46 replies to this topic

[Phaesphoros]

Inspired by this thread by Darwins Dog (and not aware of anything similar already posted here):

An overview how much pay load remains if you put an engine, base weight (internal structure) and full armor on a mech:

Note:

• weight of external heat sinks for minimum 10 HS already substracted from remaining payload
  
• no speed tweak included (linearly scales x axis)
  
• endo-steel and FF don't change much when you compare between different 'Mechs

Preview of interactive graphs, early development stage (STD engine, STD armor, full armor)

STD engine




high-speed range (> 95 km/h)

Spoiler

STD engine, endo-steel internals

Spoiler

XL engine


high-speed range (> 95 km/h)

Spoiler

---

---

Edits: improved legend, fixed labeling, mooaaar statistics, fixed STD engines charts (thanks to SchwarzerPeter), added HGN-HM (other HGNs just slightly lower speed cap), added BJ, updated & automated chart generation (-> faster up-to-date after patches, much improved chart quality)

Edited by Phaesphoros, 09 August 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[DoyleHT]

I saw that other thread and had the same thought.

Thanks for working it out for all of us!

[Ethidium]

Thanks for putting this up, best post in weeks imo.

It would also be interesting to see some free weight comparisons with STD and XL engines. For example, most players would agree that Cicadas should always have an XL, while Hunchbacks should always run with a STD.

[Dan Nashe]

Logged in just to "like" this post. Thanks for sharing :-)

[Dan Nashe]

Do we agree with the assumption that bigger mechs need more armor for same survivability at same speed? I.e., the atlas has 5.5 tons more armor than a cataphract. With the same armor, the atlas would have 5.5 more tons of payloas than is shown. On the other hand, if they're both moving 60 kph, thr atlas may be easier to hit still, justifying not crediting it with that armor.


Follow up: is there much consensus on good vs bad xl mechs? I.e it seems like:

40 tons and under, always xl.
Hunchback: never xl.
Trebuchett: xl safe 99+ kph plus
Cent: safe to xl at at least 90 kph.
Catapault: xl safeat 80+ kph
Jaeger: xl risky
Cataphract: xl safe on snipers only
Awesome: xl risky
Stalker: xl safe
Atlas: xl dumb

With the caveat that "risky" and safe are general, not absolutes. I guess I don't want to hihack the thread' but it matters a lot in comparing engines. Or maybe there are speed benchmarks? I.e. general agreement that you nees to move at least 160-tonnage to justify xl. + or - 10 kph if you're a "safe" or a "risky" chassis.
Just thinking aloud about the meaningfulness of comparing xl v standard vs just using a totally separate chart for standard.

[Ethidium]

Personally I am only interested in data on Mechs with nearly maxed armor, I never run without full torso armor and I almost always run full in the arms, I do, however, reduce leg armor on 50+ ton mechs. Sure there are a few examples of zombie Centurions, 1 armed Awesomes and earless Catapult K2s, but I think getting too worried about the occasional outlier makes it much harder to learn anything from the general information on this chart. For example, I did not know that a Pretty Baby with a max engine has less free weight than a dragon at the same speed. Similarly the chart implies that there is no benefit to playing an Awesome that can't move faster than a Stalker, which is something I already believed.

As for which Mechs are safe, risky and foolish with XL engines, I think that is outside of the scope of the original post. I think it would be really interesting to have a chart that would let us compare chassis with and without XL engines.

Edited by Ethidium, 21 March 2013 - 11:45 AM.

[Tehtos]

I wouldn't put an XL engine in a Stalker. Try shooting at it in the training grounds. It's CT is so small compared to its side torsos. It may resemble the Catapault, but the hit boxes are not similar to the Cat. You can't even hit the Stalker's CT from the side--when it's not looking straight at you.

[MoeX]

DanNashe, on 21 March 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Awesome: xl risky

I wouldn't say that XL on Awesome is risky, due to it's monstrous CT Hitbox. If I die in one of my Awesomes, it's almost exclusively because of CT being destroyed.

[Dauphni]

This is great work, very useful! I'd love to see a similar graph for standard engines, since the values don't completely translate 1:1, and it would be interesting to compare.

What I find really interesting is the curve for the 50-ton Mechs. Between 95 and 110 km/h, they easily give you the most bang for your buck of any chassis, but past 120 km/h they are the absolute worst performers...

[Phaesphoros]

*bump*: more statistics

[SchwarzerPeter]

Nice chart, but the values for the STD Engine are wrong

Checked some values with smurfy, the mechs can go faster and have more free tonnage.

[Phaesphoros]

SchwarzerPeter, on 24 March 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

Nice chart, but the values for the STD Engine are wrong

Checked some values with smurfy, the mechs can go faster and have more free tonnage.

Thank you, there has been an error in my spreadsheet (due to copy&waste or rather automatic cell reference updates). Only STD engine chart (+ high speed detail) has been affected. Shouldn't use spreadsheets anyway m(

Fixed it.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 25 March 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[Ethidium]

Hoping for an update with the Highlander ^^

[Phaesphoros]

Ethidium, on 02 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Hoping for an update with the Highlander ^^

Done. Image quality will be better next update, have some issues with LibreOffice m(

[Chavette]

Awesome work, bookmarked it!

[Zerethon]

A Quick note, all of these are done with max armor. Some of us crazy longrange types run with 66-75% Armor, which frees up 1-5 tons on occasion. Just worth noting.

[One Medic Army]

Man, never got this much response when I put up my version during closed beta

Here's a link to download the excel file for mine, it's done purely by weight class of the mech (in 5ton increments from 20 to 100) with the optimum tonnage for different speed breakpoints highlighted in some sub-tables.

Mine is done without including armor, purely weight for frame and engine.
The free tonnage given will need to be used for armor.

Edited by One Medic Army, 03 April 2013 - 10:55 PM.

[Darwins Dog]

I just saw this thread. Thanks for expanding on what I started. My goal was to settle an argument about Jenner vs. Cicada, and you went and made it helpful.

[Nipsnaps]

One Medics spreadsheet is IMHO the more pertinent (armor is payload so fully empty is how I view as the more interesting value, on the smaller mechs you just hit side torsos/arms more and thus are damaging somewhat similar amounts of armor/internals to core someone), but it lacks the engine rating limitations. Thus those highlighted numbers are often "wrong", as there just isn't any mech that can do that value. Most explicit with Awesome-9M and Pretty Baby, as they dominate the XL payload all the way from 42.5 to 60.5 tons, but it is impossible to see from Medics charts.

[Biggieboy]