Bloodyscalphunter, on 17 December 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:
With such a extreemly thin atmosphere our laser and PPC weapons should have extended ranges. With no atmosphere for the energy to blead off into or be distorted, energy weapons will go on until gravity forces the energy into the ground.
True.
But do we really need to have small laser pop-tart duels at 3000m-4000m range? I think not. And if you increase range by 20%-ish it's not gonna make any difference. Besides, missiles won't be affected by range changes, thus weapon balance will be gone. It wouldn't be an issue if game allowed us to select loadouts for each map but as long as it isn't the case I wouldn't touch anything that can ruin game balance we are yet to achieve once again.
Bloodyscalphunter, on 17 December 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:
Also with a thin atmosphere heat would dissipate at a faster rate since an atmosphere holds in heat.
Wrong.
Just as you need molecules to 'bounce off' to propogade sound you need same molecules to keep bouncing to dissipate heat. Without the atmosphere your only way of cooling your mech would be via points of contact with the ground (aka legs) and Black Body emission, but ... only if ground temperature is actually less then the temperature of your mech. Same goes for BB emission. If not firing, your mech will eventually reach equilibrium between the amount of radiation it emits and absorbs, thus haveing a constant temperature that will in turn depend on the star proximity, exposure to direct light etc. The eventual temperature can be anything really, from -270C to +600C at which you'll probably begin to cook inside your mech. The speed at which this equilibrium is established is FAR slower then thermal equilibrium in atmospheres. Same way, heat dissipation via legs is also a far slower process, even if ground temperature is close to absolute zero.
So, if done 'right', you'll be getting rid of heat you generated firing one small laser for an hour or so. Realistic? Yes. Playable? No.
Bloodyscalphunter, on 17 December 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:
Secondly the temperature is all wrong. This looks like a moon, not a planet. Since this is a HyperPulse Generator facility this being a moon makes more sense. So if this is a moon on a habitable planet the temp they provide is very wrong. If this facility is on the sun side of the moon temps would be around 100˚C and on the dark side -150˚C. The -10˚C temp they say makes no sense. Considering the thin atmosphere, there is nothing to hold in heat. The temps should be drastically reduced or increased. There are other maps with far colder temps with atmospheres helping that out. Same can be said about the hotter maps.
Wrong.
Temperatures on a body without an atmosphere can vary from absolute zero up to the temperatures at which this body will melt, depending on the proximity to the system star. This temperature is determined by the same thermal equilibrium I've described before. Only thing that heats your moon (relatively small body without internal heat generation) up is star radiation, so its a balance between radiation your moon absorbs and emits. Mercury is somewhat a great example. Just like Moon always faces Earth with only one of its hemispheres, Mercury faces Sun same way. Thus temperatures on the 'sunny' side that is always exposed towards solar radiation are somewhere around 400C, while on the 'gloomy' side that is shielded from sunlight by the mass of Mercury itself they are always around -170C. Take into account, that just like on Earth, when day temperatures are usually higher then night temperatures, the 'average' temperature on Mercury would have been somewhat in-between those numbers if the planet wasn't always facing Sun with one side. Now if Manifold map is actually somewhere on a moon of a planet, it means that this moon is most likely facing its planet with one of its side at all times. Because this planet revolves around the star it means that planets moons are unlike Mercury actually haveing days and nights everywhere on a regular basis. Which means that the 'ambient' temperature for this map can be anything PGI damn wants it to be between -270C and +800C at which some rocks begin to melt.
Bloodyscalphunter, on 17 December 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:
Finally there is the gravity. Moons with little to no atmosphere are smaller moons. With not enough gravitational hold to keep an atmosphere. Our moon’s gravity is 1/6 that of Earths gravity. As such our mechs would fall slower and have almost no damage associated with falling. Also ballistic weapons ranges should be increased to such a degree that they most likely would be able to reach escape velocity from a straight line. Also our mechs speed should also see a increase. With less gravity pushing down on our mechs we should be able to go faster than in an environment with a increased gravity.
Debatable.
It might be typical in our Solar system but there is nothing preventing a planet or a moon without atmosphere from haveing a 1G gravity, 10G gravity etc. If our Moon would have been made of solid metal it would have had a gravity force near or equal that of Earth. In my opinion it would have been really interesting to see MWO map with little gravity but I just do not believe that current game engine will respond well to drastic changes in that regard. It is all very unrealistic as is that ballistic weapons can have under 1km max range (AC20 does nothing at 810+ meters).
As for speeds, I'll have to disagree. Have you seen how astronauts moved on Moon during Apollo missions? A walker type mechanism (be it a battlemech or a human) is designed to move in a certain type of gravity. Change it significantly in any way and he either can't move at all or have real difficulty coordinating his body. Now unlike a human, you can change actuator 'types' on mechs or smth like that to compensate, but that does not necesserily mean speed increase or decrease. And again, game engine most certainly won't respond well to any significant speed increase. All the problems we had with hit detection (and honestly still haveing) on fast moving mechs will reappear again and only become worse. Besides, it'll feel like fighting a tank from a jetplane within a city. You can see it in movies and some (bad) videogames. Sure you can fire guided missiles, but hitting smth with direct fire weapons while moving at 1000kph is next to impossible.
Bloodyscalphunter, on 17 December 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:
All in all the physics on this map make no sense with what we see. Hopefully PGI will change some of this to make it a little more realistic.
Not really, no. BattleTech / MechWarrior has little to do with realism to begin with. Personally I'd love to see realistic environments in the game but it'll really be hardcore and PGI just won't do it. They already said they are making a typical FPS for a typical FPS playerbase. In another lifetime maybe ...
9
