229 replies to this topic

[Joachim Viltry]

The Basilisk, on 22 November 2011 - 08:21 AM, said:

1st Lasers require no streight barrel.

NOPE!

let's look at the designs again shall we?

laser weapons generally have an armored cowling that extends far enough forward of the lens that it looks like a gun barrel. (Some mechs make very explicit mention of this, the Rakshasa has cowlings that are designed to absorb shock so that the laser barrels can be used to physically attack an opponent without throwing off the focal lens alignment).

So unless the laser lense is directly exposed, (perhaps like that in the chest of the Centurion) not a whole lot of deflection for an off axis shot is available; as there is only a small window to shoot through; and (in the case of many weapons) no room to realign the laser behind that aperture... all because the weapon is usually recessed back into the housing; ergo the entire housing has to be aligned to make the shot. This neatly helps explain the prevalence of arm mounted weapons in the setting, while keeping their killing power balanced against other weapons in the setting as per the OP. For further discussion, see the talk about torso mounted weapons...

Now for some examples...
this is a typical laser in this setting...
Note the long barrel on the laser, this is the norm in this setting.


this is a Mad Dog/Vulture
Please note the recessed laser lenses.



Note how the vulture has recesses laser lenses, this is also the norm in this setting, and does make some sense as it affords the delicate parts of the weapon some safety.

As I stated before we are not talking about a simple laser-pointer that can be angled with a mirror. it is a high yield energy weapon that does what such high yield weapons do- dump their energy on the first object they contact in a fairly explosive fashion.

It is worth noting that lasers in this setting do seem to behave a lot like their real world counterparts in many respects. given that very high intensity (terawatt) lasers are in fact visible to the naked eye (due to ionization of the atmosphere along the lasers path), and modern pulsed lasers generate much more heat than their continuous beam counterparts.

Metro, on 22 November 2011 - 08:29 AM, said:

Mechanics of MWO = unknown.

Topic = Speculative.

Um... Duh? That is the entire point, yes?

Granted everything here is speculation (about a game with entirely speculative features) but it is a discussion based upon our understanding both of the setting, and an expression of our desires for more interesting immersive and balanced gameplay; rather than the same all weapons hit at the retical regardless of the facing of those weapons arcade sillyness we have had in the past. this sort of detail is the difference between a game like falcon 4.0 and an Ace Combat game... attention to detail. (Just say no to "survey simulators"!)

Such discussions can be quite educational, and rewarding, hence why we engage in them. Sci-fi fans in general have a knack for such debates, and enjoy them greatly. Perhaps you should add something substantive to the discussion and really participate?

[Tannhauser Gate]

Great OP. Complete waste of the other 7+ pages. Im not saying the OPs method is "how it should be done" because I agree that the there are other variables not covered. But, I'm all about immersion and realism and I would prefer this kind of system rather than random hits within a cof.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Blackwidow, on 22 November 2011 - 07:38 AM, said:

(you having piloted / gunned an M1A1?)

I was a 19D Cavalry Scout for seven years. I only ever get to fool around on an M1 Abrams for funsies, it wasn't my job, but I've had a lot of exposure and experience on Bradleys, Strikers, ASVs, MRAPs, and HMMWVs. I probably gunned and drove a M1 five or six times. It was definitely fun!

Quote

You have stood firm in the forum onslaught, true to your original post...and have succeeded in the most basic premise of an argument. You have convinced the other party (namely little ol' me) that you are right.

Maybe I should go back and edit in the tank turret analogy... anyways, convincing someone of something must obviously be an internet first. Thanks for the kind words

[Tweaks]

Bridger, on 21 November 2011 - 06:02 AM, said:

http://videos.howstu...ation-video.htm

secondly, not talking about pin point accuracy, but rather about the thought that 1000 years from now, they can build giant bipedal combat machines, but can't make a system that aligns weapon mounts. The claim/thought that weapons in the 31st century are fixed in their mounts seems ludicrous to me.

As far as this concerns gameplay, there will be (probably) a cone of fire. However, all the suggestions about fixed convergence points seem over the top, as they are simply not "realistic" concerns, as far as the mech pilot is concerned (the computer should account for that)

The video in the example is NOT 100% precise, and you can clearly see the spread. It shot the guy on the head, torso, lower torso, shoulder etc... Not one single shot was within the same 6 inches wide circle. Sure it's a LOT better than not having any compensators as shown in the video, but it's still not 100% accurate. The video also didn't really show if the first bullet actually hit the center of the crosshair the guy was aiming at.

Sorry, but that's far from proof.

The RNG system HAS to be there at least to account for the weapon's unpredictability, for the simple reason that in real life, no physics, science, computer or algebra formula can predict with 100% accuracy where the bullet or shell will actually hit after a gun fires. It can calculate environmental effects, movement and such to get it CLOSE to where the gunner actually aims at, SURE, but never up to 100% accuracy, ever, period.

There's really no point in arguing about that point, it's a fact. Whether you care about that or not is completely irrelevant, it's still a fact and you can't change that.

Now before you guys start flaming me, I'm not asking for a huge cone of fire that doesn't make sense, but I'm asking for at least a slight one which represents the unpredictability factor (whatever you want to call it, the natural spread) of the weapon. Stop babbling about how in the 31st century they must have figured a way to have pin-point accuracy and such... they have not! Read the novels, it's clear. If it was so, they would never miss a single shot, but they do, plenty of times.

Edited by Tweaks, 22 November 2011 - 05:05 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Tweaks, on 22 November 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

The video in the example is NOT 100% precise, and you can clearly see the spread. It shot the guy on the head, torso, lower torso, shoulder etc... Not one single shot was within the same 6 inches wide circle. Sure it's a LOT better than not having any compensators as shown in the video, but it's still not 100% accurate. The video also didn't really show if the first bullet actually hit the center of the crosshair the guy was aiming at.

Why? Why do you think that happened in REAL LIFE? Lets say the answer to "Why" (I'm sure some of you military guys know) is Y.

It is exact proof, that guns fire in Real life, very very close (remember this mansized, not Mechsized) to their targets from a stationary position with a high quality aiming system. At the same time, it also shows that things such as gravity, wind resistance, and recoil matter.

Quote

The RNG system HAS to be there at least to account for the weapon's unpredictability, for the simple reason that in real life, no physics, science, computer or algebra formula can predict with 100% accuracy where the bullet or shell will actually hit after a gun fires. It can calculate environmental effects, movement and such to get it CLOSE to where the gunner actually aims at, SURE, but never up to 100% accuracy, ever, period.

Real life does have an RNG (Quantum), and it doesn't. Anyway, the actual answer is Y.

Quote

There's really no point in arguing about that point, it's a fact. Whether you care about that or not is completely irrelevant, it's still a fact and you can't change that.

That's fine, I just want Y to control the factor not an RNG CoF. An RNG might be an EASIER way to get there, and that may be what the Devs choose. I think its a cop out and they should try Y instead. Simple as that.

Edited by Technoviking, 22 November 2011 - 05:16 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

I found it interesting in the video how they had to edit the gun traverse, OK he was a Nub, but still, finding the target was a very slow process. Once on the target the system locked on but before the operator had to use the thumb gimble in small increments to align the first shot.

A guy popping up with a RPG would easily have time to line up a shot before coming under that reticule.

[Tweaks]

Technoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

Why? Why do you think that happened in REAL LIFE? Lets say the answer to "Why" (I'm sure some of you military guys know) is Y.

I didn't understand a single thing you wrote in there... sorry??

Technoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

It is exact proof, that guns fire in Real life, very very close (remember this mansized, not Mechsized) to their targets from a stationary position with a high quality aiming system. At the same time, it also shows that things such as gravity, wind resistance, and recoil matter.

Proof of what? That modern day guns can fire with 100% accuracy? (cause that's the proof I asked for by the way). If so, no it is NOT. The gun did NOT fire with 100% accuracy in the video. It shot the general area the gunner aimed at, but nowhere near the square inch the crosshair was on when he pulled the trigger.

Technoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

Real life does have an RNG (Quantum), and it doesn't. Anyway, the actual answer is Y.

Don't understand that Y thing you keep mentioning, sorry.

Technoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

That's fine, I just want Y to control the factor not an RNG CoF. An RNG might be an EASIER way to get there, and that may be what the Devs choose. I think its a cop out and they should try Y instead. Simple as that.

Again, what the hell is that Y you keep referring to!?

[Gaius Cavadus]

Tweaks, on 22 November 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

Stuff.

The point he was making, and I and a few other people touched on earlier, is that any "standard deviation" in a shot grouping is going to be measured in centimeters, not dozens of meters.

This whole concept of an AC-20 spreading it's rounds over a 10 meter wide CoF is preposterous. In other words, the effect of intrinsic weapon spread on accuracy would be minimal.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be modeled but it's just not going to be this huge influence on shot locations (nor should it be).

Edited by Cavadus, 22 November 2011 - 06:45 PM.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 22 November 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

The point he was making, and I and a few other people touched on earlier, is that any "standard deviation" in a shot grouping is going to be measured in centimeters, not dozens of meters.

This whole concept of an AC-20 spreading it's rounds over a 10 meter wide CoF is preposterous. In other words, the effect of intrinsic weapon spread on accuracy would be minimal.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be modeled but it's just not going to be this huge influence on shot locations (nor should it be).

You have this problem with weapons accuracy, yet no problems whatsoever with the rest of the preposterous stuff that happens in the Battletech universe...

[UncleKulikov]

Cavadus, on 22 November 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

This whole concept of an AC-20 spreading it's rounds over a 10 meter wide CoF is preposterous. In other words, the effect of intrinsic weapon spread on accuracy would be minimal.

Is that under ideal conditions? Because a mech moving would create a sway of at least 10 meters. Add recoil into that, and you get a wide spread indeed.

Edited by UncleKulikov, 22 November 2011 - 10:04 PM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

UncleKulikov, on 22 November 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Is that under ideal conditions?

Intrinsic fire spread. We've covered the rest in great detail, no?

Edit: So to answer your question, yes. Excluding every other variable the intrinsic shot spread would be rather minimal in context of "battlemech scale".

Edited by Cavadus, 22 November 2011 - 10:24 PM.

[StoneRhino]

Technoviking, on 18 November 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

Really awesome, except just delete the Gold Circle. Show me all the reticles. Allow me to fire them, as groups, when the target is in is under their target. They can jiggle swing and sway.

Cone of fire as a mechanic is a simulation of what you described. Sort of a simulation of a simulation.

I guess if we're only talking about the display, and we're not randomizing inside the cone, then sure, you can have a cone, sort of a helper, if you like it. I'd turn it off and have 5 reticles.

multiple color coated reticles would be great. Would it be necessary? Probably not, but it would allow those of us that get into the game and practice much more accurate then those that decide not to learn how to use such a system.

[CeeKay Boques]

Tweaks, on 22 November 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

I
Again, what the hell is that Y you keep referring to!?

The video, that you referred to, had some spread. Right? That gun shot its rounds off in our real life existence, on our planet and had some spread.

There is a reason that that happened. It would be foolish of me to pretend I'm a weapons/physics expert. But, there are real, physical reasons why that happened.

Those physical, real, tangible reasons that that weapon had minor spread, I shall refer to as Y.

Quote

Why? Why do you think that happened in REAL LIFE? Lets say the answer to "Why" (I'm sure some of you military guys know) is Y./

Lets simulate those things, rather than simulate a simulation of those things.

Why is this so important you might ask? Why not just simulate with CoF?

Other planets. Other Gravities, falling, jumping, high wind, low wind, high heat, low heat... being knocked... different recoils, all those things go away, and all weapons act generally the same under all conditions... it takes out that factor of awesome or lame things happening because some physics event occurs, and resolves it all down to clicking on the target, with a 1 in 5 chance to hit means I have to expend 5 rounds and gain 5 heat to guarnetee a hit. Yay. All my ... mechwarriorness is gone.

You really want just a widening of the hud crosshair to reflect all those cool possibilities? Or do you want to say, on Hesperus IV which is super windy with low gravity: "Aim low and to right, its looking nasty today."

[MaddMaxx]

Since CoF has such a negative connotation how about we change it up. How about "Tube of Fire".

Here is a example.

"Tube of Fire"

Once inside the Reticule the worst to happens is moving around with a MAX of 50% leaving the circle. Convergent weapons (arm mounts) can leave if an extreme force was applied. Getting smacked, heavy torso twist, extreme maneuver etc etc.

That way all that needs to be controlled id the size of the Reticule based on Range. Weapon spread would be contained inside the varying Reticules.

If you want Wind (bla bla bla) to factor in, the Dev need to put those various physics model in play.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 23 November 2011 - 09:11 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Exactly. MM If its just a HUD marker reflecting all the magic that happens under the hood, that's fine with me. Expand all you want. In that picture though, I want to be able to fire each of the olympic rings at my discretion, that's all.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 23 November 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:

The video, that you referred to, had some spread. Right? That gun shot its rounds off in our real life existence, on our planet and had some spread.

There is a reason that that happened. It would be foolish of me to pretend I'm a weapons/physics expert. But, there are real, physical reasons why that happened.

Those physical, real, tangible reasons that that weapon had minor spread, I shall refer to as Y.



Lets simulate those things, rather than simulate a simulation of those things.

Why is this so important you might ask? Why not just simulate with CoF?

Other planets. Other Gravities, falling, jumping, high wind, low wind, high heat, low heat... being knocked... different recoils, all those things go away, and all weapons act generally the same under all conditions... it takes out that factor of awesome or lame things happening because some physics event occurs, and resolves it all down to clicking on the target, with a 1 in 5 chance to hit means I have to expend 5 rounds and gain 5 heat to guarnetee a hit. Yay. All my ... mechwarriorness is gone.

You really want just a widening of the hud crosshair to reflect all those cool possibilities? Or do you want to say, on Hesperus IV which is super windy with low gravity: "Aim low and to right, its looking nasty today."

And if the release date gets pushed back a year so they can model and test these things for every weapon on every chassis then sure, great idea... or they could use CWERCoF, which will have the same effect, and still release the game next summer.

[MaddMaxx]

Technoviking, on 23 November 2011 - 09:20 AM, said:

Exactly. MM If its just a HUD marker reflecting all the magic that happens under the hood, that's fine with me. Expand all you want. In that picture though, I want to be able to fire each of the olympic rings at my discretion, that's all.

And each ring is an independent entity in and of itself. I just added 4 to show various types, I should have made them differing sizes to indicate weapon size. Small Medium Large Lasers, 1, 5 10 20 in Ballistics. Missiles have lock and or are dumb fired so they are more point and shoot at the pilots discretion based on needed accuracy t trigger pull time.

[Brosef Stalin]

I love OP's idea because it's crunchy and clunky. I like the idea of representing mechs as kind-of curmudgeonly.

The firearms nut in me has to point out, though, that when weapons are mounted parallel in a system they're zero'ed to some distance where they will converge. Look at fighter planes for an example of twin-linked projectile devices sharing an eventual point of convergence. They were doing that as far back as WW1.

When using a scope for long distance shooting with a conventional firearm, you zero it for the distance of your target, since the line drawn by your sight picture and the imaginary line coming out of the barrel of the weapon would never converge otherwise, and your shots would always be below what you were actually aiming at.

Just couldn't resist saying it. I'm still all for the OP's suggestion. Make zero'ing an option in the garage, or a slow adjustment made after locking to a target...but not something that happens instantly/automatically all the time.

RNG's suck. People's own inaccuracies are fine.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 23 November 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

And if the release date gets pushed back a year so they can model and test these things for every weapon on every chassis then sure, great idea... or they could use CWERCoF, which will have the same effect, and still release the game next summer.

Fine! I'm going to give them all my money!

[Pht]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

The shot groups are determined by the placement of the barrels and the ability of the arms to converge so that each arm's unique shot pattern (of the weapon group you fire) overlap one another.

If you look at the images of the Nova Cat's arms' shot patterns and the composite shot pattern of both arms you're looking at the default weapons' spread for an alpha strike all other variables excluded.

No matter where you aim or what you aim at the shot pattern is always going to disperse like that. That's how the barrels of the weapons in the arms are geometrically arranged.

Like I said, all other variables excluded...

And you indicated a COF for each individual weapon, as well; inside of which, the shots are (apparently?) random.

BTW, as far as the lasers having focusing devices to help with aiming arcs - they're not titular; it's in Tac Ops on page 75 - one of the core books - and it was in max tech as well, on I think page 17.

Quote

Yeah, we got into that a little later on in the thread. Basically a "standard deviation" for each weapon though I personally feel any deviation should be fairly minimal. Like say, 1-3 meters of deviation at best depending on the weapon. I'd argue that any deviation to lasers should probably be measured in millimeters and it seems like a mech's Targeting &Tracking System should be able to easily re-zero to the reticle laser weapons.

The real problem with lasers is that they have a set amount of "On" time in order to do their rated damage - which coincidentally is why pulsed lasers are more accurate - smaller bursts of "on" time.