239 replies to this topic

[Telmasa]

Jman5, on 09 August 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

You guys laugh, but I bet if you slowed down and did a blow by blow analysis, this isn't far from the truth. Except instead of hitting one component with your laser blast, you hit three.

I agree.

I feel like the vast majority of visitors of this thread have failed to notice the fact that both mechs in question were moving throughout the entire engagement.

At top speed & with 'pro' players working to spread the damage, similar things to the quoted story do happen ingame, though there are sprinkles of Stackpoling still, here and there.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 09 August 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

To calculate that, we need the muzzle velocity and barrel length of the gun.

figure a 3 meter barrel. For now let's simply use PGI's posted 2000m/s, even though the MWO Gauss does use a saboted penetrator instead of a metal watermelon.

2000 m/s is what, between mach 5.5 and mach 6 at sea level? That would fit the "hypersonic" description sometimes used.

so, 125kg circular projectile, at 2000 M/S exiting a 3 meter barrel..... not sure what the efficiency level would be (multistage coilgun for optimal efficiency?) nor the ballistic variables for a 1 meter sphere.

But a ballpark energy level to launch, and at impact, would be interesting, for the "sciency" types out here.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 09 August 2015 - 04:01 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

anyone wanna do the math on how many megawatts is needed to propel that sucker? The Naval Test Rail Gun I think used 25 megawatts to launch a much smaller projectile.

Of course, maybe it's a very heavy sabot?


indeed...and the kinetic impact energy imparted would be fantastic. It's ability as a penetrator would be grossly inefficient though.

Call me crazy, but I think I'd load a meter long tungsten penetrator into a nice ferrous sabot, and use that same amount of energy to punch right through my target.

Well, the energy needed would depend on the desired muzzle velocity, and the assumed efficiency of the Gauss Rifle (e.g. coilgun) system.

Using the "Mach 2" (680.58 m/s) figure quoted in Bloodname & TRO 3058, and an efficiency of 22% (matching DARPA's 45-stage coilgun mortar):
muzzle KE = 0.5*125*680.58^2 = 2.89493x10^7 J = 28.95 MJ
with 22% efficiency: E = (2.89493x10^7)/(0.22) = 1.31588x10^8 J = 131.59 MJ

So, it would take 131.59 megajoules (or, 0.13 gigajoules) of energy to fire a 125 kg slug at Mach 2 with a 22%-efficiency Gauss Rifle.
At 100% efficiency, the energy requirement decreases to 28.95 megajoules.

The Watt is defined as Joules per second.
Watts = (Joules)/(seconds) = (voltage)*(amperage) = (amperage)^2/(Ohms)
So, if you want wattage, you'll need to know voltage, amperage, resistance, and/or a value for seconds.

Also, it should be noted that 'Mech armor is an advanced composite armor meant to be conceptually similar to Chobham, so the long-rod penetrators that you're proposing might be less effective than one might hope.

• "Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly abrades any penetrator."
  
• "The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration."

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 09 August 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

Well, the energy needed would depend on the desired muzzle velocity, and the assumed efficiency of the Gauss Rifle (e.g. coilgun) system.

Using the "Mach 2" (680.58 m/s) figure quoted in Bloodname & TRO 3058, and an efficiency of 22% (matching DARPA's 45-stage coilgun mortar):
muzzle KE = 0.5*125*680.58^2 = 2.89493x10^7 J = 28.95 MJ
with 22% efficiency: E = (2.89493x10^7)/(0.22) = 1.31588x10^8 J = 131.59 MJ

So, it would take 131.59 megajoules (or, 0.13 gigajoules) of energy to fire a 125 kg slug at Mach 2 with a 22%-efficiency Gauss Rifle.
At 100% efficiency, the energy requirement decreases to 28.95 megajoules.

The Watt is defined as Joules per second.
Watts = (Joules)/(seconds) = (voltage)*(amperage) = (amperage)^2/(Ohms)
So, if you want wattage, you'll need to know voltage, amperage, resistance, and/or a value for seconds.

Also, it should be noted that 'Mech armor is an advanced composite armor meant to be conceptually similar to Chobham, so the long-rod penetrators that you're proposing might be less effective than one might hope.

• "Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly abrades any penetrator."
  
• "The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration."

that may well be true,. but modern tanks rounds are penetrators for anti armor purposes for a reason. It might not be optimal, but it's more efficient than lobbing bowling balls. Of course, moderns rounds are also HEAT... but Gauss removes the "High Explosive" from the equation by concept. So, unless you have an alternative for kinetic kill efficiency?

[bad arcade kitty]

pretty sure you don't even try to take for account the air and how the ball with that speed would fly in the air... brrr

Telmasa, on 09 August 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

I agree.

I feel like the vast majority of visitors of this thread have failed to notice the fact that both mechs in question were moving throughout the entire engagement.

At top speed & with 'pro' players working to spread the damage, similar things to the quoted story do happen ingame, though there are sprinkles of Stackpoling still, here and there.

where does stackpole describe the torso twisting to avoid being cored? checkmate, atheists!~

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 09 August 2015 - 04:20 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

that may well be true,. but modern tanks rounds are penetrators for anti armor purposes for a reason. It might not be optimal, but it's more efficient than lobbing bowling balls. Of course, moderns rounds are also HEAT... but Gauss removes the "High Explosive" from the equation by concept. So, unless you have an alternative for kinetic kill efficiency?

Personally, I've always thought the Mach 2 figure was silly, and instead favored the canonically commonly-used description of "hypersonic" (which would give the Gauss Rifle a minimum muzzle velocity of Mach 5.0 (1,701.45 m/s) - or slightly slower than the muzzle velocity of the Abrams' main gun (1,750 m/s)).

Then again, I seem to recall at least one source (TRO 2750?) stating that the Gauss Rifle's muzzle velocity was roughly double that of any conventional ballistic weapon (such as the Abrams' main gun), which would put it closer to Mach 10 (3,402.9 m/s), versus the Mach 7 muzzle velocity of the US Navy's railgun.

A 125-kg projectile moving at 3400 m/s has 722.5 MJ (0.72 GJ) of kinetic energy - at that point, having it be a sphere probably doesn't make too much of a difference, with regard to the end result.
Then again, a fully-armored stock AS7-D can take two of those to the sternum & keep coming...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 09 August 2015 - 04:36 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

a sphere is harder to speed up to that speed and also its behavior may probably be erratic

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 09 August 2015 - 04:39 PM.

[Telmasa]

Queen of England, on 09 August 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

For extra fun, try to build Vlad's executioner in smurfy's. 2x guass rifles, 1 "large laser", 2 "pulse lasers".

It's possible. By essentially only taking the armor of an Adder, but it is possible. And if the JJs were removable, the armor would be a *lot* more reasonable.

Edited by Telmasa, 09 August 2015 - 04:41 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

figure a 3 meter barrel. For now let's simply use PGI's posted 2000m/s, even though the MWO Gauss does use a saboted penetrator instead of a metal watermelon.

2000 m/s is what, between mach 5.5 and mach 6 at sea level? That would fit the "hypersonic" description sometimes used.

so, 125kg circular projectile, at 2000 M/S exiting a 3 meter barrel..... not sure what the efficiency level would be (multistage coilgun for optimal efficiency?) nor the ballistic variables for a 1 meter sphere.

But a ballpark energy level to launch, and at impact, would be interesting, for the "sciency" types out here.

I'll just take the kinetic energy value Strum posted and calculate from there.

E (100% eff.) = 29 MJ

With a barrel length of 3 m and muzzle velocity of 681 m/s, it means that the projectile spends about 3/(1/2 * 681) s = 8.8 ms in the barrel.

Power = E/t = (29/8.8) GJ GW = 3.3 GJ GW

With 22% efficiency (Strum) = 0.22 * 3.3 GJ GW = 726 MJ MW

So the power requirement would be around 29 times the navy's prototype gun you posted.

Now, if the mass of the projectile is 1/10 of the mass depicted in the novel (i.e 10 kg instead of 100 kg), the value would be more sensible: 72.6 instead of 726 MW, or around 3 times the current naval gun's power.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 09 August 2015 - 05:25 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

That's how it is on paper. But are you gonna sit there and tell me that it is easy to dispatch of any player in this game in the Wubshee? Like easy, no problem, 100% success rate?

Or is someone equally competent in an equally deadly mech going to make things a little difficult?

Whales, generally. Brawler Timbies?


That's about it. It's multiple players that cause other issues. 1 VS 1, pretty confident. 40 damage that won't be spread, 200 damage cap, fast recycle, with shield arms.


Not much to go wrong. Laser Timbies have roughly the same damage, but double the duration. Not afraid of those. Whales add the Dual Gauss on top of those, which means trades are nearly the same...which is a bit more concerning, but they still can't protect their CT very well (due to twist speed, range and hitboxes). A firing line of Whales? Ouch.


After nearly 1000 matches, it has a steadily rising 5.41K/d and 594 average damage. W/l sits below 2, but PUG LIFE isn't something you can control (cue 6 kill 1100 damage loss).

It's a fun, effective, easy button. And I love it. LOLpha, twist, LOLpha, twist, coolshot, LOLpha, twist, LOLpha, win.


Only issue? Hills.

[Ano]

stjobe, on 09 August 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

I don't think I argued that it should... Nope, pretty sure I didn't.

But I tell you what, why don't you go fire two handguns while running and see if you can put both bullets in the same hole.

Well obviously I'm exaggerating a little for emphasis, but fair enough. I'd still argue that direct fire weapon accuracy being significantly affected by RNG would probably feel unsatisfying (NB I don't think of 'weapon convergence' as an RNG-based thing).

As for run-and-gun capabilities, I doubt *I* could put two consecutive bullets into the same *wall*, but if we're talking about building bipedal robots to fire guns while moving, I'd have assumed they'd have thought about that and put some technology in place to assist.

stjobe, on 09 August 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

(Tech Manual, p.40, emphasis mine)

MechWarriors do not aim the 'mechs guns at all - they designate targets. The 'mech itself takes care of the aiming. If the MechWarrior pulls the trigger at the wrong time, the shots go wherever the guns happen to be pointing.

That's interesting -- I was never a TT player so I've not read any of the sourcebooks/original manuals.

The sentence you've highlighted doesn't seem completely incompatible with the notion that a mechwarrior could aim at a specific portion of a mech though (targeting a limb, or what have you), and from what I remember of the fiction I've read (a bunch of the old novels and a bunch of the newer stuff from Battlecorps) it certainly seemed that there at least, mechwarriors would attempt to target specific components or areas of enemy mechs.

[Alistair Winter]

Spr1ggan, on 09 August 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

On the TT there are some super low TTK scenarios though. Such as a light mech hit with an AC20 or Gauss round.

I honestly wouldn't mind that for MWO, but this is truly apples and oranges, because TT is not designed to have a human player controlling each individual mech and to ensure that each of those players has an enjoyable experience. In CounterStrike, the 9mm Glock doesn't need to be balanced with the AK-47, because players are supposed to start with cheap weapons and then earn better weapons in a series of matches. Skill and dollars are balancing mechanics. You have to be skilled to earn dollars, and you have to spend dollars to get the best equipment. When you die, you lose your equipment.

There's no equivalent in MWO. If light mechs were as bad relative to the best assault mechs in MWO as they are in TT, no one would play light mechs. Because there's no game mechanic in place to justify it. All we ever had was repair & rearm, but they removed that.

In Warhammer 40,000, Space Marines shred through most enemy infantry with ease, having superior firepower, toughness, armour and aim. They're just better than almost any enemies out there. But that's not how it works in the 40k MMO, because that would be a p*ss poor game.

But yeah, bring on instakilling of light mechs in MWO, if you want. So long as there are game mechanics that compensate.

[bad arcade kitty]

Ano, on 09 August 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

I'd still argue that direct fire weapon accuracy being significantly affected by RNG would probably feel unsatisfying

you can try it yourself, just use use streaks
rng is sometimes such a *****....

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 09 August 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

I'll just take the kinetic energy value Strum posted and calculate from there.

E (100% eff.) = 29 MJ

With a barrel length of 3 m and muzzle velocity of 681 m/s, it means that the projectile spends about 3/(1/2 * 681) s = 8.8 ms in the barrel.

Power = E/t = (29/8.8) GJ = 3.3 GJ

With 22% efficiency (Strum) = 0.22 * 3.3 GJ = 726 MJ

So the power requirement would be around 29 times the navy's prototype gun you posted.

Good thing Gipsy Danger's NUCLEAR then!

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Good thing Gipsy Danger's NUCLEAR then!

But... we still need the imaginary lightweight compact capacitors to store and release all of that Mega Joules of energy in the blink of an eye!

[Telmasa]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Good thing Gipsy Danger's NUCLEAR then!

God I can't wait for the second movie to come out. Guillermo Del Toro is the *man*.

Seeing Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D on premiere night with a packed theatre was, bar none, the best movie experience of my life. Probably on the order of what I hear the original theatre releases of Star Wars was like (before my time).

___


Anyway, yeah, Battlemechs are running on Fusion engines (ones refined after a few hundred years of widespread use, no less), so I figure it's possible to waive the power requirements, even if it is 79 times more energy (or whatever) what it takes to fire a real-life 2015 rail gun.

[Bishop Steiner]

Telmasa, on 09 August 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:

God I can't wait for the second movie to come out. Guillermo Del Toro is the *man*.

Seeing Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D on premiere night with a packed theatre was, bar none, the best movie experience of my life. Probably on the order of what I hear the original theatre releases of Star Wars was like (before my time).

___


Anyway, yeah, Battlemechs are running on Fusion engines (ones refined after a few hundred years of widespread use, no less), so I figure it's possible to waive the power requirements, even if it is 79 times more energy (or whatever) what it takes to fire a real-life 2015 rail gun.

well...it was fun. The sciency stuff made Btech look like Hawking and DeGrasse wrote it, but it was fun.
(Gipsy is "analog instead of digital", because she's nuclear? It only took 8 Chinooks to carry a 2500 ton robot? A non alloy, solid Iron Hull is preferable for slugging out with giant monsters in salt water? Building 2500 ton robots to play rock em sock em robots was the idea they had for fighting monsters? (OK, punching doesn't leave behind fallout, but wrestling Godzilla thru the city seems pretty... inefficient))

I just hope he hires some guys to write more convincing "techno-jargon" for number 2.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 09 August 2015 - 05:10 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Hit the Deck, on 09 August 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

I'll just take the kinetic energy value Strum posted and calculate from there.

E (100% eff.) = 29 MJ

With a barrel length of 3 m and muzzle velocity of 681 m/s, it means that the projectile spends about 3/(1/2 * 681) s = 8.8 ms in the barrel.

Power = E/t = (29/8.8) GJ = 3.3 GJ

With 22% efficiency (Strum) = 0.22 * 3.3 GJ = 726 MJ

So the power requirement would be around 29 times the navy's prototype gun you posted.

Now, if the mass of the projectile is 1/10 of the mass depicted in the novel (i.e 10 kg instead of 100 kg), the value would be more sensible: 72.6 instead of 726 MJ, or around 3 times the current naval gun's power.

As a point of correction: power is in watts, while energy is in joules.

So, that should actually read as "3.3 gigawatts (GW)" and "726 GW".

----------

Bishop Steiner, on 09 August 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Good thing Gipsy Danger's NUCLEAR then!

Well, Gipsy Danger basically had two PPCs as its original primary weapons.



"The Plasmacaster was a particle dispersal cannon that fired a beam of charged plasma via a carrier rail."

Edited by Strum Wealh, 09 August 2015 - 05:36 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Strum Wealh, on 09 August 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

As a point of correction: power is in watts, while energy is in joules.

So, that should actually read as "3.3 gigawatts (GW)" and "726 GW".

Ah yeah my brain farted when I typed that. Thanks!

[Telmasa]

Strum Wealh, on 09 August 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

Well, Gipsy Danger basically had two PPCs as its original primary weapons.

"The Plasmacaster was a particle dispersal cannon that fired a beam of charged plasma via a carrier rail."

Don't you mean two Plasma Cannons (they do run out of ammo in the movie at one point, right)? Plus a Retractable Blade?

edit: oh oh and don't forget the Dual Cockpit

Edited by Telmasa, 09 August 2015 - 05:42 PM.