198 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

The whole Pin Point accuracy issue seems to come down to how much can a Laser really be articulated or gimbled?

Anyone good at geometry?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 January 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Makes a lot of sense Maxx. Perhaps you can explain to me how an AC" has a min range of 90m while youre on a roll?

[NotNewHere]

I think that considering we can get an electron to hit an anti-electron, at the speed of light from 27km's away (LHC) we should have no trouble getting 4 lasers to hit the same place from 1000 meters. I know your going to say "but the LHC is huge and could never fit on a mech" but the aiming calculations where done on a laptop.
So it would be quite easy, even with modern day technology but I think after one PPC hit that laptop is gonna stop working and then you get stuck with a standard firing computer linking all the lasers together, rather than one computer per laser.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 19 January 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Makes a lot of sense Maxx. Perhaps you can explain to me how an AC" has a min range of 90m while youre on a roll?

Balance? Which has nothing to do with the Pin point issue of Laser fire and the problems it present in the gameplay.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 January 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Nightwish, on 19 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I think that considering we can get an electron to hit an anti-electron, at the speed of light from 27km's away (LHC) we should have no trouble getting 4 lasers to hit the same place from 1000 meters. I know your going to say "but the LHC is huge and could never fit on a mech" but the aiming calculations where done on a laptop.
So it would be quite easy, even with modern day technology but I think after one PPC hit that laptop is gonna stop working and then you get stuck with a standard firing computer linking all the lasers together, rather than one computer per laser.

So each Laser is gimbled within the chassis to allow for the barrel to be aimed at pretty large angles.

A collider and a Beam weapon are two very different tools btw.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 January 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[DarkTreader]

MaddMaxx, on 19 January 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

The whole Pin Point accuracy issue seems to come down to how much can a Laser really be articulated?

A ballistic weapon has a barrel, you can point that barrel at a target and its projectile will follow that path.

In MW/BT Lasers appear to have focusing lenses in or near the end of thier barrels (for want of a better word) which can be manipulated in such a fashion as to allow a fixed placement weapon to have some articulation.

I am no Math guru but over the relative short distances that the lasers have to travel when fired, the amount of angle change seen when pointing your reticule at a target fiarly close in, depending on its location on the firing Mech, and thus allowing said weapon be able to actually hit that exact spot seems a bit much really.

Now yes, immersion, suspensio of and al that but if one did some simple geometry, in order to change the focus point of a hard mounted laser to somehow how it move what appears to be 15 degrees seems very unlikely. Now the farther away a target gets the less angle change is needed so at 1000M a mere .15 degrees of change would put the beam on target. 15 degrees of movement when at 100M???

That is how I hope they solve the whole focus fire gambit and make Lasers less likely to all focus, or not. properly.

Does that make some semblance of sense?

That does make sense... but only to a point, at least how I'm reading this. It seems like you're talking the same kind of focusing as, say, a magnifying glass on an ant hill on a sunny day - you have to keep the beam small and tight to ignite the ground. Something like a solid state laser:



would produce a much more coherent beam, as well as not needing to be refocused on targets due to distance - it would just take more power. And really, if a Mech's reactor can't push out enough power to juice a laser enough to punch a bolt thru armor plating, I don't know what could.

[MaddMaxx]

DarkTreader, on 19 January 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

That does make sense... but only to a point, at least how I'm reading this. It seems like you're talking the same kind of focusing as, say, a magnifying glass on an ant hill on a sunny day - you have to keep the beam small and tight to ignite the ground. Something like a solid state laser:



would produce a much more coherent beam, as well as not needing to be refocused on targets due to distance - it would just take more power. And really, if a Mech's reactor can't push out enough power to juice a laser enough to punch a bolt thru armor plating, I don't know what could.

What I see as the problem (the ability of having multiple lasers mounted across the chassis of a Battlemech to all focus /land on the same exact point in space), is well illustrated in the above drawing. Question is...

Can the Front Mirror be manipulated to such an extent as to allow the end point of the Beam to move up to +/- 15 degrees without affecting its intensity?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 January 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 19 January 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Makes a lot of sense Maxx. Perhaps you can explain to me how an AC" has a min range of 90m while youre on a roll?

Just a pet peeve Nik, you have had your fun so now back in to your Shoebox like a good lad.

[DEVASTATOR]

If you want to really get down to basics then why not just say that the arm doesn't move at all? All weapons point straight ahead with no aiming at all much like an old biplane firing a mounted machine gun. Your mech has to point at the other mech and there's no convergence of weapons fire at all. You might hit some areas and you might not.

Now, a lot of people wil say that mechs have always had the ability to move the arms and focus fire. So? How much less corny is this than saying a futuristic targeting computer can't hit the masive area of a center torso on a giant walking tin can 200m away? These things are HUGE if you recall. Pretty hard to miss them with your eyes closed. I don't think creating what amounts to an arbitrary "miss" factor is the solution.

[DarkTreader]

The mirrors on the lasers would always point forward - otherwise, you'd be shearing off any barrel length each time you fired. The weapon mount, however, COULD move. Refer earlier to the fixed vs. ball mount.

[MaddMaxx]

DEVASTATOR, on 19 January 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

If you want to really get down to basics then why not just say that the arm doesn't move at all? All weapons point straight ahead with no aiming at all much like an old biplane firing a mounted machine gun. Your mech has to point at the other mech and there's no convergence of weapons fire at all. You might hit some areas and you might not.

Now, a lot of people wil say that mechs have always had the ability to move the arms and focus fire. So? How much less corny is this than saying a futuristic targeting computer can't hit the masive area of a center torso on a giant walking tin can 200m away? These things are HUGE if you recall. Pretty hard to miss them with your eyes closed. I don't think creating what amounts to an arbitrary "miss" factor is the solution.

Arms move. That is not an issue. Torso mounted weapons, I would say that straight ahead would be acceptable. No aim time, just turn your mech to face the target and pull. Given another 2 seconds and the arms would also align themselves.

I could even live with a gimbling system, as I assume that is what the TC does after itself and all the other stuff it needs (the Gimbles) are installed and thus the very much added weight a crit space a TC requires.

No TC, fire straight ahead, if not in/on an Arm. With a TC (and required components) for each assigned weapon and focused fire enabled.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 January 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[DEVASTATOR]

MaddMaxx, on 19 January 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Arms move. That is not an issue. Torso mounted weapons, I would say that straight ahead would be acceptable. No aim time, just turn your mech to face the target and pull. Given another 2 seconds and the arms would also align themselves.

I could even live with a gimbling system, as I assume that is what the TC does after itself and all the other stuff it needs (the Gimbles) are installed and thus the very much added weight a crit space a TC requires.

No TC, fire straight ahead, if not in/on an Arm. With a TC (and required components) for each assigned weapon and focused fire enabled.

I was being facetious.

[MaddMaxx]

DEVASTATOR, on 19 January 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I was being facetious.

Oh crappers. So that was a "Bazinga" then?

[Graphite]

If you allow 4x ML to act like an AC20, you make the AC20 obsolete. There's no way the devs will do that.

[TRK]

Just to add a bit from my experience in TT. A mech has a fairly wide front firing arc. Also, what about multiple targets? That was allowed in TT. I realise somethings dont translate well, or even at all to live action. Just pointing that out.

[Cataphract]

As far as I'm aware a TC made weapoms more accurate by doing calculations for the pilot to help with things like leading the target and directly targeting certain parts of a mech not actually directly affecting the physical accuracy of the weapons themselves or adding a gimble system. I remember from most books and tech descriptions that anything not mounted in the arms pretty much always fired straight forward from it's mounting point. If the devs designed that kind of functionality in the game that would be another factor in considering whether or not it would be fair to allow those 4 Mlas to equal an AC20 point for point. Personally I wouldn't want to deal with the pretty large amount of heat generatin from constantly alpha firing those lasers to keep up with the AC20, but I would be more than happy to pound the trigger when firing an AC. I think it's fair to let it ride. The devs could always just balance the damage out if it really became an issue early on.

[Yeach]

Cataphract, on 19 January 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Personally I wouldn't want to deal with the pretty large amount of heat generatin from constantly alpha firing those lasers to keep up with the AC20, but I would be more than happy to pound the trigger when firing an AC. I think it's fair to let it ride. The devs could always just balance the damage out if it really became an issue early on.

UncleKulikov, on 17 November 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

Totals:
AC 20
Tons 14 + 1 for ammo
Heat 7
Crits: 10

4x Medium Lasers:
4 Tons
12 Heat (3 heat per laser x 4 lasers)
4 Crits

so the difference is that the AC 20 takes up 6 more slots, 11 more tons, 5 less heat, can run out of ammunition, and can suffer an ammunition explosion.

Therefore, 4 medium lasers is more advantageous even with using the additional Tons left over to purchase additional heat sinks.

As the poster above, you have enough criticals and tonnage to add heatsinks to cover the difference in heat.
Personally I think the medium laser produces too little heat; should up it to 5.

Edited by Yeach, 19 January 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[VanillaG]

Nightwish, on 19 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I think that considering we can get an electron to hit an anti-electron, at the speed of light from 27km's away (LHC) we should have no trouble getting 4 lasers to hit the same place from 1000 meters. I know your going to say "but the LHC is huge and could never fit on a mech" but the aiming calculations where done on a laptop.
So it would be quite easy, even with modern day technology but I think after one PPC hit that laptop is gonna stop working and then you get stuck with a standard firing computer linking all the lasers together, rather than one computer per laser.

Right, because aiming 2 particles in a vacum tube surrounded by magnets is exactly like 2 machines bouncing over terrain at relative speeds over 100 km/h with all kinds of stuff in between them In the LHC, the laptop controls the movement of both targets but in the mech your only control your movements.

I can accept the fact that the lasers are mounted on gimbals to allow for tracking but the movement of your mech might be to much for the gimbals to keep all of the lasers focused on 1 point. If you are standing still I can see all of the laser hitting the same point but as you start to move 1 or more of the lasers might not be able to keep up.

[verybad]

Graphite, on 19 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

If you allow 4x ML to act like an AC20, you make the AC20 obsolete. There's no way the devs will do that.

No you don't. Give them the same damage over time, but make the AC-20 do all it's damage in very short bursts, allowing you to get back under cover while it's reloading and your mech is cooling.

Cover is a very important part of the equation, and it's proper use will probably separate the wins from the losses. It's the same in most FPS, Tanks games, previous Mechwarrior games, and real life tank combat.

If you need to be out of cover for less time to do that overall damage, then you're likely to be more successful.

As for whether or not lasers or ACs can have gimbals that allow convergent fire in battletech, I present to you the "Targetting Computer". Weighing only 25% of the mass of your direct fire weapons, and based on the most modern 286 supercomputers we could develop in the 31st century, this handy bit of technology is complete and utter proof that the mech's weaons indeed are individually targeted, and also capable of convergent fire.

Another bit of proof, secondary targets.

I'm fine with convergent fire needing a lock (TC would speed up that lock) but the capability is certainly there. It's not exactly high end technology (used in wooden ships to fire round cannonballs).

Come on folks, it's just common sense. It has to be balanced sure, but it's been pretty much guaranteed to be in the game already by the developers, so you may as well get with the program.

[Graphite]

verybad, on 19 January 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Quote

If you allow 4x ML to act like an AC20, you make the AC20 obsolete. There's no way the devs will do that.

No you don't. Give them the same damage over time, but make the AC-20 do all it's damage in very short bursts, allowing you to get back under cover while it's reloading and your mech is cooling.

That's not making 4xML like an AC20. Making 4xMLs like an AC20 would mean having the same rate of fire. I've got no objection to 4xML doing the same dps as an AC20, as long as they have a higher rate of fire than an AC20.

As for "bursts" from the AC20, the trailer has already shown that the AC20 is "cannon-like" rather than "machinegun-like" - a very good decision, IMO.

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 05:54 PM.