus could complete it's run, and build in contingencies for such an event? The DRADIS by nature would require a transceiver of some form. Even if that receiver is not designed to process such information, it would theoretically be possible send some sort of recognizable signal through it to the Nav computer to act as a trigger. Beyond that, the damage control computer would, by necessity, be connected to every system on the ship to monitor for failure conditions. In addition, the other three computers should be able to detect and/or set error condition markers for the systems they monitor and control. While nowhere near an efficient or traditional mode of communication, it could serve in a limited sense. The Cylons would be aware of, if not intimately acquainted with the designs for all battlestars thanks to Number Six's infiltration of the Defense Mainframe. Am I the only one who sees this as plausible? Durandal 15:15, 8 January 2006 (EST)

Triggering a virus through DRADIS is plausible if it's already there, but planting one that way is not. It must have come in through a comm channel (as Spencerian argues) or from inside the ship (as I do). None of the system failures in Flight of the Phoenix require a network to be in place anyway - once the logic bomb had infected the four sub-systems, it would procede to sabotage them independantly. --Peter Farago 15:22, 8 January 2006 (EST)

As I said, I was making the fact that the systems were already infected a given. I was simply trying to explain the aparent coordination of the systems going down and how the Cylons kicked it into high gear, so to speak. However, the thought now comes to mind that, aside from the modifications ot CNP, the DRADIS control software could have also been modified pre-infection to enable it's use as a backdoor. (I know, reaching, but it floated to the top of my brain, so I go there...) Durandal 15:35, 8 January 2006 (EST)

Image Discussion

Okay, I had changed the Raider (new) image to a more accurate image of the raider (of how it really is supposed to look) but Merv changed it back. Instead of changing it back (which would predictably lead him to do the opposite) I leave it as a subject of discussion. I think the other pic, or at least that type of pic, is better than the present one, since it is more representative of the new cylon architecture than the set model, and it is also in its natural habitat. --Sauron18 22 March 2006

Actually you did the right think by moving the discussion here. Well, it's not in it's "natural habitat" this is a wireframe picture of a Raider; the skin isn't very detailed and "metallic" but slate gray, and look, the eye isn't even colored in red. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 21:41, 21 March 2006 (CST)

What about this one? It's complete, because its the model Zoic used in the end.

Well, I'll just ask again which everyone prefers, if no one answes I'll proceed to putting this pic and seeing how it decelops.... --Sauron18 22 March 2006

No, Sauron, you're still just using a model; it's the default one that Zoic sticks in, but the coloring is all wrong; please don't jump ahead on this one and "if no one answers proceed to use it" (you probably meant this less abrasively than it sounds). --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:23, 21 March 2006 (CST)

I prefer the screen capture to the render. --Peter Farago 02:25, 22 March 2006 (CST)

Well, what I meant with my comment is that if no one answered in a while I would just assume they accepted it., and therefore I would place it. Though I know this is an actual finished model (we see them the same in many times), I shall find a screencap then. I just don't like for the "set" raider to be seen as the New raider, since it doesnt't have exactly the same design, it is noticeably more round and squat than it should be (it is also not as metallic as it should be). --Sauron18 22 March 2006

It would appear that Sauron18 is advocating for a picture of the video game Raider. You have to understand, that video game rendering is kindergartener crayon-drawing quality compared to a professional film-quality rendering. Everything is going to appear drabber, edge-ier (because of the whole thing with facets and polygons), and be distorted at odd viewing angles. Does this denote the "true" look of the object? No. Does this mean there is a different version of the object? No. Star Wars suffers from this crazed, ignorant fanaticism wherein the video game models are scaled/modelled/depicted in such varying degrees of quality from the original model they are meant to represent (in order to get the game out in a hurry, and/or keep the gameplay efficient), that certain "challenged" individuals get all frothy-mouthed and claim the video game objects as different variants of the object. Soon, you've got fifty different TIE fighters in the SW Universe, all because the rendering of the panels is slightly different from game to game.

Big frakkin' deal. A TIE is a TIE is a TIE. Same here... a Raider is a Raider... is a Raider.

Now, pardon my rant, but it leads into... I don't consider video game depictions as "official canon". Peripheral, supplemental canon, or canon-taken-with-a-disclaimer, perhaps. With that said, I don't think a rendering from the video game should be used to be the "official representation" of an object like the Raider. The screen capture should be used, or, if you want it to look cleaner, the official for-screen Zoic model rendering should be used. -- Hawke 09:14, 22 March 2006 (CST)

I don't think he means using a video game model but the Zoic CGI one. I'll see if I can find a good shot that shows it's shape well. --Talos 10:31, 22 March 2006 (CST)

Talos is right, I wasn't talking about the game one (don't know where you got that). I was talking about the Zoic model (the picture of which I posted). I too shall look for an on screen full appeareance. --Sauron18 22 March 2006