158 replies to this topic

[XphR]

That is a fine little word indeed. It also describes the way in which the robotic in nature, mechanized war machine is able to bend to the will of its pilot. Automatically. That automation is what makes it a robotic, its internal workings are series of specialized robots working in unison to accomplish their own goals. Goals that include the commands received (from the pilot) as well as the ones from its own internal controllers and other adjacent control systems.

As a whole the Mech may be apathetic but it is not without a level of self control.

Edited by XphR, 25 November 2014 - 01:44 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Tank Man, on 25 November 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

If you all are going to argue over such little details, then let the counterarguments continue: one could look at the Iron Man suit itself as a sophisticated independent entity from Stark, as could a BattleMech from it's MechWarrior. Both BattleMech and Iron Man suit have the sensory devices, actuators, and some measure of 'intelligence' in order to be considered robots or at the very least 'robotic.' The key thing is that human element, and said human element can be seen as something for the 'mech and suit itself to 'react from.' To argue that the Iron Man armor is 'just an armored suit' and that a BattleMech is 'just a walking tank' wouldn't do either of them justice.

I've seen the 'warplanes must be robots too' argument here, and all I can think to that is 'planes, once in the air, "merely" have to coordinate their individual control surfaces and thrusters.' A 'mech needs to coordinate it's own limbs in comparison, and while I won't argue the most likely inherent difficulty in getting computers to maintain level flight all I can say is that it's already done and we even have quadrotor drones now, whereas while we do have bipedal bots' now they're still a long ways to go from being commonplace beyond the ongoing competitions. We're still having problems getting these bipeds up stairs for crissakes and you people quibble over 'mechs "just being walking tanks," when there are already counterarguments pointing out how, without much more than balance data from a MechWarrior's Neurohelmet, a 'mech can independently navigate around obstacles in it's path such as trees and rocks and what have you all while keeping itself on it's giant stomping feet! No further input from the MechWarrior beyond directional heading and throttle, and the BattleMech does the work of making sure it doesn't slip and fall on it's heavy metal tuscus.

'Mechs, at the very least, are robotic war vehicles. They have sensors, they have actuators, they have a degree of localized intelligence far more powerful than today's war machines. Scary way to look at it is, though a MechWarrior is a hard requirement for most BattleMechs (Broken not withstanding), all a MechWarrior is to a BattleMech is just another thing to react to and move in response to, if one were to look at the controls and Neurohelmet of a 'mech as just another battery of sensors for said 'mech.

Aaaaand just don't get me started on popular anime 'mechs. (Most've more degrees of intelligence than BattleTech 'mechs! Today's Gundams with their wacky round hand controls anyone?)

However, general BattleMechs (that is, again excluding the specifically-modified drone 'Mechs made for The Broken) really aren't more sophisticated than even previous-generation aircraft.

Collision avoidance systems (e.g. ACAS & its automotive counterparts) are commonplace, as are self-diagnostic systems and automatic course-plotting systems & autopilot systems.

The BattleMechs' DI Computer doesn't really do much more than that... and, as part of the contrast between BattleMechs & IndustrialMechs, BattleMechs generally don't even include the autopilot functions.

"The DI computer is the manager for all the systems in a BattleMech. Each component has its own controlling computer, brought together by the DI system. For example, the DI distributes orders to actuator MCUs that create smooth limb motions. It also compares the health of multiple systems to keep components from damaging themselves, like changing engine operation when the ’Mech suff ers from heat sink damage. Or it can override the “common sense” of the individual components. For example, when the MechWarrior demands it, the DI computer will run the engine hot even when the engine control computer wants nothing more than to cool down." - TechManual, pg. 42

"Of course, we’ve all seen vids of BattleMechs crashing through forests, or clipping a building, or falling into a ravine. This is because BattleMechs are war machines and must accept some risk to carry out the commands of their MechWarriors. When a MechWarrior is aiming at a target, his commands take priority and the BattleMech will swing its arms through the side of a building if that is what’s required to fire on the target. Once the MechWarrior releases the weapon controls, the DI computer will resume avoiding solid objects as best it can.
This self-determinant behavior is even more pronounced in IndustrialMechs, where the IndustrialMech will steer itself around objects while carrying out general directional commands from the pilot. But because battles can move anywhere, BattleMechs give MechWarriors direct steering control with the blind faith that their MechWarriors won’t run them off a cliff - or at least, if they do that, the MechWarriors have a good reason. BattleMechs will give collision warnings, but won’t override the MechWarriors." - TechManual, pg. 43

Unlike the IM armors (or, as another example, Heavy Gears), BattleMechs cannot move on their own accord (beyond basic collision avoidance... and even this is negated when a sloppy MechWarrior is at the helm) & the DI Computer is largely incapable of anything that would qualify it as a "driving machine intelligence".
Even IndistrialMechs can navigate themselves, unlike BattleMechs - the former is actually closer to being a true robot than the latter, despite being based on the same technological & industrial bases (in the same way that modern self-driving cars are robots (or closer to it) while their non-self-driving brethren are not)...

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 25 November 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

That is a fine little word indeed. It also describes the way in which the robotic in nature, mechanized war machine is able to bend to the will of its pilot. Automatically. That automation is what makes it a robotic, its internal workings are series of specialized robots working in unison to accomplish their own goals. Goals that include the commands received (from the pilot) as well as the ones from its own internal controllers and other adjacent control systems.

As a whole the Mech may be apathetic but it is not without a level of self control.

Good grief. If you take a pilot out of a mech it is unable to function. It doesn't matter a squat how complicated or advanced those systems are, it is not capable of doing anything by itself. Just like a bloody scissor lift! The mech doesn't "bend to the will" of the pilot, as it has no will of its own in the first place.

What "self control"? Advanced systems that govern its balance, sensory information and visual and targetting systems which are all, incidentally for the benefit of the PILOT and NOT for the mech.

No autonomy. Not a robot.

[Stonefalcon]

Tycho von Gagern, on 10 July 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

I call them mechs when I'm talking to people in the know, but to my girlfriend and others who have made it clear they could care less about my obsession with this game, they are and will remain "giant stompy death robots."

fixed

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Good grief. If you take a pilot out of a mech it is unable to function. It doesn't matter a squat how complicated or advanced those systems are, it is not capable of doing anything by itself. Just like a bloody scissor lift! The mech doesn't "bend to the will" of the pilot, as it has no will of its own in the first place.

What "self control"? Advanced systems that govern its balance, sensory information and visual and targetting systems which are all, incidentally for the benefit of the PILOT and NOT for the mech.

No autonomy. Not a robot.

I get that you dont get it, and I an sorry it is getting the better of you that I disagree. But balance of the Mech is a boon to Pilot and Mech alike. As for the robotic portion of a scissor lift, its goal is to avoid you becoming bloody by its allowing you to topple it over..

[James DeGriz]

XphR, on 25 November 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

I get that you dont get it, and I an sorry it is getting the better of you that I disagree. But balance of the Mech is a boon to Pilot and Mech alike. As for the robotic portion of a scissor lift, its goal is to avoid you becoming bloody by its allowing you to topple it over..

Think what you like. Attempt to convince yourself of your position by feigning pity or arrogantly ignoring every single piece of proof that you're wrong that I have thus far put forward. All of that changes nothing. You clearly don't know what a robot even is to be able to hold an accurate or plausible opinion.

My only fault was continuing to argue you with you: "Don't argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to his level, then beat you with experience".

Good day

[XphR]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Think what you like. Attempt to convince yourself of your position by feigning pity or arrogantly ignoring every single piece of proof that you're wrong that I have thus far put forward. All of that changes nothing. You clearly don't know what a robot even is to be able to hold an accurate or plausible opinion.

My only fault was continuing to argue you with you: "Don't argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to his level, then beat you with experience".

Good day

You are rather offensive.

[Tustle]

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Definition of robot in English:

NOUN
[color=#F78E1E]1[/color]A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer:half of all American robots are making cars or trucks[color=#F78E1E][AS MODIFIER]:[/color] a robot arm
science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicatecertain human movements and functions automatically:the robot closed the door behind us


Probably trading standards too. Notice use of the word "Automatically".

Yes, exactly, 'automatically.' The 'mech automatically balances itself, automatically positions it's own giant feet when walking, automatically (if given no further instruction as pointed out by a very concise post from Strum there) avoids things in it's path when in motion. Which brings us to this point...

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

One could indeed look at Iron Man and a Battlemech that way, and one would be wrong. It's about autonomy. Starks suit, just like a Battlemech is not capable of independant action without the pilot, be that Phelan Kell or Tony Stark. Dress it up all you like, but a mech is a walking tank. Granted, a technologically advanced, highly sophisticated tank, yes, but when it comes down to it, that's all it is. Although I think the real point is, it's MORE than "just" a tank, but it's not intelligent enough to be a robot. Which is why, after all, it's called a Battlemech.

I'd say it is 'intelligent' enough in that it can do several things automatically. Can you imagine a 'mech in which the pilot has to manipulate thousands of little dials and levers in order to move the actuators? I could, and all I can think of is;

"Okay, lift up the right hip...roll the body to the left...raise thigh...wait what's tha-OH CRAP INCOMING MISSILES AH-"

And then the explosions and heavy thumping of machine tuscus; for it's no 'mech that's for sure; as it falls flat on the back.

...vice versa for the Iron Man suit in that it must very precisely match the movements of the wearer. If control of the suit's ability to read the wearer's intentions is even a little off, well...I think someone from Hammer demonstrated what happens.

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

How ever advanced our particular breed of 31st century walking tank is; and lets face it the technical issues of getting a machine to walk like we do without falling on its rump is largely why our 21st century tanks have wheels and tracks, rather than legs doesn't change what a mech IS and what it is NOT. It is not autonomous. It requires advanced systems to help it be what it is, but those systems are as much designed to help the pilot as it is the mech. The mech does not decide what to shoot, how to shoot it, which way to walk, which target is the greater threat, how to link with its lance mates to ensure victory, it just provides the information and the weaponry for the pilot to do that. Ultimately, it's no different than a car with GPS. It tells you how to get somewhere, but it's up to you whether or not you follow that route or take one of your own.

I highly doubt a car with GPS can regularly check it's wheels to make sure it isn't running into anything and realign itself accordingly if the driver doesn't do anything. A 'mech however, can; and yes, it just will run full on into something if the MechWarrior's not all that bright, but the thing is there are autonomous systems within the 'mech. Again, mostly in keeping it upright and walking without falling and again though a MechWarrior is still required it's just for the balance data in that human skull. Higher decision making is yes, made by the MechWarrior; but the 'mech itself still has a large degree of autonomy. Walking and running on two jointed legs is not easy to recreate in machines!

James DeGriz, on 25 November 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

"Robotic war vehicles" is exactly what they are. RobotIC as in "like a robot", doesn't make something a robot. I could probably do a robotic dance. Am I robot? No. Additionally, a battlemech won't override an incompetent mechwarriors actions to prevent its own destruction. A Battlemech is a vehicle. It is not sentient. It is not autonomous.

Glad we agree on the robotic war vehicle part, can we just use that as a descriptor of 'mechs from now on? Definitely not arguing it's lack of sentience; but again, there is an enormous degree of autonomy by the 'mech itself involved in just moving the legs and keeping itself upright.

[James DeGriz]

Tank Man, on 25 November 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

Yes, exactly, 'automatically.' The 'mech automatically balances itself, automatically positions it's own giant feet when walking, automatically (if given no further instruction as pointed out by a very concise post from Strum there) avoids things in it's path when in motion. Which brings us to this point...


I'd say it is 'intelligent' enough in that it can do several things automatically. Can you imagine a 'mech in which the pilot has to manipulate thousands of little dials and levers in order to move the actuators? I could, and all I can think of is;

"Okay, lift up the right hip...roll the body to the left...raise thigh...wait what's tha-OH CRAP INCOMING MISSILES AH-"

And then the explosions and heavy thumping of machine tuscus; for it's no 'mech that's for sure; as it falls flat on the back.

...vice versa for the Iron Man suit in that it must very precisely match the movements of the wearer. If control of the suit's ability to read the wearer's intentions is even a little off, well...I think someone from Hammer demonstrated what happens.



I highly doubt a car with GPS can regularly check it's wheels to make sure it isn't running into anything and realign itself accordingly if the driver doesn't do anything. A 'mech however, can; and yes, it just will run full on into something if the MechWarrior's not all that bright, but the thing is there are autonomous systems within the 'mech. Again, mostly in keeping it upright and walking without falling and again though a MechWarrior is still required it's just for the balance data in that human skull. Higher decision making is yes, made by the MechWarrior; but the 'mech itself still has a large degree of autonomy. Walking and running on two jointed legs is not easy to recreate in machines!


Glad we agree on the robotic war vehicle part, can we just use that as a descriptor of 'mechs from now on? Definitely not arguing it's lack of sentience; but again, there is an enormous degree of autonomy by the 'mech itself involved in just moving the legs and keeping itself upright.

Most of what you are saying revolves around the mechanics involved in the fact that a mech is a legged vehicle rather than a wheeled or tracked one. I completely agree that the level of technology involved for that process in itself requires a degree of automation, but (and it's a big but) the mech cannot make independent choices about which direction to walk in, what targets to fire at or what weapons to use to do so.

An ordinary car can't make adjustments about which direction its wheels are heading to stop itself from toppling over simply because it doesn't need to. Wheeled vehicles are generally fairly inherently stable, which is why we use them; our technology in the 21st century isn't (quite yet) advanced enough to allow us to mount legs to vehicle and leave IT to worry about keeping itself upright rather than us worrying about it.

From that point of view I can understand why someone would reject the Iron Man suit analogy. That suit is small enough where a human beings own built in sense of balance is enough to keep it up right. However the more you enlarge a suit like that, or "power armour", the more difficult it becomes to rely on the pilots own balance and have to engineer something separate. Likewise with all the other mechanics which are involved in getting it to just turn its torso, move its arms or fire its weapons.

However advanced, or indeed automatic those systems are, there is no independent action. All of those actions come from the pilot. A lever allows us to move or lift objects heavier than we would normally be capable of, but without us to move that lever, it's nothing more than a tool.

That OED definition of "robot" is about as definitive as it gets. For a machine to be a robot, there has to be independent action, be it from a pre-programmed set of repeated commands (like in a factory robot), or from artificial intelligence (like we see in science fiction). I accept that the level of sophistication of a Battlemech does indeed make that distinction more difficult to define, but ultimately, if you take the pilot out, the 'mech cannot function. For it to be a robot, it would be capable of motion and action without the pilot, or without any human intervention. It is therefore not a robot, but a highly advanced vehicle

[Rushin Roulette]

Well, to be honest, using some deffinitions of what a robot is (as posted here ).

My car is therefore a robot. I do not manually check the petrol tank to see how much petrol is left and how far the remaining petrol will be able to move teh car using the current average consumption (which I do not manually calculate myself either). I dont manually power the wheels as I have absolutely no contact with either the wheels or the axcels (or Camshaft if I had a rear wheel drive). All I do is press down a pedal and the rest is done by the robot.

For me a "Robot" is something which can completely move and function without human input within set parameters once these parameters have been programmed into its system (i. e. A robot Vacuum cleaner can clean the floor in a set pattern once started and will avoid any obstacles on a flat floor which it encounters without anyone needing to pull or push it. A Car building robot can find and place a weld on a chassie which is placed infront of it without anyone needing to press a button or aim the welder for it)... A Car which has to be controlled, monitored and manually steered as well as opperated at all times during motion is not a robot, no matter how many support and monitoring systems it may have (The Google Cars and similar currently being tested are a different story though, as they are able to move without input from a driver once the destination has been programmed into memory).

[stjobe]

James DeGriz, on 26 November 2014 - 12:55 AM, said:

the mech cannot make independent choices about which direction to walk in

Well, it can pick (and successfully traverse) a route to a given destination without further input - including course adjustments if needed (so some degree of "which direction to walk in" is in fact present).

James DeGriz, on 26 November 2014 - 12:55 AM, said:

what targets to fire at or what weapons to use to do so.

It probably can (seeing as we already have this capability today), but much like today, it's not allowed to do that.

Remember, the 'Mech finds, identifies and prioritizes targets for the MechWarrior already, and aligns the weapons selected by the MechWarrior - and fires them once the MechWarrior pulls the trigger(s). To take the MechWarrior out of that loop is easy even by today's standards. It's generally not done for moral reasons rather than technical limitations.

James DeGriz, on 26 November 2014 - 12:55 AM, said:

For it to be a robot, it would be capable of motion and action without the pilot, or without any human intervention. It is therefore not a robot, but a highly advanced vehicle

Can we just agree to call them "semi-autonomous robotic fighting machines" then? Not "true robots" in the strictest sense of the word, but also a far cry from the RC cars they call robots in Robot Wars (or the F-14 the OP argued).

Truth to be told though, I'd be happy to continue just calling them "'Mechs" or "BattleMechs"

Edited by stjobe, 26 November 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[James DeGriz]

stjobe, on 26 November 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Well, it can pick (and successfully traverse) a route to a given destination without further input - including course adjustments if needed (so some degree of "which direction to walk in" is in fact present).

It can't do that without a pilot, so whilst I would agree that such an autopilot system is a "robotic system", it doesn't necessarily make a 'mech a robot.

Quote

It probably can (seeing as we already have this capability today), but much like today, it's not allowed to do that.

Fair enough, but in its battle-ready state, it is unable to do that, so whilst autonomy is likely technologically possible, it's not applied in that configuration.

Quote

Remember, the 'Mech finds, identifies and prioritizes targets for the MechWarrior already, and aligns the weapons selected by the MechWarrior - and fires them once the MechWarrior pulls the trigger(s). To take the MechWarrior out of that loop is easy even by today's standards. It's generally not done for moral reasons rather than technical limitations.

Does it actually prioritise targets? Granted I'm not as up on the lore as some, but to my knowledge it finds targets, and the mechwarrior performs the prioritisation.

Quote

Can we just agree to call them "semi-autonomous robotic fighting machines" then? Not "true robots" in the strictest sense of the word, but also a far cry from the RC cars they call robots in Robot Wars (or the F-14 the OP argued).

Truth to be told though, I'd be happy to continue just calling them "'Mechs" or "BattleMechs"

Absolutely! After all, that is likely why they are called "Battlemechs", because they generally fit in to a category all of their own that sits between robot and vehicle; more technologically advanced than an F14, but not autonomous enough to be a robot.

Completely 100% agree about the RC vehicles that are referred to as robots, not only on Robot Wars, but also internet stores that claim to sell robots, but in actual fact just sell rather niche RC vehicles. I've built both, incidentally; (RC vehicles and very rudimentary robots) so I'm well aware of the differentiation and that's probably why I'm so **** about it

[XphR]

Or blind to it..

[Mike Forst]

I'm still going to just call them robots.

[Vassago Rain]

Gundams.

[XphR]

With cooperative or supervised autonomy.

[kingalbertII]

i think op was not talking about battletech mechs exclusively, but all mechs

people assume that
wheels = vehicle
legs = robot

[CyclonerM]

Mike Forst, on 26 November 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

I'm still going to just call them robots.

Heresy!

[StompingOnTanks]

A robot, by definition, is an autonomous machine that can think and solve problems on its own.

A mech is basically a tank on legs. Therefore, a mech is not a robot.

The exception to this case is when mechs are autonomous in and of themselves, in which case they become robots again. The Transformers are robots, not mechs, for example.

Now, if the mech has partial autonomy but requires a human pilot you're getting into a dizzying black hole of a gray zone from which this conversation will get sucked into and never escape. Which I think it already has.