94 replies to this topic

[Kilo 40]

IceSerpent, on 18 November 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

We have no idea what you wanted to say, but you said "only go forward", which means movement in the direction from aft to fore of the vehicle (missile in this case). If you meant something else, you should've actually said whatever you meant.

I keep forgetting English is a second language for many here.

[DaniBot]

Yeah, change the name please. Change the name into skycancer -__-

[Andi Nagasia]

so a LRM flies into a bar,... o right roof, so with cover,....
-ok ok ok let me try the joke again,....
so a LRM hits the roof of a bar,...
and no damage is dealt to the Mechs inside,....
-not as funny when i say it that way?

Solution!!! angle -25% speed +25%,

[Alek Ituin]

Kilo 40, on 18 November 2014 - 06:14 AM, said:

Idiotic huh?

so missiles only go forward and don't change directions or altitude?

well ok then.

Even changing direction they're still going forwards, relative to their thrust vector.

Do you NOT understand how that works? Guess not...

[Kilo 40]

Alek Ituin, on 19 November 2014 - 01:14 AM, said:

Even changing direction they're still going forwards, relative to their thrust vector.

Do you NOT understand how that works? Guess not...

amazing

simply amazing

[Willard Phule]

Artgathan, on 18 November 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

SRMs aren't actually dumbfire in BT. They have limited guidance systems (which is why things like TAG and Narc give to-hit bonuses to them). Streak-SRMs are not SRMs with guidance systems - they're SRMs with prediction systems. If the SSRM predicts it will miss, it doesn't let the pilot fire - it's an ammunition conservation system.

MRMs on the other hand are dumbfire.

Technically, you're right but.....let's face it. In BT, with an SRM6 the number of missiles that hit are completely random as is the hit location. It may have a guidance system but it sure feels like "dumbfire." MRMs solved that problem by increasing the number of tubes. Who cares if I only hit with 25% of my missiles? It's an MRM40, dude. LOL.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 November 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

So youre saying we should get Streak LRMs?

I dont think ppl want that

http://www.sarna.net...i/Streak_LRM-20

3057, my man. And, of course, they're Clan so they'll have to be nerfed immediately after release.

Now, keep in mind that PGI handles Streaks differently than they're supposed to be used. The Streak system is supposed to simply prevent you from firing unless you've got a good lock. It's all about ammo consumption, not Derp-tracking missiles that'll follow you into the bathroom. But, whatever.

Alek Ituin, on 19 November 2014 - 01:14 AM, said:

Even changing direction they're still going forwards, relative to their thrust vector.

Do you NOT understand how that works? Guess not...

Unless, of course, they've got one of them nifty, new-fangled things on the back that helps them turn. Well, that and a tracking system.

I don't know how the MW:O missiles are designed or what they're patterned off of but, I DO know how some wire-guides work. The old Dragon missile had attitude rockets along the side to help it track moving targets. It couldn't pull a 90 degree turn but it'd come pretty damn close for something moving that fast.

[Alek Ituin]

Willard Phule, on 19 November 2014 - 03:41 AM, said:

Unless, of course, they've got one of them nifty, new-fangled things on the back that helps them turn. Well, that and a tracking system.

I don't know how the MW:O missiles are designed or what they're patterned off of but, I DO know how some wire-guides work. The old Dragon missile had attitude rockets along the side to help it track moving targets. It couldn't pull a 90 degree turn but it'd come pretty damn close for something moving that fast.

Even with vectored thrust nozzles (which our missile must have due to their canonical and in-game ability to maneuver in space), you're still going forwards relative the the thrust vector! That means while changing your heading, you're still going forward. How do you and Kilo not get this, it's pretty basic stuff.

Kilo 40, on 19 November 2014 - 02:51 AM, said:

amazing

simply amazing

Yeah, it's amazing how you're not getting how that works.

It's simply amazing.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 19 November 2014 - 05:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

KraftySOT, on 18 November 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

I love it when people say THIS IS THE FUTURE A MISSILE CAN GO FATHER THAN 1,000 METERS!!!

Yet, fuel to weight ratio remains a constant.

It doesnt matter how far in the future you are, physics doesnt change. Fuel weighs something. More weight decreases range. More fuel increases range, but increases weight. Components weigh things. The more weight, the less range, the more fuel required.

There is a finite cap on how far, destructive, agile, etc a missile can be based on all those factors.

An LRM is smaller than an SRM

http://www.sarna.net...RM_-_TR3026.jpg

And an SRM is roughly the same size, range, weight, and explosive component as a ATGM Javelin. With around 17kgs of explosive, and around 40 kgs of fuel.

If you make a missile with a smaller warhead, thus reducing weight, the same level of fuel, extends the range, at the cost of explosive content.

An LRM is no larger, or more powerful, than a 3.5 inch rocket. Has the same effective range, and same explosive content.

There ARE plenty of missiles that fire much, much father in the BTech universe, but like real missiles, to achieve this, it exponentially increases size and weight.

There arent missiles today, or any day in the future, that have cruise missile range, while being able to be picked up and loaded by a human being (less than 120 lbs).

Unless on Planet Lost they find a material with a high yield to low mass ... Say, Big BOOMium. with 6 times the explosive capability of an equal mass or Earth made explosive. *Handwavium*

[Kilo 40]

Alek Ituin, on 19 November 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

Yeah, it's amazing how you're not getting how that works.

It's simply amazing.

mmk.

[YueFei]

Alek Ituin, on 19 November 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

Even with vectored thrust nozzles (which our missile must have due to their canonical and in-game ability to maneuver in space), you're still going forwards relative the the thrust vector! That means while changing your heading, you're still going forward. How do you and Kilo not get this, it's pretty basic stuff.



Yeah, it's amazing how you're not getting how that works.

It's simply amazing.

Wrong. Ever heard of angle of attack? They don't always fly forwards, they can skid, too.

And no, not all missiles are rockets. Arrows and crossbow bolts and rocks flung by slings also count as "missiles".

Learn some damn English.

[Alek Ituin]

YueFei, on 19 November 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Wrong. Ever heard of angle of attack? They don't always fly forwards, they can skid, too.

And no, not all missiles are rockets. Arrows and crossbow bolts and rocks flung by slings also count as "missiles".

Learn some damn English.

Not quite wrong. AoA applies primarily to airfoils as they move through a fluid. Identify your reference line however, and you might have an argument with AoA.

Your second point is just pedantic. "Missile" in common usage applies to any rocket propelled munition, mainly guided high explosive weaponry. The common term for arrows and crossbow bolts would be "projectile".

[Joseph Mallan]

Alek Ituin, on 19 November 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

Not quite wrong. AoA applies primarily to airfoils as they move through a fluid. Identify your reference line however, and you might have an argument with AoA.

Your second point is just pedantic. "Missile" in common usage applies to any rocket propelled munition, mainly guided high explosive weaponry. The common term for arrows and crossbow bolts would be "projectile".

Have you USED military grade weapons Alek? I'm asking out of curiosity. You are denouncing the first hand experience of people who uses mortars and Artillery and Dragon wire guided missiles on what grounds or frame of reference?

[Alek Ituin]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 November 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

Have you USED military grade weapons Alek? I'm asking out of curiosity. You are denouncing the first hand experience of people who uses mortars and Artillery and Dragon wire guided missiles on what grounds or frame of reference?

Oh you know, this thing called basic physics and aerodynamics.

Just because you use something, does not make you an expert on the principles that make it work. Unless of course you believe that pilots can design aircraft better than aerospace engineers, or that some random soldier can make a better rifle than the engineers at an established weapons company.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alek Ituin, on 19 November 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

Oh you know, this thing called basic physics and aerodynamics.

Just because you use something, does not make you an expert on the principles that make it work. Unless of course you believe that pilots can design aircraft better than aerospace engineers, or that some random soldier can make a better rifle than the engineers at an established weapons company.

So you're going by a Book instead of hands on experience? And yes If you haven't used something first hand you have ZERO room to tell others how it works in reality.

The engineer can design it, but the pilot can make it do the impossible. And a Soldier can possibly make it effective beyond the engineering specs. I have done some things that just should not be possible in my years, and I'd smack an engineer for calling me a liar.

One of my favorite Apprentice stories was a Supervisor was doing a Speed and Feed study on a lathe behind me. He used the suggested speeds and feeds to cut the same steel I was. He could not get a good cut at 0.200" I showed him my part, told him I'm cutting 0.240" cuts. He asked me my Speed & Feed. I turned on the Machine... 400RPM. Feed rate... By hand.

He asked why? I said cause it works.

Engineers and mathematicians said his automated "calculated" speed and feed should have worked and my By feel should not. But there we were proving the numbers wrong.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 November 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[Alek Ituin]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 November 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

So you're going by a Book instead of hands on experience? And yes If you haven't used something first hand you have ZERO room to tell others how it works in reality.

The engineer can design it, but the pilot can make it do the impossible. And a Soldier can possibly make it effective beyond the engineering specs. I have done some things that just should not be possible in my years, and I'd smack an engineer for calling me a liar.

One of my favorite Apprentice stories was a Supervisor was doing a Speed and Feed study on a lathe behind me. He used the suggested speeds and feeds to cut the same steel I was. He could not get a good cut at 0.200" I showed him my part, told him I'm cutting 0.240" cuts. He asked me my Speed & Feed. I turned on the Machine... 400RPM. Feed rate... By hand.

He asked why? I said cause it works.

Engineers and mathematicians said his automated "calculated" speed and feed should have worked and my By feel should not. But there we were proving the numbers wrong.

You are so deluded it's not even funny anymore. I can talk to several veterans about what "hands on experience" and training teaches you, and I'll tell you what they said: "Training doesn't give you a Masters degree, and neither does experience". Science doesn't lie, and math doesn't lie, but apparently you think so.

Until you've educated yourself on the science behind something, you have no room to tell me about how it functions. Regardless of how much time you've spent using it. Because for all intents and purposes, you're just another uneducated fool in the masses.

Want to disregard actual science and hard numbers? Give up your computer, phone, home, healthcare, car, lights, clothing, everything developed since the Stone Age (yes, stone tools were made through scientific experimentation), and then walk to the deepest part of the nearest mountain range. Then lets see your "by the gut" crap advance you several thousand years technologically, since apparently you feel that engineers and scientists are unnecessary.


Now I'm actually pissed off, because people like you are a GD cancer within society. Don't even bother expecting me to respond back to whatever pathetic response you might cook up after this, you weak old imbecile.