85 replies to this topic

[MuKen]

trollocaustic, on 23 May 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

Front of your right foot, back of your right foot and center of your left foot.
Mechs are tat big

And the distances they are trying to triangulate are proportionately bigger as well. A mech trying to triangulate points 100s of meters away with the space of a few meters on their foot are no better off than someone trying to triangulate something 10 feet away with points that are only inches apart.

Like I said, direction is feasible. Dots on your radar is not.

Edited by MuKen, 23 May 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[Breeze]

Caleb Brightmore, on 23 May 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

The masses ALWAYS point to a storyline and lore so where is the lore?

It's been a while since I read the books, but I believe this was brought up in the Gray Death Legion trilogy (I think?). In the third book (?) it suggests that Grayson Carle tapped into the planetary network of seismic detection computers, zoomed into his immediate area, then overlaid the local geographical mapping over that, thereby giving him a sense of movement made by the enemy.

So in other words: science fiction.

I'd say that the seismic sensor in MWO is supposed to emulate that bit of lore. Perhaps we can explain it as a module that doesn't actually read seismic activity, but it tuned to an already existing planetary network to infer information from.

Again, I'm (quite) a bit fuzzy on which exact bit of lore is accurate, and what I've said it is from memory alone.

[Fabe]

BlackBeltJones, on 23 May 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

This is a slippery slope you offer. The argument that this is a game and reality is checked at the door also advocates the argument that you should be satisfied when you press 'A' and turn right instead of left - why would that be a problem? this is only a game right? Personally I feel that PGI plans and implements many of these features in a vacuum and they often fail to ask easy and obvious questions about physical reality and the implications of the features and their interactions. I really don't care what they add or don't add but I do feel they add elements without vetting them fully.

So the game should only in include things that could function in the real world? Is that what you are saying If so then no more battlemechs for any one since they can not function as depicted in the real world.

BlackBeltJones, on 23 May 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Added: I refuse to entertain the argument that in 3050 certain technology allows________ capability when 3050 apparently offers no technology that allows me to talk to my team.

That has nothing to do with the make believe tech of 3050 and every thing to do with PGI not adding in game voice chat.

Edited by Fabe, 23 May 2013 - 03:41 PM.

[Gralzeim]

As far as the "how does it know it's not a friendly mech" question goes, C3 network tells you where your teammates are (now not blocked by ECM). So any contacts the sensor detects that don't match with a friendly mech's location are assumed hostile.

[Caleb Brightmore]

Gralzeim, on 23 May 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

As far as the "how does it know it's not a friendly mech" question goes, C3 network tells you where your teammates are (now not blocked by ECM). So any contacts the sensor detects that don't match with a friendly mech's location are assumed hostile.

Ah yet another important peice to the puzzle I was unaware of that makes sense as well.

Breeze, on 23 May 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

It's been a while since I read the books, but I believe this was brought up in the Gray Death Legion trilogy (I think?). In the third book (?) it suggests that Grayson Carle tapped into the planetary network of seismic detection computers, zoomed into his immediate area, then overlaid the local geographical mapping over that, thereby giving him a sense of movement made by the enemy.

So in other words: science fiction.

I'd say that the seismic sensor in MWO is supposed to emulate that bit of lore. Perhaps we can explain it as a module that doesn't actually read seismic activity, but it tuned to an already existing planetary network to infer information from.




Again, I'm (quite) a bit fuzzy on which exact bit of lore is accurate, and what I've said it is from memory alone.

Cool I shall try to locate that. Thanks!

[Fabe]

Gralzeim, on 23 May 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

As far as the "how does it know it's not a friendly mech" question goes, C3 network tells you where your teammates are (now not blocked by ECM). So any contacts the sensor detects that don't match with a friendly mech's location are assumed hostile.

That is what I was trying to say,guess you did a better job since Caleb understood this time.

[MasterErrant]

Caleb Brightmore, on 23 May 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

Ah so they used Real Life devices to stop a wallhack epidemic or so they are thinking because BT lore has no wallhack lol

Got ya


I just thought it was silly but thanks!

wall hack?

[Caleb Brightmore]

MasterErrant, on 23 May 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

wall hack?

2. wall hack


To use hacks (aka h4x) to do any of the following in online games:
1. See through walls.
2. Go through or climb walls
3. Shoot through walls
4. Capture flags or other objectives through walls
Those **** h4x0rs wallhacked by the hostages in Counter-Strike and stole the flag through the floor in Halo

deforce, on 23 May 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

in any normal FPS game, having anything close to what seismic does it basically a wall hack....

PGI's combat to hacks is to give it a general public release.

[OneEyed Jack]

MuKen, on 23 May 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

[size=4] A mech trying to triangulate points 100s of meters away with the space of a few meters on their foot are no better off than someone trying to triangulate something 10 feet away with points that are only inches apart.

You mean... like... eyes?

Breeze, on 23 May 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

It's been a while since I read the books, but I believe this was brought up in the Gray Death Legion trilogy (I think?). In the third book (?) it suggests that Grayson Carle tapped into the planetary network of seismic detection computers, zoomed into his immediate area, then overlaid the local geographical mapping over that, thereby giving him a sense of movement made by the enemy.

So in other words: science fiction.

I'd say that the seismic sensor in MWO is supposed to emulate that bit of lore. Perhaps we can explain it as a module that doesn't actually read seismic activity, but it tuned to an already existing planetary network to infer information from.

Again, I'm (quite) a bit fuzzy on which exact bit of lore is accurate, and what I've said it is from memory alone.

Too many books and too many years since I read them to be specific, but there are multiple accounts of seismic sensors on the mechs, themselves. If Carlyle used the planetary network, it was for much broader detection.

As far as them picking Seismic over MagRes, Seismic is more shooter-friendly because it's not actually seeing through walls and standing still defeats it.

[Lykaon]

The seismic sensor is tied into a mech's onboard battle computer.
The sensor then detects vibrations from objects moving.It does detect friendly signatures but before displaying data these readings are cross referenced with the mech's IFF system and friendlies are eddited out of the final sensor display.

Give me another one I am sure I can B.S. another answer

[MuKen]

OneEyed Jack, on 23 May 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

You mean... like... eyes?

Vibrations don't propagate with consistent speed, so you can't get as accurate a distance measure from a single vector. That's why you need a greater separation of input points to achieve accuracy at the same distance using vibrations as by viewing light.

And, eye-based detection of location gets a lot worse when the air between you and the target becomes highly inconsistent too. That's why we have phenomenon like heat haze and mirages when heat warps the consistency of the air. The ground is far less consistent than even that.

But sure, if all the maps were composed of consistently dense, flat surfaces, then yeah accurate seismic detection with close points would be believable.

Edited by MuKen, 23 May 2013 - 04:50 PM.

[OneEyed Jack]

When something is as big as a mech, you don't need to be THAT precise, either. It's not like you're using it for aiming.

"It's right about there" is good enough to tell you there's something on the other side of that hill.

The real question is, why the hell are people playing a science-fiction game getting nit-picky about science? It's like arguing about the aerodynamics of dragon flight or why Superman's people didn't die off when they were on a planet made entirely of Kryptonite.

[MuKen]

OneEyed Jack, on 23 May 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

When something is as big as a mech, you don't need to be THAT precise, either. It's not like you're using it for aiming.

"It's right about there" is good enough to tell you there's something on the other side of that hill.

The real question is, why the hell are people playing a science-fiction game getting nit-picky about science? It's like arguing about the aerodynamics of dragon flight or why Superman's people didn't die off when they were on a planet made entirely of Kryptonite.

That's why I was saying, they don't get to ignore this issue because they are big. The distances they are operating on are as much bigger as they are bigger. Accuracy goes down the further out you go. When you are trying to locate things hundreds of meters away, a small difference in the perceived triangulated angle and vibration detection time, become relatively huge differences in location and they will be way off.

And I don't see it as nit-picking, I'm not (and I don't think anybody else is) using this as a criticism of MWO. We're just debating whether something in the game is possible irl, because it's fun to debate the science of it.

Edited by MuKen, 23 May 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[Caleb Brightmore]

OneEyed Jack, on 23 May 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

When something is as big as a mech, you don't need to be THAT precise, either. It's not like you're using it for aiming.

"It's right about there" is good enough to tell you there's something on the other side of that hill.

The real question is, why the hell are people playing a science-fiction game getting nit-picky about science? It's like arguing about the aerodynamics of dragon flight or why Superman's people didn't die off when they were on a planet made entirely of Kryptonite.

I was just curious as my BT/MW lore is lacking I never read it just played MW-1 when it came out on PC.

The real question is this...


If an Atlas falls in the forest and no one has seismic sensors does it make a sound?

Edited by Caleb Brightmore, 23 May 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[OneEyed Jack]

OK. Try this.

I buried seismographic sensors under the area surrounding my base and am getting telemetry from them. But it only sends me data on things within a certain range, for relevancy reasons.

Keep in mind these aren't wheeled or even tracked vehicles. Something that big and heavy stomping around is going to be measurable for miles, at least.

[Edited for spelling]

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 23 May 2013 - 05:07 PM.

[blinkin]

Caleb Brightmore, on 23 May 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

If this module detects the vibrations from moving or falling mechs then how does it know that the mech that just fell into my 200m range is an enemy mech.

it shouldn't but unless you have been jammed you should be able to track nearby friendlies and remove any impacts that come from their locations.

[Kitane]

I can imagine a next module to be introduced. Advanced vibration dampeners to reduce seismic detection range by 50-75%.

The only thing I find difficult to believe is the ability to detect foreign vibrations during movement, especially when running at full speed. Maybe it works like modern laser listening devices that can measure surface vibrations. Then the mech could use three laser beams to measure vibrations at three points on the ground around him.

[BlackBeltJones]

Fabe, on 23 May 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

So the game should only in include things that could function in the real world? Is that what you are saying If so then no more battlemechs for any one since they can not function as depicted in the real world.


That has nothing to do with the make believe tech of 3050 and every thing to do with PGI not adding in game voice chat.

Nothing even remotely close to that was asserted in my post. It is really unnecessary to 'read between the lines' when my actual expressed words make an unambiguous appraisal. It is not productive to assume or infer conclusions I did not make especially when your inferences (that you hold me accountable for) are laughably bad. No I do not think only real world items should exist in this game. I do think those implemented ideas that have a basis in current existing tech should be more carefully considered and examined relative to current common usage. In any case we are all deciding to draw a realism line in the sand. If you're ok with the function of the seismic sensor then great but I do not like it and that's fine too - I suggest you understand that you too are expecting certain elements of realism - that is left is left and up is up etc... in this case I happen to think the seismic sensor is poorly implemented and is poor usage of potential cool tech simply because PGI failed to ask some easy and obvious questions. Before a greater realism flame war begins I will offer that we all expect realism in the game, the sticking point becomes apparent when we have different assessments for our expectation of realism - that is in principle we all want realism but to what degree will vary from person to person.

[Soy]

Kitane, on 23 May 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

I can imagine a next module to be introduced. Advanced vibration dampeners to reduce seismic detection range by 50-75%.

HOLY ****, A COUNTER? TO ANOTHER MECHANIC? WHAT THE **** MAN, NO, WE WANT TO CRY ABOUT THIS FOR A HOT SEC

[Vassago Rain]

Seismic is disgustingly OP.