1726 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Navid A1, on 17 April 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

You mean like these?...yup its very easy to fit them all in the box... took only 10 minutes:

Spoiler

etc...etc...

Can you show us how it'd work with 45 tubes for three hardpoints?

[Navid A1]

Strum Wealh, on 17 April 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

Can you show us how it'd work with 45 tubes for three hardpoints?

45 tubes? on an A1?
AFAIK CAT-A1 can only mount 1x20 + 2x10 racks max... if you equip 3xLRM15s... 1 will end up having 15 tubes and the other 2 will use 10 tube racks.... which means that you will fire a 35 missile volley followed by a 10 missile secondary volley.

Edited by Navid A1, 17 April 2015 - 04:17 AM.

[zagibu]

Navid A1, on 17 April 2015 - 04:12 AM, said:

45 tubes? on an A1?
AFAIK CAT-A1 can only mount 1x20 + 2x10 racks max... if you equip 3xLRM15s... 1 will end up having 15 tubes and the other 2 will use 10 tube racks.... which means that you will fire a 35 missile volley followed by a 10 missile secondary volley.

Indeed. It would look like the second mock-up you did. They are pretty cool, btw.

[Simbacca]

Navid A1, on 17 April 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

You mean like these?...yup its very easy to fit them all in the box... took only 10 minutes:

Spoiler

etc...etc...

I agree with this as a fix for the Catapult-C4 and Catapult-A1 (though personally, I do not run an A1 - as I dislike ammunition only mechs).

[Strum Wealh]

Navid A1, on 17 April 2015 - 04:12 AM, said:

45 tubes? on an A1?
AFAIK CAT-A1 can only mount 1x20 + 2x10 racks max... if you equip 3xLRM15s... 1 will end up having 15 tubes and the other 2 will use 10 tube racks.... which means that you will fire a 35 missile volley followed by a 10 missile secondary volley.

And if they ever are going to re-do the CPLTs' arms (which seems unlikely at this point, TBH), they may as well make them just big enough to have enough tubes to accommodate the maximum volley size that the 'Mech can carry (as a function of number of hardpoints & available crits).

In that case, the CPLT-A1 (3 hardpoints & 10 crits per arm) should have arm-boxes big enough for 45 missile tubes, the CPLT-C1 (1 hardpoint & 10 crits per arm ) should have arm-boxes sized for 20 missile tubes, and the CPLT-C4 (2 hardpoints & 10 crits per arm ) should have arm-boxes sized for 40 missile tubes.

[Navid A1]

Strum Wealh, on 17 April 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

And if they ever are going to re-do the CPLTs' arms (which seems unlikely at this point, TBH), they may as well make them just big enough to have enough tubes to accommodate the maximum volley size that the 'Mech can carry (as a function of number of hardpoints & available crits).

In that case, the CPLT-A1 (3 hardpoints & 10 crits per arm) should have arm-boxes big enough for 45 missile tubes, the CPLT-C1 (1 hardpoint & 10 crits per arm ) should have arm-boxes sized for 20 missile tubes, and the CPLT-C4 (2 hardpoints & 10 crits per arm ) should have arm-boxes sized for 40 missile tubes.

That is not always the case. LRM20 on the atlas for example... And thats the stock loadout.
Same with many other mechs. Try putting an LRM20 on BLR-1S or HBK-4J or... and see what happens.

Edited by Navid A1, 17 April 2015 - 09:02 AM.

[AdamBaines]

Really.....why do I torture myself by reading so many of these types of threads? I've got issues......

[MATRAKA14]

My old personal suggestion.

[CDLord HHGD]

MATRAKA14, on 17 April 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

My old personal suggestion.

Not really a fan of the boxes being dynamic like the Timberwolf's. The Cat's ears are it's best known feature. I do support the internal dynamic of slots, of which many good ideas are present in this thread, but they should externally be the same ORIGINAL (beta) size. The VCRs have GOT to go PGI!

[Alex Morgaine]

Ok a few more then 18 pages. Maths failed apparent. Maybe fatigue when I posted... oh well, was the subject I liked/did best in school too... oh well. ON TOPIC!
MATRAKA14's solutions are both good, though I'd side with the second myself. Would mean probably removing some quirks but I doubt people would complain. It'd at least follow the variable geometry they, whoever wanted the geometry in the first place want, while removing the external mounts. Win/win still.

Oh, and oh well.

[Navid A1]

MATRAKA14, on 17 April 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

My old personal suggestion.

Spoiler

The second option is more complicated than it seems. Note that the catapult has missile pod doors. Those doors are rigged to an animated joint which are triggered when you open the doors manually. The joints are part of the mech and are fixed in position...so... its position must become dynamic.
i'm not saying it is impossible... but it requires creating weapon pods with animated joints which may require altering the original code.

However... according to russ, Their former programmer has left PGI and they can no longer figure out the original code (it just hurts when i remember it )... so it may as well be impossible.

The first option seems more do-able in a very short time... so
PGI... MAKE THIS HAPPEN:

Edited by Navid A1, 18 April 2015 - 12:03 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Navid A1, on 18 April 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

The second option is more complicated than it seems. Note that the catapult has missile pod doors. Those doors are rigged to an animated joint which are triggered when you open the doors manually. The joints are part of the mech and are fixed in position...so... its position must become dynamic.
i'm not saying it is impossible... but it requires creating weapon pods with animated joints which may require altering the original code.

However... according to russ, Their former programmer has left PGI and they can no longer figure out the original code (it just hurts when i remember it )... so it may as well be impossible.

The first option seems more do-able in a very short time... so
PGI... MAKE THIS HAPPEN:

Why not tweet this to Russ, cause we all know they barely ever open the forums?
I'm sure if we spam his twitter with this image, they'll at least acknowledge it

[zagibu]

Someone with a twitter account TO THE RESCUE!

BTW: MATRAKA14's second suggestion would allow to create a "scottish fold" cat that looks like this:

Edited by zagibu, 18 April 2015 - 03:45 AM.

[Dauphni]

Navid A1, on 18 April 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

Such a simple, elegant solution. This really needs to happen now.

[CliffhangerJaeger]

Uite Dauphni, on 18 April 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:

Such a simple, elegant solution. This really needs to happen now.

This needs to have happened months ago!

[stjobe]

Navid A1, on 18 April 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

However... according to russ, Their former programmer has left PGI and they can no longer figure out the original code (it just hurts when i remember it )... so it may as well be impossible.

Being a professional programmer myself, that is one lame-ass cop-out.

If it's actually true they can't figure out the original code, they need to fire their entire programming team, now, because if it's true they have no business calling themselves programmers.

But more than likely it's not true and "can't figure out the code" means "we'd rather they spent their time on something that generates new money".

[Navid A1]

stjobe, on 18 April 2015 - 07:55 AM, said:

Being a professional programmer myself, that is one lame-ass cop-out.

If it's actually true they can't figure out the original code, they need to fire their entire programming team, now, because if it's true they have no business calling themselves programmers.

But more than likely it's not true and "can't figure out the code" means "we'd rather they spent their time on something that generates new money".

I may have exaggerated a bit.
Regarding the ammo swap on C-ACs and C-LBX, Russ said that the former programmer code makes it nearly impossible and putting huge efforts and resources on that is not worth it at the moment. maybe in the future.


The thing i don't get is the former programmer. I don't know if the absence of that guy makes this a huge effort (which is lame for a developer team) or if it just simply needs huge effort due to the original code structure (then why bring up "former programmer"?).

Edited by Navid A1, 18 April 2015 - 02:35 PM.

[MATRAKA14]

Navid A1, on 18 April 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

However... according to russ, Their former programmer has left PGI and they can no longer figure out the original code (it just hurts when i remember it )... so it may as well be impossible.

So disgusting ,,, that's just lame, unprofessional and lazy.

Edited by MATRAKA14, 19 April 2015 - 02:45 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Navid A1, on 17 April 2015 - 03:36 AM, said:

You mean like this?...yup its very easy to fit them all in the box... took only 15 minutes:

Spoiler

etc...etc...

Agreed

I dont understand why this fix was ever needed

MATRAKA14, on 19 April 2015 - 02:44 PM, said:

So disgusting ,,, that's just lame, unprofessional and lazy.

The MWO way

Navid A1, on 18 April 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

However... according to russ, Their former programmer has left PGI and they can no longer figure out the original code (it just hurts when i remember it )... so it may as well be impossible.

Link to that? Because there are significantly more issues here if they cant even figure out their own code O.o

[Tennex]

There are so many great ideas in this thread. Saddest thing is that PGI will never see any of them