![](https://static.mwomercs.com/forums//public/style_images/master/icon_users.png)
![](http://static.mwomercs.com/img/allegianceIcons/house_MercCorps.png)
should mechs go nuclear when reactor melts down.
#261
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:07 AM
#262
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:24 AM
Also the fusion reactor in a mech is pretty much the same thing as a star (from my understanding) and stars explode.
Edited by Fetladral, 08 July 2012 - 07:26 AM.
#263
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:29 AM
Averam, on 22 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:
So I am supposed to believe that if I were to interrupt a nuclear reaction by, say, placing a spent uranium shell into the middle of it I wouldn't be releasing said copious amounts of energy into the wild? It simply would fizzle out like a big fart? I find that hard to believe.
If I understood it correct, Cold Fusion Reactors use a vacuum chamber, with super chilled internal walls, the plasma is apparently held into place via magnetism.
If the magnetism fails, the plasma hits the super chilled walls and cools. In the event it would fail critically it's a explosive release of thermal expansion.
At least that's the way Sarna explained it, and I know there are a few real world examples of experimental cold fusion reactors that derived a frighteningly similar setup.
Then there is the LCFR being used in California, it's supposed to prove the theory of "cold" fusion, but it uses lasers as the ingnition and the source is apparently a hydrogen bead.
#264
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:38 AM
And remember, the reactor criticals were never in MW2 or MW3, the only REAL Mechwarrior games IMO
#265
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:44 AM
Outlaw, on 08 July 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:
And remember, the reactor criticals were never in MW2 or MW3, the only REAL Mechwarrior games IMO
The biggest problem I see with absolutely no reactor criticals, is mech kills are horribly unrewarding visually. No satisfying bang, in fact from most of the videos around it just kinda. stops working, and then falls over with a couple charred bits.
That's not good. It needs something to add to the umph of a mech kill.
#266
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:50 AM
Rules VS Fun
Science VS Fun
Simulation VS Fun
Tough call even if Fun seems the obvious choice, because Rules-Science-Simulation can provide fun too...
#267
Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:03 AM
Fetladral, on 08 July 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:
Stars don't explode as often as you might think though. Here's the process that causes a supernova The process is called "carbon-burning" or "carbon fusion". This won't happen inside a battlemech's fusion reactor.
A Nova requires interference from a white dwarf star and thus cannot happen inside a battlemech.
#268
Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:10 AM
sgt coloncrunch, on 08 July 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:
The biggest problem I see with absolutely no reactor criticals, is mech kills are horribly unrewarding visually. No satisfying bang, in fact from most of the videos around it just kinda. stops working, and then falls over with a couple charred bits.
That's not good. It needs something to add to the umph of a mech kill.
The truly rewarding part, visually, is going to e all the molten lines drawn across a 'mech (you can see these in all the videos) and the destruction of arms and such, which appear to break apart pretty nicely (in the available videos). I'm hoping for something interesting for L/R torso destruction, like giant holes and the like, but that may be beyond the capabilities technologically since there would need to be layers and layers of polys and a lot of "damage points" to model this properly. (It may be simpler than I think, I'm not a 3d modeler.)
#269
Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:10 AM
![Posted Image](http://media.desura.com/images/mods/1/9/8528/newcoreexplosion_04.jpg)
#270
Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:12 AM
#272
Posted 08 July 2012 - 09:16 AM
#273
Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:44 AM
FactorlanP, on 22 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:
^This deserves repeating.
It escapes me why so many seem to find him to be such a fine writer.
I find it hard to hate the writer who gave us the Blood of Kerensky trilogy... even if most of the other stuff he wrote was just okay.
#274
Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:50 AM
That's about the worst you're going to get, but that's pretty bad... if you happen to be within 90m.
there was a suggestion thread about this already where it was dissected in excruciating detail.
#275
Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:00 AM
#276
Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:14 AM
It wouldn't be a problem for anyone else, unless said 'mech was an ammunition-dependent design with most of it's ammo still on board. Then maybe you'd get a 'mech "grenade." In other words, a point blank AOE. If you were in melee with said 'mech, that might mean your mech takes damage.
But the larger radius explosion? No. The 'nuclear' type explosion? No.
Fusion reactors simply aren't tactical nuclear weapons.
#277
Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:03 PM
#279
Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:15 PM
#280
Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:25 PM
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users