13 replies to this topic

[Mokou]

Why Ultra-AutoCannon/5 looks like Rotary-AutoCannon/5?

[Alois Hammer]

Because PGI.

[Zyllos]

Mokou, on 14 April 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

Why Ultra-AutoCannon/5 looks like Rotary-AutoCannon/5?

It even spins when it fires, like the RAC.

Maybe PGI doesn't plan on getting to the stage where RAC will be introduced...?

[Adridos]

Because that's how Alex draws them all the time.

Just look at his TRO: Prototypes cover with UAC/10 Hunchback:

Edited by Adridos, 14 April 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[CutterWolf]

Simple, PGI misunderstood "what" a UAC was. Instead of reading about the UAC to find out that it is just an AC with a modified breech mechanism, rapid-feed ammo reloader. RAC's (Rotary Autocannon) are the only ones that use the setup you see in MWO now as UAC's.

The Ultra Autocannon technology was originally developed in 2640 by Kawabata Weapons Inc, in response to Defiance Industries's request for a specialized autocannon/5 for their Sentinel BattleMech design. The result was a weapon that resembled the standard model only in the general damage that each round can inflict, as the KWI Ultra Autocannon 5 boasted a shorter smooth-bore barrel, modified breech mechanism, rapid-feed ammo reloader and specially designed ammunition.
While these enhancements gave the weapon an effective range exceeding that of LRMs and standard AC/5s, it most notably allowed the weapon to fire at twice rate of the standard model. Unfortunately, besides generating twice as much heat and burning through ammunition supplies twice as quickly, the extremely high rate of fire causes ultra autocannons to vibrate violently, leading to higher incidence of weapon jams. Though giving the weapon an equivalent volume of fire, because of these vibrations ultra autocannon fire is not as accurate as a pair of standard weapons.
Like many pieces of advanced Star League technology, Kawabata and their unique weapons disappeared during the maelstrom of the Succession Wars, though the Clans retained and refined the technology, eventually producing variants in all autocannon classes. Thanks to the Helm Memory Core, the Successor States regained the ability to produce the original Ultra AC/5 in 3035, and, using this weapon and Clan-tech salvage, were able to introduce Ultra versions of the AC/2 and AC/10 in 3057, finally the AC/20 in 3060.

Edited by CutterWolf, 14 April 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[MasterErrant]

what CutterWolf said.

if UACs were gatling guns they wouldn't jam RAc's just rip through ammo and melt you hardpoints off...lol.
I'm really looking forward to RAcs with the blown range accuracy dynamic of ACs well be getting instant CT kills at 1500 meters.

[Durant Carlyle]

Yeah, it really bugs me that a UAC mount shows up as a multi-barrel weapon.

It also bugs me that the barrels on the multi-barrel mount are far too small to AC/5 size. They might be big enough to be AC/2 size.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 14 April 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[Renthrak]

Durant Carlyle, on 14 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Yeah, it really bugs me that a UAC mount shows up as a multi-barrel weapon.

It also bugs me that the barrels on the multi-barrel mount are far too small to AC/5 size. They might be big enough to be AC/2 size.

The size of the bullet has nothing to do with the function of an Autocannon. "AC/5" is a class of weapon, not a specific design.

The rating of an Autocannon is based on the damage inflicted per volley. So, a gun that fires a single large shell for 5 damage, or one that fires 5 small bullets for 1 damage each would both be considered "AC/5"s. One 'round' of ammo is essentially a cartridge containing the shots for a single volley, whether that's one bullet or 20.

For a good example of burst-fire autocannons, see MechWarrior 3.

[FrostCollar]

I suppose they wanted them to look different and multiple barrels is what they settled on. Kind of perplexing though - if a normal cannon doesn't need multiple barrels to deal with any barrel heat issues I don't see why the UAC does.

It does make them look more impressive than they are, though. The Cicada 3M's UAC5 looks pretty awesome, but all the builds I've found useful for it don't use that slot at all.

[Dirus Nigh]

They could have made the LB barrel the UAC barrel. that would have made more sense.

[LackofCertainty]

Rule of Cool.

/thread




In other words, it is fine, because it looks cool, even if it doesn't make perfect sense.

[General Taskeen]

Mostly they are going to design the 3D models how they want, I guess.

I prefer the AC's and UAC's of MW:LL. They are all single barreled, the UAC just fires twice as fast. The RAC's in that game are rotary and amazingly devastating. My favorite Atlas custom variant they put in the game is the 3 RAC/5 + 2 MRM20's, it tears apart everything. But, mostly I just prefer overall how they featured all the Autocannons, not their looks, compared to this game.

Edited by General Taskeen, 14 April 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[juxstapo]

I preferred MW:LL's SRMS also.

[MasterErrant]

Durant Carlyle, on 14 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Yeah, it really bugs me that a UAC mount shows up as a multi-barrel weapon.

It also bugs me that the barrels on the multi-barrel mount are far too small to AC/5 size. They might be big enough to be AC/2 size.

well it could be done as a dual barreled rocking breech gun...andf that would support the jamming