12 replies to this topic

[ExtremeA79]

The UAC5 was never, EVER, multibarrel. If it WAS, it would be a RAC5 which doesn't come until 10 years later.
Machine Guns, however, were usually MULTIBARREL, not single barrel thin sticks.
When the clans arrive (which they should have by now) they will bring their Piranhas to bear.
A fast, low armored light mech, with 6 machine guns. Do you want a Piranha that has cool looking 6 barreled guns coming out of it, or a Piranha that has 6 sticks as thin as twigs coming out of it.

[Sephlock]

In fairness, there are lots of different models of the same class of weapon, so its not utterly impossible that some Ultra Autocannon manufacturer came up with a rotary design .

You do have a point though.

On the other hand, the multibarrel thing is so awesome, I wouldn't mind if AC/2s had a similar design .

[ExtremeA79]

Yes manufacturers came up with different models after the UAC5 was released, but never in rotary form. Thats why there is a difference between UAC's and RAC's.
MG's are more for looking cool and stuff. I am certain there are one barrel designs but a short multibarrel autocannon would be freaking sweet.

[ExtremeA79]

From Sarma:

"Beyond the "standard" models, variants include the shotgun-like LBX, quick-firing Ultra and the gatling-type Rotary."

Standard models are the regular AC-X
Ultra model is UAC-X
Rotary model is RAC-X

Edited by Darren Tyler, 12 June 2013 - 03:17 PM.

[SweetWarmIce]

There is logic in a rotary design for the UAC. It can fire every 1.1 seconds which given the size of an AC/5 round could heat stress one barrel too much. Having multiple barrels avoids that.

[EXO-Scorpion]

If I remb correct, the Pirhanna had 12 MGs

[ExtremeA79]

SweetWarmIce, on 12 June 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

There is logic in a rotary design for the UAC. It can fire every 1.1 seconds which given the size of an AC/5 round could heat stress one barrel too much. Having multiple barrels avoids that.

Yeah, THATS WHY THEY DESIGNED THE RAC5.
And, speaking of fire rate, UAC5's are suppose to be TWICE as fast as their counterpart, yet in this game it isn't.

[Gaan Cathal]

Darren Tyler, on 12 June 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Yeah, THATS WHY THEY DESIGNED THE RAC5.
And, speaking of fire rate, UAC5's are suppose to be TWICE as fast as their counterpart, yet in this game it isn't.

Whilst I agree on the model point, they are actually more than twice as fast as their counterpart in MW:O. They have a faster 'base' fire rate than the AC/5 and can be double-tapped to fire two rounds in quick succession. That's the implementation of their "two shots per round" in TT.

[One Medic Army]

Darren Tyler, on 12 June 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Yeah, THATS WHY THEY DESIGNED THE RAC5.
And, speaking of fire rate, UAC5's are suppose to be TWICE as fast as their counterpart, yet in this game it isn't.

Until recently they were more than 2x as fast.
1.1sec cooldown, plus .5 sec wait for the second shot after which the 1.1 cooldown happened, versus the 1.7sec the AC/5 was at.

Gameplay-wise don't expect UACs to be twice as good as standard ACs, they only weigh slightly more and are slightly larger. MWO endeavors to have advanced-tech as a sidegrade not as an upgrade (sometimes more successfully than others).

[SweetWarmIce]

Darren Tyler, on 12 June 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Yeah, THATS WHY THEY DESIGNED THE RAC5.
And, speaking of fire rate, UAC5's are suppose to be TWICE as fast as their counterpart, yet in this game it isn't.

The double shot mechanic represents the double rate of fire. They're only called RACs because there are just two models from just two manufacturers who both use a rotary design. There's nothing stopping someone from designing a UAC to use multiple barrels.

[Strum Wealh]

Personally, I had thought of UACs as a take on the "Gast Gun" concept.

"The [Gast gun] uses two barrels combined into a single mechanism in such a way that the recoil from firing one barrel loads and charges the second. Ammunition was fed into the gun from two vertically mounted cylindrical drums, one on each side of the gun."


One modern example of the Gast gun is the Russian-built Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23.
"The GSh-23 works on the Gast gun principle developed by German engineer Karl Gast of the Vorwerk company in 1916. It is a twin-barreled weapon in which the firing action of one barrel operates the mechanism of the other. It provides a much faster rate of fire for lower mechanical wear than a single-barrel weapon, although it cannot match the rate of fire of an electric Gatling gun like the M61 Vulcan."


By contrast, the RACs would be based on the Gatling gun/rotary cannon concept and would have a greater number of firing modes (standard ROF, 2x ROF, 4x ROF, and 6x ROF), but would be otherwise similar in operation/usage to the similarly-sized UACs.

In the case of MWO's visual depiction, a non-rotary Gast-like concept would work by having the firing of "Barrel 1" prime "Barrel 2", then having the firing of "Barrel 2" prime "Barrel 3", then having the firing of "Barrel 3" prime "Barrel 1", and so on.

----------

With the Machine Gun, several canonical examples describe them as rotary assemblies in the 20mm caliber range, making them analogous to weapons like the M61 Vulcan.
Alternatively, those examples that do not give such descriptions and/or are depicted as having only a single barrel can be modeled as revolver cannons like the Mauser BK-27, which "uses a cylinder with multiple chambers, like those of a revolver handgun, to speed up the loading-firing-ejection cycle".

M61 Vulcan (20mm rotary cannon)


Mauser BK-27 (27mm revolver cannon)

[Bloody Moon]

The UAC has one badass looking model and since the rotary will only arrive in 10 years i say it is perfectly fine, for now.

[Xeno Phalcon]

There are too many counter arguments to justify changing the model for UAC5's at this point.