The average battlemech has the center of gravity and aerodynamic stability of a brick with farm implements taped to it. A particularly aerodynamically challenged brick. It would not be remotely stable in flight.
Which is all rendered moot by the fact that battletech physics are utterly incomparable to anything remotely rational. The bigger the gun, the less range it has. 100 Tonnes of mass compressed into about 4m² of footprint - yet no sinking at all.
Source? proof? show me the math showing it wouldn't be stable. This what i'm talking about, wannabe physicists making **** up to argue their point. Have you ever even studied anglar motion limitation provided by gyroscopes?
Aerodynamic while flying horizontal, not vertical. When flying vertical every angle that makes it aerodynamic on the horizontal plane is working against it in vertical thrust.
fully loaded harriers don't have enough thrust to get off the ground in VTOL mode. the largest of the harrier engines puts out 24,750 pounds of thrust <-not enough to even make a commando weight neutral (a commando with one of these would fall at a steady rate WHILE the engine was running). http://en.wikipedia....arrier_Jump_Jet
Considering how the Harrier is known to be one of the most unforgiving and difficult jets to fly, especially while performing VTOL, this was not exactly the best example to prove your point.
I would say he should use the F35 VTOL as an example instead, but it's basically all in the programming and fine-tuning, and we know the MW universe doesn't have a strong technology department (hence the terrible missile systems and radars).
Basically, you can't look at vectored thrust from a pure physics perspective because it is pretty much all a function of control systems programming.
Source? proof? show me the math showing it wouldn't be stable. This what i'm talking about, wannabe physicists making **** up to argue their point. Have you ever even studied anglar motion limitation provided by gyroscopes?
Seriously, get over yourself. If you were actually an aero engineer you'd know what an *** you are making of yourself right now. By the way, I am actually an aerospace engineer. There is no flight stability in these mechs. If there was, why do our modern planes look literally nothing like them?
Do you even know how a gyroscope works? The instrument is designed to give feedback to a control loop. The control loop them takes that information and feeds it to the control surfaces to compensate for the shift in position/orientation. Problems I see here: 1) Mechs do not have flight control surfaces, at least as far as I can see 2) I see no vectoring of the thrust from the jump jets 3) it wouldn't matter anyway because the mech is so damn heavy that any tiny control surfaces or vectoring couldn't compensate quickly enough to keep level flight. If anything, I'm amazed that mechs defy the physics as much as they do already. They should basically faceplant every time they jumpjet because they don't have anything to compensate for the forward thrust like the F35 does with its central fan.
If you want to play aerospace engineer, the least you could do is go look up the basics of controls and dynamics.
Oh, and here's a nice video of the F35. Notice the wobbling.
EDIT: Also, guys like the one I quoted are the reason we need a downvote function on the forums
EDIT2: And if you really want me to show you the math, I have a MATLAB program which simulates the stability of a Navion. I'm not sure how to put a 90ton Highlander into the equation, but you can at least look at the math and realize you have absolutely no idea what you're saying.
Do you even know how a gyroscope works? The instrument is designed to give feedback to a control loop. The control loop them takes that information and feeds it to the control surfaces to compensate for the shift in position/orientation. Problems I see here: 1) Mechs do not have flight control surfaces, at least as far as I can see 2) I see no vectoring of the thrust from the jump jets 3) it wouldn't matter anyway because the mech is so damn heavy that any tiny control surfaces or vectoring couldn't compensate quickly enough to keep level flight.
some of the really simplistic old ones are just a circular weight of some kind that is spinning at an amazing speed and holds things stable through shear gyroscopic force, BUT i doubt the mechs that weigh more than 20 tons would get very much benefit from anything like that.
Do you seriously think there is no shake there? It just goes straight up and doesn't wobble AT ALL? Look closer buddy. The shake is there, and that thing was WAAAAY less than a giant clunky mech. This thing is designed from the ground up to fly straight up. Mechs are not.
Oh hey, look, an example of an oscillation. +1 to this guy.
There's also a bunch of others I could think of (short period oscillation, phugoid...) but I don't think they actually apply to giant stompy robots.
EDIT: For the OP: http://en.wikipedia..../Control_system Even a VERY simple control system, such as turning a satellite dish to face East instead of North does not exactly put it facing East right away. It will likely overshoot, and if it doesn't then it will slow down before it reaches East. In either case, it will oscillate until it gets to exactly the right position. Regardless of the (obviously poor) aerodynamics of mechs, their jumpjets are not giving a constant thrust (see pogo oscillation above), and therefore there will always be constant oscillation because the mech never reaches equilibrium. Even if we assume the jumpjets give perfectly constant and equal thrust, the mech is moving its arms/torso, the legs are moving, and the air is moving and not in perfect density. There is no possible way for the mech to not oscillate.
Do you seriously think there is no shake there? It just goes straight up and doesn't wobble AT ALL? Look closer buddy. The shake is there, and that thing was WAAAAY less than a giant clunky mech. This thing is designed from the ground up to fly straight up. Mechs are not.
you mean that if you just strap a bunch of engines onto your car it wouldn't be a smooth ride either?
Poptarting was out of hand, however there are better ways to control it besides making people puke. The could have limited the fuel of the jumpjets dependent on size of the jet to 3 full jumps for assault and heavy mechs, 4 jumps for mediums and 10 jumps for lights. This opens ideas to add jumpjet fuel pods @ 2 tons per. This would have reduced either the heatsink carrying ability or weapon size if you wanted to perform more jumps. OR they could have reduced the fuel recharging to 10% every 20 seconds for assault type 3 jets, 10% every 5 seconds for type 2, and 2 seconds for lights. Either of these would reduce the poptarting but still a viable tactic. Instead they crushed all mechs who use jj's and narrowed tactical ability and making the game more linear. IE dumbing it down which is my largest concern.
Loxx - great idea! That would have (and still could be...hint hint PGI) a much better way to modify how jump jets work. Though I do agree that poptarting was way too prevalent before, your idea would have been an even better way to go IMO and would have had far less effect on light mechs with JJ too.
Loxx - great idea! That would have (and still could be...hint hint PGI) a much better way to modify how jump jets work. Though I do agree that poptarting was way too prevalent before, your idea would have been an even better way to go IMO and would have had far less effect on light mechs with JJ too.
If jumpjets were a consumable then that model would make sense. Mechs are not, and should not, be limited to a certain number of jumps. That would be like making PPCs limited in their shots. They are an ammo-less system, and likewise jumpjets in this universe are rechargeable.
I agree that the screen shake is a tad bit over the top, but I still think it should shake and the reticule should shake as well. This should not be a problem for light mechs if they are actually using their jump jets in close quarters fights with the weapons they are intended to use.
blinkin, on 04 June 2013 - 10:26 PM, said:
you mean that if you just strap a bunch of engines onto your car it wouldn't be a smooth ride either?
Poptarting was out of hand, however there are better ways to control it besides making people puke. The could have limited the fuel of the jumpjets dependent on size of the jet to 3 full jumps for assault and heavy mechs, 4 jumps for mediums and 10 jumps for lights. This opens ideas to add jumpjet fuel pods @ 2 tons per. This would have reduced either the heatsink carrying ability or weapon size if you wanted to perform more jumps. OR they could have reduced the fuel recharging to 10% every 20 seconds for assault type 3 jets, 10% every 5 seconds for type 2, and 2 seconds for lights. Either of these would reduce the poptarting but still a viable tactic. Instead they crushed all mechs who use jj's and narrowed tactical ability and making the game more linear. IE dumbing it down which is my largest concern.
this crushes all jump jet use harder than any amount of screen shake could. in a good fight i will empty my jump jets on my jenner AT LEAST 5 times a minute. i am usually wishing with all of my might that they recharged even faster so i can hop that next hill or building.
good pilots who use the jump jets in close combat use them far more than any poptart does.
Source? proof? show me the math showing it wouldn't be stable. This what i'm talking about, wannabe physicists making **** up to argue their point. Have you ever even studied anglar motion limitation provided by gyroscopes?
Nobody pointed out that a VTOL aircraft mentioned here ascend at a rate of 2 feet per second or so, while 90 ton mech climbs to a height of 30-40 meters in about 3 second.
Many of the poptart haters have claimed that a continuous vectored thrust would cause "shake" in the vehicle while under the thrust load moment. Allow me to present the Harrier Jump Jet.
Well, I was going to say something in response to this...
InRev, on 04 June 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:
Considering how the Harrier is known to be one of the most unforgiving and difficult jets to fly, especially while performing VTOL, this was not exactly the best example to prove your point.
Praetor Shepard, on 04 June 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:
Well, a Harrier is close to 14 tons and aerodynamic. Mechs are heavier and are not aerodynamic, so I don't think its a good comparison.
Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 04 June 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:
Ok, so the Harrier is notoriously hard to fly, despite being a plane with proper vectored thrust, control surfaces, aerodynamics, etc. A mech is being rocketed into the air suddenly, has no control surfaces, no vectored thrust (in MWO JJs don't allow for anything but a straight up, of course allowing for conservation of momentum), and no way to stabilize the flight behavior.
Kiiyor, on 04 June 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:
The average battlemech has the center of gravity and aerodynamic stability of a brick with farm implements taped to it. A particularly aerodynamically challenged brick. It would not be remotely stable in flight.
the yes votes still out number the no votes by 2 to 1.
damned facts just ruin everything don't they?
... this.
EDIT: I didn't want to leave out this bit of wonderful
Fate 6, on 04 June 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:
OH GOD THIS GUY THINKS HE'S AN AERO ENGINEER.
Seriously, get over yourself. If you were actually an aero engineer you'd know what an *** you are making of yourself right now. By the way, I am actually an aerospace engineer. There is no flight stability in these mechs. If there was, why do our modern planes look literally nothing like them?
Do you even know how a gyroscope works? The instrument is designed to give feedback to a control loop. The control loop them takes that information and feeds it to the control surfaces to compensate for the shift in position/orientation. Problems I see here: 1) Mechs do not have flight control surfaces, at least as far as I can see 2) I see no vectoring of the thrust from the jump jets 3) it wouldn't matter anyway because the mech is so damn heavy that any tiny control surfaces or vectoring couldn't compensate quickly enough to keep level flight. If anything, I'm amazed that mechs defy the physics as much as they do already. They should basically faceplant every time they jumpjet because they don't have anything to compensate for the forward thrust like the F35 does with its central fan.
If you want to play aerospace engineer, the least you could do is go look up the basics of controls and dynamics.
Oh, and here's a nice video of the F35. Notice the wobbling.
EDIT: Also, guys like the one I quoted are the reason we need a downvote function on the forums
EDIT2: And if you really want me to show you the math, I have a MATLAB program which simulates the stability of a Navion. I'm not sure how to put a 90ton Highlander into the equation, but you can at least look at the math and realize you have absolutely no idea what you're saying.
I suppose this is just a long, round about way of saying "I understand that you're upset that your favorite tactic was invalidated for the good of the game. However, making up your own arguments in regards to things you yourself don't understand, and then accusing others of doing the same, is childish"
Personally, I would recommend that you start telling people that you'll adapt to these new tactics and still hand their ***** to them on a regular basis.
Or you can rage and quit. That is also a valid option.
Edited by Rabid Dutchman, 05 June 2013 - 12:24 AM.
Many of the poptart haters have claimed that a continuous vectored thrust would cause "shake" in the vehicle while under the thrust load moment. Allow me to present the Harrier Jump Jet.
It doesn't bother me that poptarting is practically dead. It was getting boring and honestly I was terrible at it. What I am worried about is the continuous dumbing down of the game with heavy handed nerfs because people would rather complain and create new physical laws out of thin air then engage their brain housing group and come up with creative methods to counter viable tactics. I just hope your happy with what the future is going to bring now that poptarts are gone.
Atlas online?
Splat / streak online?
LRM online?
We'll see. One thing I know, the goods will roll with the punches. The bads will keep trying to dumb down the game until it's Hello Kitty Online.
Your logic would be sound. IF a battlemech, which is a walking tank, was designed with the 100% intention to fly though the air like a bird.
However your logic is flawed because Battlemechs are walking behemoth's of tons and tons of steel and myomer and ferro fiborus... these machines are not ment to fly, they are ment to move and shoot. They are not ment to hop around like bunny hopping spartans in Halo, they're ment to be simi-slow, plodding, and carry an arsenal that makes the pope weep.
Battlemechs are WALKING TANKS... NOT FLYING MACHINES! GET THE BLOODY POINT!?!
I put this into the duplicate thread, which looks like it's been abandoned, so I'll repost it here:
The Cheese, on 04 June 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:
I would have likened it to this a more than a harrier.
Notice how violently the shuttle shakes when the booster rockets fire. I'd say that the shaking is pretty good from a 'realistic feel' point of view. From a 'playable game' point of view, I think it's a bit overdone.
Nobody pointed out that a VTOL aircraft mentioned here ascend at a rate of 2 feet per second or so, while 90 ton mech climbs to a height of 30-40 meters in about 3 second.
i did mention the amounts of thrust, but i did not have exact rates of climb at my disposal. i suspected they were low, but 2 feet per second is still much lower than i would have guessed. what kind of load is associated with that number?
6
Kiiyor, on 04 June 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:
