73 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Tuonela, on 11 May 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Aside from cockpit shake from being hit by enemy fire, does anyone think it would be a good idea if for some of the bigger guns like PPCs or Gauss you'd get some kickback? The idea is that if you're firing a big gun your aim would get thrown off a little and you'd have to re-aim, especially for long range engagements. It would put a little more skill into hitting the targets consistently and would add some realism for the energy launched out of the mech. It'd also be a nice effect for missiles and make it feel like you're really firing something powerful.

The reticule on the HUD is not tied to the weapons such that it can be yanked off target by recoil or incoming fire specifically for the very good reason that it is an indicator to the 'mech for where to try and aim it's weapons.

Smacking the reticule around is counter to it's central purpose.

Skill in mech gunnery constitutues knowing how well or poorly your 'mech can aim it's weapons to hit what you're indicating for it and manipulating those conditions so that your 'mech can hit what you're aiming at with the reticule.

[wolfganggold]

Recoil from firing a PPC in Mechwarrior 3 was one of my favorite things about that game...it gave the 'mechs a real feeling of weight, something I felt was sorely lacking in even the biggest ones in Mechwarrior 4. That big "bawoosh!" and seeing the mech rock back was just a great bit of immersion and i definitely hope they have a good bit of that in this game.

[Volthorne]

Pht, on 11 May 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

The reticule on the HUD is not tied to the weapons such that it can be yanked off target by recoil or incoming fire specifically for the very good reason that it is an indicator to the 'mech for where to try and aim it's weapons.

Wrong. The reticule on the HUD tells you exactly where your weapons are pointing. As such, it is directly tied to your weapons systems. "Yanking" it off-target simulates either A] recoil from firing a heavy weapon or B] getting hit with a heavy weapon. An "indicator" as to where your weapons are firing would be a larger reticule (most likely circular shaped) that depicts a cone of fire. Unfortunately, a COF would only effectively work with MGs, yet they don't generate enough recoil to need one. Lasers are beams of light, so they obviously don't need a COF indicator, just a reticule. ACs appear to fire single shots (and at a very low ROF), so they probably wouldn't need a COF indicator either. SRMs fly straight, and LRMs arc, no need for COF indicator there either.

More proof that you're wrong: the Neuro-helms integrate the pilot with his 'mech, so that the 'mech can be operated with almost precision detail as to what the pilot wants done, with the exception of movement. his means the pilot knows EXACTLY where his weapons are pointed at all times.

Edited by Volthorne, 11 May 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Shirefolk]

Kasiagora, on 11 May 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Well if nothing else, at least the Gauss Rifle's rearward force is being built up more gradually over the course of it's travel down the barrel passing all of those electromagnets, as opposed to the much more sudden "explosion" of the propellant being burned to send the Autocannon round on its merry way.

I will grant you that. However, the barrel is not too long, so the accelerations are extreme. While it would have less over all kickback for a slug of the same speed and muzzel velocity, can we say that is true in this case? IE, is this the same effective mass and muzzel velocity of the AC 20 etc. If not, this reasonable difference brought up might not have much effect on kickback felt since the kickback could be of such a greater magnitude due to different end results.

So, you are right. I was a bit lazy and did not think about the impulse by the different acceleration methods. But, we need to compare it to weapon specs to get accurate data on practical kickback. If we are throwing the GR slug that much harder, it could have the same or more kickback than other weapons.

As a side thought, I wonder what the practical power requirement differences would be between the AC series weapons, GRs, and then say lasers. GR should use significantly more than propellant based weapons. But I am not sure how much that changes compared to the lasers.

[Arbhall Sommers]

Im of the opinion that the tonnage allocated to the gyros and the mass of the mech itself, will counter the recoil.
The flexibility of the actuators and the training involved should make it so there is no recoil.
However, going from tabletop. Recoil never mattered there, but movement did. I can easily see the ride in a mech being rough at best when walking and more so as the mech moves over rough terrain. Just like the table top.
Im not suggesting that all the game physics should be based entirely on the TT rules ( but i wouldnt mind that at all actually) as they do not translate to a realtime setting well at all.
I do feel the movement modifiers would make the biggest difference, and would be the best to balance the realtime setting.

[Belisarius1]

I'd be happy to see some recoil.

[Belisarius1]

Shredhead, on 13 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

The recoil of the lasers should be extreme, as this is one of the two major reasons (the other is energy) why soldiers aren't running around with laser guns yet.

...why in the world do laser guns have recoil?

[Risky]

Well, the way I see it is that there should be a very small amount of recoil on all mechs with all weapons. Why? Because this is the future and any weapons company that didn't design a recoil compensation system into their UAC-20 isn't going to have much luck selling it. Not to mention that any mech that can't stay highly stable while firing its UAC-20 is not going to be bought.

I'd like to think that these mechs were designed to take this recoil and compensate for it in a rather swell fashion.

[Cruxshadow]

Shredhead, on 13 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

The recoil of the lasers should be extreme, as this is one of the two major reasons (the other is energy) why soldiers aren't running around with laser guns yet.

I don't know where you got the idea that lasers have recoil but you are so wrong. The main reasons that a man portable laser system hasn't been fieleded is because of power generation is still weight prohibative. It still takes a Humvee to carry the generators and transformers to meet the power requirements. The other is damage output over time. The smaller the laser the longer a beam has to stay on target to reach the desired damage range. Currently it take the U.S. Army Ordenance disposal laser 3-5 seconds to penetrate and detonate unexploded shells, and takes up the back two thirds of a square back Humvee.

Lasers by their nature have no recoil.


Battle Mechs would already have built in recoil diminishes and compensators as part of the mounts. The simple act of walking would have greater effects on the cocpit and aiming that weapons fire. The act of moving 25-100 tonnes of mech per stride wound generate more shock than firing any weapon.

[neodym]

Ravager AI, on 11 May 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I could see an Autocannon having some measure of recoil on smaller 'mechs. But you have to remember that a gauss uses electromagnetism to propel its shot, making it (Of what I remember from physics class) almost recoilless if not entirely so.

its not almost,its totaly recoil less AC20 on other hand should have massive recoil,I mean that should nearly knock down atlas when firing

[Aldinvor]

By the title I thought this thread would be about putting you feet up after killing someone with an alpha strike...

[Cruxshadow]

Aldinvor, on 14 May 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

By the title I thought this thread would be about putting you feet up after killing someone with an alpha strike...

Being able to call in an Arclight strike would be nice.

[LordDeathStrike]

the torso mounted ac 20 or gauss or an atlas, will kick only minimally, its an atlas torso, it takes alot to throw it around.

a hunchback ac 20 should kick the aim reticle 2x as far as the atlas, half the mass of the mech, but the same weapon.

arm mounted ppc recoil can be deferred mostly by the arm actuators, say the right arm of an awesome.

catapult lrm arm boxes, if fired individually ild expect blowback to either side, if fired at the same time ild expect balanced blowback moving your reticle up for your lasers ect.

dont expect alot of kick on fireing mechs reticles, the machines are designed to abosrb and dissipate most of it for you.

[Volthorne]

neodym, on 14 May 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

its not almost,its totaly recoil less AC20 on other hand should have massive recoil,I mean that should nearly knock down atlas when firing

I had a debate with some guys in another thread about this exact topic. I lost.

Gauss Rifles DO have recoil, albeit much lower than that of an equal caliber Chemical Propellant Rifle.

LordDeathStrike, on 14 May 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

the torso mounted ac 20 or gauss or an atlas, will kick only minimally, its an atlas torso, it takes alot to throw it around.

a hunchback ac 20 should kick the aim reticle 2x as far as the atlas, half the mass of the mech, but the same weapon.

catapult lrm arm boxes, if fired individually ild expect blowback to either side, if fired at the same time ild expect balanced blowback moving your reticle up for your lasers ect.

Atlas Torso is also much closer to the Atlas' center of gravity, therefore, harder to knock around. Hunchback right shoulder, farther from Hunchback center of gravity, therefore easier to knock around.

LRM launchers probably have exhaust tubes out the back, so I'd expect minimal, if any recoil, even if fired individually.

[Shredhead]

Cruxshadow, on 13 May 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

I don't know where you got the idea that lasers have recoil but you are so wrong. The main reasons that a man portable laser system hasn't been fieleded is because of power generation is still weight prohibative. It still takes a Humvee to carry the generators and transformers to meet the power requirements. The other is damage output over time. The smaller the laser the longer a beam has to stay on target to reach the desired damage range. Currently it take the U.S. Army Ordenance disposal laser 3-5 seconds to penetrate and detonate unexploded shells, and takes up the back two thirds of a square back Humvee.

Lasers by their nature have no recoil.


Battle Mechs would already have built in recoil diminishes and compensators as part of the mounts. The simple act of walking would have greater effects on the cocpit and aiming that weapons fire. The act of moving 25-100 tonnes of mech per stride wound generate more shock than firing any weapon.

Yeah, I'm sorry, mixed it up with something I read a few months ago.

[Kasiagora]

This thread has brought up many, very intriguing points.
I'm pretty tired right now, but I'm going to try and remain coherent enough to add a couple of thoughts here and there.
What I'd said earlier was basically that, If the overall amount of force being exerted is the same between two weapon systems, the way that they achieve that amount of force can play a big difference. Even in upon human, a matter of a fraction of a second is a lot of time when it comes to reactions and recovery so if the majority of the recoil is sudden and then drops off it can catch us slightly off guard whereas if the recoil builds up to its peak –even if it's over the course of a fraction of a second– our minds and bodies are already adapting to control that force, so we recover more smoothly. Kind of like if a person hands you a 50 pound bag of dog food vs holding it a fraction of an inch over your out stretched hands and letting go, only you know, completely different.

Anyway this got me to thinking about how computers on vehicles can react to changes in milliseconds and adjust air/fuel mixtures to prevent misfire, or change distribution of power to the wheels in an all-wheel-drive car when it starts to lose traction, or apply the brakes individually for similar results. I thought that if a computer feels the recoil of a Gauss Rifle begin, it can compensate more adequately. Which led to the next thought of: signals have to go through the computer to fire any of the weapons anyway so why wouldn't the mech simply kick the gyro in an opposing manner to preemptively counteract the recoil the moment it happens on any of its guns? Pull the trigger, impulses go to the computer, and the computer sends one signal to the weapon and a new command to the gyro. It would happen in milliseconds. Suddenly I'm thinking a mech's own recoil wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue as the impact from enemy fire that can not be anticipated. Thoughts?

Side notes: The discussion on center of gravity, speed of perceived recoil, and weight of mech makes me think the extremely long barrel on a Hollander's Gauss Rifle makes a world of sense now. Also there's firearms in use all over that have spring-based shock absorbers built in, hydraulic shocks, muzzle breaks, and things called Dead Mules that are a steel capsule filled with liquid mercury to counteract recoil. The premise behind the Dead Mule is that when the gun moves rearward the liquid inside stays in place so that when the front of the cartridge hits the mass of the relatively stationary and dense mercury, the rearward travel is hampered and to an extent negated. I see no reason why mechs can't have these and more advanced systems.

Edited by Kasiagora, 14 May 2012 - 02:31 AM.

[Knusern]

I think that a stationary mech fireing an alpha should rock back on its heals a bit.
A running mech firing an alpha should deviate from its corse a fraction or slow down for a half step.
A jumping mech should get severe kickback. ballancing on a jetstream while shooting a heavy weapon
should have consequences

This is reflected in the TT rules with target modifiers on a running or jumping mech.

[StandingCow]

Ignoring physics here for a moment... you would probably want to have recoil just for balance purposes if anything... just so that a sniper for example has to re-aim after firing.

Obviously lasers wouldn't have recoil, that wouldn't make any sense.

[zirkonflex]

To all the people saying a mech is all so heavy and wouldn't experience strong recoil, I'm fairly comfident that a 100 ton mech of a roughly battletech statue would never be able to fire a weapon similar to a modern day tank, especially not form anywhere in the side torsos and really, really not from the arms. It would quite simply be blown over, and the arms would just fall off.

Partly that's due to BT mechs weighing pretty much nothing. I'd say an armoured biped like the heavy mechs in BT would weigh little under 500 tons or so if they where real. Just compare the "mass" of material and armour, weapons system and everything to a take, a single mech leg would probably weigh in at around 50 tons, with the reactor shielding and stuff in the center torso off the scale, really.

I think recoil was a big part of the battles in the novels, it partly explains some of the inconsistency and "randomness" of the firing in TT and would suit the game well, gameplay would just be cooler and more balanced, especially if people tried to spam heavy weapons.
Also keep in mind mechs are (usually) not really futuristic, but as Stackpole once put it rather "steampunk" in the way the behave, they are no alien-like precision machines but much more like "loose and rattling", kind of crap, actually.
Imagine the tech of a modern tank with a fusion reactor and lasers.

/ I'd say it'd be realistic AND benefitial to gameplay, a no-brainer really.
// For the gameplay effects im pretty much with Knuser, well put, although I wouldn't like jumping mechs to able to fire anything bigger at all.

Edited by zirkonflex, 14 May 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[LackofCertainty]

iirc someone calculated out how much recoil a gauss rifle would generate compared to the average weight of mechs that field them. It was significant enough that I think they should (at the least) cause a sudden slow down, if you fire them while running forward. If you fired them while going backward at top speed it might even be enough to topple your mech. (especially if multiple were fired at the same time, or if you had other poor conditions like firing up hill while on a slope)

20-100 tons is a lot of mass to move, but with the ridiculous speeds that GR create in their 125kg projectile.... there's a -lot- of recoil.

As far as AC vs. GR in terms of recoil GR's are way higher because: F (recoil in this case) = M (mass of the projectile) * A (acceleration of the projectile)
1. their shell is a solid slug. More mass per round.
2. They generate far more acceleration than an AC round (ac rounds do their damage by exploding when they hit the target. Gauss rounds do their damage by being a large chunk of metal flying at insane speeds)

As was previously mentioned, Gauss rifle rounds wouldn't accelerate any slower than an AC round, most likely. Granted, they do their acceleration over the course of the entire barrel, but guns of today do this as well. Propellant does not burn instantaneously. Plus, Gauss rounds have to get to a much higher speed than AC rounds would, so they would likely have higher acceleration.


Edit: One example of how guns are not instantaneous in their acceleration is taking the same round and firing it in a different barrel. (ex: pistols generally have lower muzzle velocities than pistol chambered carbines[aka rifles that use pistol amunition]) If acceleration was instantaneous, muzzle velocity would be the same, no matter the length of the barrel. It's not, because the bullet has a very compressed pocket of gas behind it (created in the explosion) that continues to push the bullet throughout the barrel. If your barrel is the perfect length, then the gas pocket will continue to accelerate the bullet up to when it leaves the barrel.

This is also why bolt action rifles have more muzzle velocity, and are better for long ranges. Semi auto guns usually funnel off some of the gas from the bullet in order to operate the action and chamber the next round, whereas a bolt action rifle uses all of the gas to propel the bullet, and then has the user manually chamber the next round.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 14 May 2012 - 04:59 AM.